ParkingEye PCN at London Aquatics Centre -- Appeal Rejected

hexh123

Hi everyone, 

I recently received this ANPR Parking Charge Notice at London Aquatics Centre car park which appears to be managed by ParkingEye. The PCN is an updated version with PoFA terms on the back.

Before discovering this forum I googled that location and found this post on the FTLA forum: ParkingEye - London Aquatics Cenre (I have to be around for a little while longer before I can post links so I just pasted the title of the post here, it says indeed 'Cenre', and can be found quickly by googling) and thought it might do because the OP got their charge cancelled. Then I appealed by basically copying and pasting 'b789's suggested appeal into ChatGPT and rewording it. 

The appeal consists of the following points: 

• The land is 'under statutory control / governed by byelaws' and therefore paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the PoFA does not apply. 
• Therefore the PCN is also in breach of BPA's Code of Practice and the KADOE contract.
• And I refuse to name the driver. I am appealing as the keeper.

ParkingEye rejected the appeal by simply saying 'We have reviewed the details outlined in your appeal, but we are not in receipt of sufficient evidence to confirm that the terms and conditions were not breached. These terms are clearly displayed on the signage located throughout the above car park.' in their letter. 

To be 100% honest there were plenty of signs in the parking lot, and I was happy to pay, at least before I got back to my car and had problems finding where to pay. 

Here is a picture I took that night to help me read it from a distance. There were plenty of these on the lamp posts in the parking lot, but not very reader-friendly. 



It was an extremely windy day with a little bit of rain and a yellow wind warning was in effect as far as I remembered, because of a storm. It was the 'don't want to stay outside for one second' sort of weather, and it certainly created difficulties for me reading the signs, especially those ones, loaded with information as shown in the picture. All I remembered when entering the car park was 'to pay on exit' and somehow I picked up 'paying at the kiosk at the exit'. 

Then when I got back to the car park and was preparing to leave, I realised that there wasn't a kiosk at the exit but just an open, lifted parking barrier. Then I drove around the whole parking lot, which was almost pitch dark and lit with just some lamp posts as bright as candles, and still didn't see any sign of a kiosk whatsoever. The Aquatics Centre itself was closed by that time so no hope of getting help from staff. And there was one man with his daughter leaving the site and said with confidence: 'The gate is open just go ahead they won't charge you'. 

Anyway, the man was certainly wrong with what he said and I've got this rejected appeal to deal with. I have read the FAQs and some ParkingEye-related posts, but still, I think I should probably post this and see what's your advice on the next moves and it might help other people who had problems paying for parking at that location. I believe I am not the only one who couldn't find where to pay because there is another reply on the FTLA post saying the same. 

So, here are the questions that I would be very grateful if I could get any advice on: 

1. Should I appeal to POPLA or just pay the discounted charge? 
2. If it is better to appeal to POPLA, what points should I consider to include?
   
3. Is the sign properly designed? 
4. Did the points in the original appeal make sense? 

The reason why I am asking Q3 is that the sign seems quite complicated, and I did have difficulties reading them in bad weather. And till today I still cannot figure out whether there is another option to pay online because it is impossible to tell what is written under 'Pay on arrival' from the picture, and it wasn't any better when I read it with my naked eyes that day. So I wonder if that could be a good point for further appeals. 

And for Q4, it seems that there is a main issue with ParkingEye charging parking fees on inappropriate land. I'm not an expert in the laws or byelaws so I'm just trying my luck to see if anyone is. 

As for why I didn't complain to the Aquatics Centre, I have to admit that I didn't visit the centre that day but instead somewhere else nearby. It was the only place to park, as the roads were painted with double yellows, and it is in the fancy Olympic park where they condemn any use of private transport-ation…

Again I would really appreciate it if any of you could give any advice on this one, and I hope this does not look too basic to you folks as this is my first post on this forum. So feel free to roast me if I did or say anything wrong so I and other people who see this can learn or be entertained from it. 

Gr1pr

Its car park,  not parking lot , do not use ChatGPT for these issues and topics 

With Parking Eye,  any possible win on Appeal would be based on no landowner authority and poor and inadequate signage,  those are really the only possibilities here, ( possibly POFA )  but I don't think that Popla will be on your side 

The breach is likely to be non payment on a pay on exit car park,  probably with ANPR cameras, so commonly known as bilking  ( regardless of if it was deliberate or a mistake  )

The driver must have known that they wont obtain free parking,  especially not in London,  that parking must be paid for unless a patron of the business,  plus the driver accepted the word of a clueless person on the same site,  who has probably received a pcn as well

Cameras are everywhere,  computers check for time on site and payments,  especially non payment against a VRM as in your case 

Your pcn letter and appeal rejection were inevitable,  personally I cannot see a win or cancellation here, especially not at Popla

