Croyde Bay pay and display

Fruitcake

Does anyone have any recent photos of the Croyde Bay pay and display car park?

I'm helping someone over on the Sandhills Action Group Fakebook site who got a PCN from PE for a 7 minute stay because the driver was unable to access any of the payment systems, which is a known fault at the site, before deciding to leave.

Google Maps only shows images from 2010, and only from the outside, although I have found an image of a sign at the site from 2023 that may help.

I've given the standard advice to the victim, and offered to help at PoPLA if/when complaints and/or initial appeal are rejected, but recent photos of the site and signage will help greatly.

TobyBarnett

Currently facing an identical situation. PCN issued for an alleged 7 minute stay at the same Croyde Bay P&D (faulty payment machine, often the case at this location, apparently!). I'm putting together a POPLA Appeal but I'm not confident in the strength of all my points/minimal photographic evidence - despite having very valid reasons for not remaining in the carpark

Coupon-mad

TobyBarnett said:

Currently facing an identical situation. PCN issued for an alleged 7 minute stay at the same Croyde Bay P&D (faulty payment machine, often the case at this location, apparently!). I'm putting together a POPLA Appeal but I'm not confident in the strength of all my points/minimal photographic evidence - despite having very valid reasons for not remaining in the carpark

You may as well continue on this thread so it can be yours now. I don't think @Fruitcake will mind and maybe he can show photos that might help your appeal.

What date is your POPLA Code (rejection)?

Please show us the PCN showing that they only captured you for seven minutes.

Fruitcake

I believe the pay machines at this site have been out of order for months. This caused a frustration of contract that PE have been aware of for ages.

Previous PCNs I have seen issued to motorists at this location are not PoFA compliant because they do not define the relevant land where the alleged event occurred, therefore the keeper cannot be held liable.
They simply say, Croyde Bay Pay and Display without giving a road name or post code, and as far as I am aware, there is at least one another P & D car park nearby.

It is imperative that the driver's identity is never revealed. The driver stopped but did not park, was unable to pay due to a faulty machine, the keeper (who is a different person as far as the law is concerned) received the parking charge notice.

I've found these images on Google Maps for the Croyde area. One says Croyde, one says Croyde Bay, the other just has a meaningless Location Number with no key to show that it is relevant land where the alleged event took place, and no mention of Croyde Bay. I would suggest that a NTK that just states, Croyde Bay P & D car park does not define the relevant land since it is reasonable to assume that the location refers to a different car park.

TobyBarnett

Thanks for the info  @Fruitcake ! There is no mention on site, of who the landowner is (later discovered to be "parkdean") - difficult to get hold of and deny any involvement or jurisdiction over the activities Parkingeye carry out on their land. The PCN doesn't specify an exact address/postcode on which the alleged breach took place, so non-compliance of PoFA may be a good point to include - you are right in saying there are multiple other P&D carparks in the "Croyde Bay" vicinity. I believe I've been very diligent in making no admission to the identity of the driver throughout the appeal. In my appeal, I've repeatedly stressed that the machine was faulty, therefore could not agree with terms/enter into contract and subsequently left. While 2 mins over the consideration period seems incredibly reasonable, given the circumstances, I have a nasty feeling Popla wont be so understanding.

@Coupon-mad I'll attach the PCN. Rejection/popla ref. received on 8th April. Unfortunately, I have minimal photographic evidence that could explain non-functioning card reader/parking elsewhere. I wasn't anticipating breaching their undisclosed consideration period, so thought nothing of it at the time.. hence, leaving promptly after discovering card/app payment wasn't possible/practical during the timeframe.

Thanks both, for your suggestions! Fairly confident I've covered as much as i can in the appeal, but will have to wait and see

Fruitcake

ANPR scameras do not record parking time; only time on site.

The car parks around Croyde Bay get very busy during peak visitor times, so there is often a delay from the congested entrance whilst driving around looking for a parking spot, and the same when trying to leave.

You therefore have: -

Location of relevant land not defined - Non - PoFA compliant NTK/no keeper liability.
Parking period not defined - only entry and exit/time on site recorded.
Inoperative payment machines - frustration of contract. 

Coupon-mad

TobyBarnett said:

Currently facing an identical situation. PCN issued for an alleged 7 minute stay at the same Croyde Bay P&D (faulty payment machine, often the case at this location, apparently!).

I'm putting together a POPLA Appeal but I'm not confident in the strength of all my points/minimal photographic evidence - despite having very valid reasons for not remaining in the carpark

7 minutes on site in a car park requiring use of an app is not enough time to find out the payment methods aren't working, and then get back in the car and leave.

As you say, you left very promptly after discovering the card/app payment wasn't possible/practical during the timeframe.

I doubt you could have got out quicker!

What a scam this sort of ANPR ticketing is. The Consideration period in app/payment car parks should be 10 or 15 minutes. Not FIVE!  

TobyBarnett

So the operator has submitted their evidence pack to Popla. Feels like they are trying to !!!!!! all over my appeal, but I still believe I have valid grounds to have the PCN cancelled. Their evidence seems fairly extensive, however, I feel like there may be some flaws in it - various points I could mention in my counter-argument against Parkingeye. I'll post screenshots of some of their supposed evidence.

Proof of payments made on day of event - with redacted number plates. They claim machines were operating, but their evidence contradicts this.. email from maintenance firm ADMITS at least one of the two payment machines was faulty (card reader) at the time. Suggesting they've been negligent in maintaining payment equipment.
Payment machine (s) in one location at far end of concreted carpark area (added time to walk to and from) and not clearly signed/marked/easily obscured.

They claim the other machine was working and there was the option to pay by phone was available. I don't recall being aware of the second machine/ already frustrated with the previous attempts to pay (using up valuable time) had already decided to leave.

Contract with landowner - initial term of 3 years has expired (date of contract july 2021). Document is not up to date, therefore irrelevant? 

Map of site with signage - is a proposed location of installation.. no proof that signs were actually installed at these points around the site. 

I've still got some hope, but wondering if there's anything else I could use to back up my comments against their evidence 
  

TobyBarnett

The last 2 photos show how the payment machines are obstructed and hidden from view by the red car... no clear signage, adding more time to locate and reach the machines 

Coupon-mad

Add that there's a long approach road that's almost twice the length of the car park and the ANPR cameras are of course right on the far end, which makes it seem cars were in the car park longer than they really were.

The signs pictured are in the long approach road and by the entrance gate, not in the car parking area where the only visible machine was. The red car pictured in evidence isn't even in the car park let alone in a bay. These are photos of the road.

And there's almost a 6 hour gap in the payments log earlier that day and nothing after 4.35pm. The appellant's car arrived half an hour after that and there's no evidence that anyone was able to pay at or after that time. The gaps and omissions in the payment log evidence are not only unexplained by the operator but the fact that (on a Friday at a holiday park where families arrive during the afternoon for weekend stays and would likely always have a vehicle) only four drivers had been able to pay that day, supports the appellant's case that payment methods were not working at the material time and they left and parked elsewhere, having gained no amenity from this area of the site at all. 

Coupon-mad

Use those words including 'gained no amenity from the site'. POPLA use that phrase themselves so mirror what you want POPLA to say!