Parkingeye LTD - PCN issued

londonerryan

Hi,

The local university charges a flat rate after 6pm of about £1.50 for the night (it's £2 per hour before 6pm). But you can pop in for free up to 20 mins. I always pay and haven't had a PCN for a decade. 

About 3 weeks ago, i went to their library to do some printing but the printers weren't working. They managed to fix them but it took a while. Anyway, i was in there for 31 minutes. It just slipped my mind to pay for parking on way out. I was actually told by librarian that it's 'secretly free for 30 mins' (which he probably got wrong, anyway).

Therefore, i received a PCN requesting £70 (£35 if paid immediately). I've since had a second identical letter. 

I've read up the Newbies (etc) threads, but wanted to ask a few questions:

1 - Has there been any significant changes in the past decade (e.g., making it trickier to appeal)? 

2 - My last PCN appeal was based on: a. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss / b. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage / c. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs / d. Unlawful penalty charge

(The signage was genuinely inadequate... they even updated the signage after i appealed, and it was still inadequate!).

3 - Should i offer to pay something? I mean, i don't mind paying, as i pay all the time. Just wondering that if i offer something, is that an admission of guilt? Or just a reasonable thing to do?

4 - I uploaded some photos of their signage, could somebody clarify if the signage is adequate?

Thanks in advance!

D_P_Dance

IMO that slew of small print renders the contract invalid, read this

Parking Eye Signs, Oxford Road, Reading — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Gr1pr

1) definitely harder since the Beavis case 9 years ago, especially with Parking Eye PCNs, 

2) As its a pay to park car park, the breach is not the same as the Beavis case 

The BPA CoP has changed several times in the last decade too

3) no offers are likely to be accepted IMHO, their offer is £40

4) I would suggest that the signs are good enough, despite the small print and wordiness 

D_P_Dance

4) I would suggest that the signs are good enough, despite the small print and wordiness 

How would you justify that?  What about height, lighting, weather?  I have seen rental agreement with greater clarity

Gr1pr

I wasn't there, its up- to the apellant to justify their appeal or not, possibly based on your comments 

Only Parking Eye have to justify their signage !  The rest of us don't have to justify them, but everyone has an opinion 

I made an observation based on the pictures, not a justification , its an opinion, but its not my case ( the OP asked for opinions, they have mine, based on those pictures, its adequate. . )

londonerryan

I hadn't really considered the signage in regards to my own ability to see, but i can tell you i couldn't read a single word. I wear glasses and i'm a shortarse! The top of those tall signs i photographed are at least 10ft in air. I photoed them so i could a) show them on here, and b) i could zoom in on the small print. Would that be a legitimate argument - inadequate signage for people with bad vision and shortarses? I hadn't really considered it as i already know the rules: 20 mins free or £1.50 for the evening (those are my two usual options). I just thought i could run in and out with my printing, which 90% of the time i can do. Just not when their printers aren't working properly. 

Coupon-mad

I agree with @Gr1pr - the signs look adequate and it was daylight and this is ParkingEye who won the Beavis case at the Supreme Court.

Most cases are worth fighting (including most ParkingEye cases) but IMHO this particular one isn't. Because it is only £40 I'd say pay it.

The £70 deterrent has worked and you won't make the same mistake again. This case shows that £70/£40 works.

londonerryan

Coupon-mad said:

I agree with @Gr1pr - the signs look adequate and it was daylight and this is ParkingEye who won the Beavis case at the Supreme Court.

Most cases are worth fighting (including most ParkingEye cases) but IMHO this particular one isn't. Because it is only £40 I'd say pay it.

The £70 deterrent has worked and you won't make the same mistake again. This case shows that £70/£40 works.

Just to be clear, i took the photos after i received the PCNs. On the night in question when i overstayed the free 20 mins, it was dark. In terms of paying, i know in the past the argument was always 'appeal' or 'ignore'. Is this no longer the only two options available? I didn't ever expect to hear, "you're better off paying", to be honest. Hence why i came here for advice, as it seems a lot has changed.