If there was ever a parking company and location where a driver thought about not paying and leaving knowing they hadn't paid, especially after asking Mr Pastry, that London Aquatics Centre wasn't the test case

The FTLA link is this one below 

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parkingeye-london-aquatics-cenre/

Coupon-mad

If there are byelaws applying there, then you probably got a 'Golden Ticket' as seen in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Take a look

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad said:

If there are byelaws applying there, then you probably got a 'Golden Ticket' as seen in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Take a look

I was just reflecting on that, I seem to remember that the location was not relevant land under pofa,  so check the pcn for "golden ticket" status ( no keeper liability   )

LDast

Oh, that dastardly b789... I think he was banned from here for not being 'woke' enough and crushing a few wallflowers to the point of mental crisis. Tut tut. However, his appeal for the PCN you refer to over on FTLA was very well composed and did the job required, even if I say so myself. So, why did you decide to put it through the meat grinder that is ChatGPT and re-hash it to the point that it obviously didn't work for you?

Anyway, you are where you are and now have to go through the motions of appealing to POPLA and persuading the assessor that the land is indeed under statutory control and you cannot be liable as the Keeper. Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

hexh123

Coupon-mad said:

If there are byelaws applying there, then you probably got a 'Golden Ticket' as seen in the third post of the NEWBIES thread. Take a look

Sadly it isn't. On the back of the ticket, there is a whole paragraph about PoFA 2012: 

Gr1pr

Doesn't change the fact that we believe that its not relevant land,  regardless of the fact that they should have used a non pofa template 

I would assert it and put them to strict proof of their claims 

hexh123

Gr1pr said:

Its car park,  not parking lot , do not use ChatGPT for these issues and topics 

With Parking Eye,  any possible win on Appeal would be based on no landowner authority and poor and inadequate signage,  those are really the only possibilities here, ( possibly POFA )  but I don't think that Popla will be on your side 

The breach is likely to be non payment on a pay on exit car park,  probably with ANPR cameras, so commonly known as bilking  ( regardless of if it was deliberate or a mistake  )

The driver must have known that they wont obtain free parking,  especially not in London,  that parking must be paid for unless a patron of the business,  plus the driver accepted the word of a clueless person on the same site,  who has probably received a pcn as well

Cameras are everywhere,  computers check for time on site and payments,  especially non payment against a VRM as in your case 

Your pcn letter and appeal rejection were inevitable,  personally I cannot see a win or cancellation here, especially not at Popla

If there was ever a parking company and location where a driver thought about not paying and leaving knowing they hadn't paid, especially after asking Mr Pastry, that London Aquatics Centre wasn't the test case

The FTLA link is this one below 

--

Thank you for the comment. I must say I'm not very confident with this one either, because I know it wasn't paid (although there was an issue with the car park not having a kiosk that can be easily found). Unless there is a good chance to win with the byelaw-governed land argument, I might just pay it…£60 for quite a few hours parked is not that bad in posh London. 

hexh123

LDast said:

Oh, that dastardly b789... I think he was banned from here for not being 'woke' enough and crushing a few wallflowers to the point of mental crisis. Tut tut. However, his appeal for the PCN you refer to over on FTLA was very well composed and did the job required, even if I say so myself. So, why did you decide to put it through the meat grinder that is ChatGPT and re-hash it to the point that it obviously didn't work for you?

Anyway, you are where you are and now have to go through the motions of appealing to POPLA and persuading the assessor that the land is indeed under statutory control and you cannot be liable as the Keeper. Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

Yeah at first I wasn't really clear about what I was doing. My bad using GPT. But OP got rejected as well and got away by complaining to other parties. 

So, considering that no parking payment was made at all, is it still good to escalate it to POPLA?

hexh123

Gr1pr said:

Doesn't change the fact that we believe that its not relevant land,  regardless of the fact that they should have used a non pofa template 

I would assert it and put them to strict proof of their claims 

Oops it seems I've missed your latest reply here! 

And it looks like now the immediate problem here for me is to work out the chances of me winning with not relevant land versus they wining on the basis of non-payment. 

Or do you think it is already a 'golden ticket' kind of easy case just with the wrong type of ticket issued? 

Gr1pr

I think that it depends if bylaws apply or not 

There used to be an excellent thread with a map and explanation of how 4 boroughs decided to agree the Olympic Park between them, I believe that only one borough of the 4 retained bylaws,  which we think includes the Aquatics Centre 

If you appeal it as keeper,  you are trying to rely on no keeper liability because it's not relevant land under pofa,  if they successfully prove otherwise,  the NTK PCN letter holds you to be liable 

If bylaws apply,  then you have no keeper liability,  regardless  ( clearly the driver does, if named or inferred  )

I dont see a win on anything else 

It's a shame that the resource pepipoo has been lost,  so unless the wayback machine has copies, we wont find the information.  It may have been troublemaker ( noseyparker  ) who posted this topic and map there