Gr1pr

Consider facts 

The driver is or was a frequent flyer so understood that parking should be paid for , its not a free car park 

The driver knew all about the signs and previously paid so cannot plead ignorance or being a first timer 

The driver has always paid and never received a PCN

There is no grace period or consideration period on those signage pictures , ergo no 20 or 30 minutes free

The driver did not pay the parking fee on the day , therefore incurring the default tariff of £70

Parking Eye probably complied with POFA, thereby transferring the liability from driver to keeper 

The not a genuine pre estimate of loss died a death 9 years ago in the Beavis case where the Supreme court judges decided that £85 was not unconscionable 


Any win would be based on the following 

Not complying with POFA. ( We haven't seen anything about the Parking Eye NTK PCN. ), getting more unlikely these days , especially where Parking Eye are concerned  ( but still a few like Smart Parking and APCOA etc who have failed to comply with POFA for over 12 years. )

No landowner authority. ( Unlikely. )

Poor and inadequate signage that the driver failed to see or understand. ( Not true in this case as a frequent flyer. )



All I did was focus on the narrative, a quick look at the pictures and my gut feeling was, no chance. !

IMHO Parking Eye would win at Popla, who will decide that the PCN was correctly issued, after that I cannot see a judge siding with the defendant UNLESS there was a very important legal point that was in their favour, which doesn't seem to be the case here 

Forums are about facts and opinions, so far the facts are not in the OP's favour. ( Unless they can convince me otherwise. )

So in my opinion, ( (. IMHO. ) its a slam dunk for Parking Eye with increasing costs to the OP if they don't take the early settlement offer. ( Bribe. )

Other opinion's may disagree, that happens on forums 

D_P_Dance

If this was me I would fight it to the end.  My main thrust would be that the signage was not up  to snuff..  These signs are usually eight feet from the ground, and OP claims that this one was higher.  He wanted to park his car not commission an aircraft carrier.

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Consider facts 

The driver is or was a frequent flyer so understood that parking should be paid for , its not a free car park 

The driver knew all about the signs and previously paid so cannot plead ignorance or being a first timer 

The driver has always paid and never received a PCN

There is no grace period or consideration period on those signage pictures , ergo no 20 or 30 minutes free

The driver did not pay the parking fee on the day , therefore incurring the default tariff of £70

Parking Eye probably complied with POFA, thereby transferring the liability from driver to keeper 

The not a genuine pre estimate of loss died a death 9 years ago in the Beavis case where the Supreme court judges decided that £85 was not unconscionable 


Any win would be based on the following 

Not complying with POFA. ( We haven't seen anything about the Parking Eye NTK PCN. ), getting more unlikely these days , especially where Parking Eye are concerned  ( but still a few like Smart Parking and APCOA etc who have failed to comply with POFA for over 12 years. )

No landowner authority. ( Unlikely. )

Poor and inadequate signage that the driver failed to see or understand. ( Not true in this case as a frequent flyer. )



All I did was focus on the narrative, a quick look at the pictures and my gut feeling was, no chance. !

IMHO Parking Eye would win at Popla, who will decide that the PCN was correctly issued, after that I cannot see a judge siding with the defendant UNLESS there was a very important legal point that was in their favour, which doesn't seem to be the case here 

Forums are about facts and opinions, so far the facts are not in the OP's favour. ( Unless they can convince me otherwise. )

So in my opinion, ( (. IMHO. ) its a slam dunk for Parking Eye with increasing costs to the OP if they don't take the early settlement offer. ( Bribe. )

Other opinion's may disagree, that happens on forums 

I agree.

@londonderryann a lot HAS changed due to Beavis in 2015.

Please could you delete your old appeal above to stop Newbies from mistakenly stumbling across it. GPEOL is dead.  I'm worried that you are posting that old appeal not knowing that things changed a decade ago.

More worried that newbies might read it.