Parking Eye PCN… please help

mario8179

Hi,

Before I go in to any detail… when I have received these notices in the past I usually just pay them because I can’t be bothered with the mither and I am pretty clueless when it comes to where I stand but I am just at the end of my tether with these companies.

Recently received a PCN from parking eye for not paying for parking. When I originally parked I checked the signage for the location number so I could pay on the app… when I inputted the location number it wasn’t recognised on the app (it was the correct app). I then approached the terminal… where it stated that I wouldn’t need to pay for parking until I left.

37 minutes later I returned to the terminal… typed in my registration to pay and received the message “you do not need to pay for parking” (I have a picture of this).

When receiving the PCN I appealed to parking eye direct with the explanation above and the picture of the terminal stating that message. I thought the picture alone would be enough… what a fool I am.

Appeal denied… “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. The signage displayed on site instructs users of the car park to input their full, correct vehicle registration using the terminals on site. Our records show that your vehicle was not registered to park on the date of the event.”

Really need some help on where to go with this because I was adamant that picture would be enough… shows how clueless I am.

I’ve also wondered is there a route to go down with them using the title “sir/madam” as being misgendered as I haven’t stated how I would like to be addressed… not something I’m offended by in the slightest but just thinking of anything to get them with.

P.S I haven’t currently got to hand the PCN I received due to being away and not having a picture of it either.

Many thanks.

Chris.

Fruitcake

I suspect the driver may have made a mistake when entering their VRM into the pay machine, or the pay machine was faulty. 

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it's never too late to do so.

Plan B is to appeal, which you have already done.

If the parking company is a BPA member, as is the case here, then Plan C is an appeal to PoPLA.

If the VRM on the image you have shown us is correct, then include that in your PoPLA appeal. If you VRM was not correct, PE should have offered a reduced charge. If they failed to do so, complain to them. If they fail to offer a reduced rate a second time, then complain to the BPA.

mario8179

Thanks for your reply… the registration was entered correctly which is why I am confused with the response from parking eye.

I will appeal to POPLA,

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

mario8179 said:

Thanks for your reply… the registration was entered correctly which is why I am confused with the response from parking eye.

I will appeal to POPLA,

Definitely!

This one makes no sense.

BTW please stop paying scam PCNs (you are funding a rogue industry). They are usually even easier than this one to kill off, even in cases where the driver technically did breach.  Please always come and ask us!

mario8179

Thanks for the reply… I have appealed to POPLA.

I also come across a couple of reviews of the car park where people have parked there recently and encountered the exact same issue. 

Will post an update when I get it.

Thanks again.

fisherjim

You are dealing with an unregulated company using unregulated technology that is banned for use in authority run car parks because it is unreliable.

The parking companies never ever admit that their technology can be faulty (they don't want to open the floodgates) and yet the BPA some years ago stated that it is not totally faultless.

mario8179

I have an update,

POPLA appeal unsuccessful… It turns out there are signs stating that the car park is only for buzz bingo patrons after 6pm (I didn’t notice). 

Any advice on where to go from here? 

Gr1pr

There are only 2 choices to make,  decide which route you wish to take,  because that choice is yours to make , only yours 

Generally the advice on here is take your chances in court,  especially if the signage is inadequate

Coupon-mad

Obviously you have no reason whatsoever to pay. Read some 'POPLA lost' search results.

mario8179

Thanks for the replies again much appreciated… I have written a draft response to POPLA in regards to parking eyes submitted evidence. Any feedback would be helpful.

In reply to the evidence provided by parking eye the signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. 

I would also like to point out the timestamps on the photos provided are over 3 months old and taken in clear daylight. At the time of the event it was dark therefore the images provided do not give a true reflection of the visibility of the signs and whether the lighting providing is in full working order. 

It has also been stated that the images show the vehicle has its headlights on and that this would have rendered the many signs in the car park visible. This is false as the images only show the rear of the vehicle and registration plate of the vehicle. The signs on the wall would not be visible from the headlights as they would be at the side of the vehicle and the other signs located in the car park would be too high for the headlights of the vehicle to have any effect of making them visible. 

In reference to the signage plan provided, there is no date or time attached to this nor confirmation of permission from the landowner themselves. I would also like to point out that the car park signage layout plan is false as it shows (the building on the right of the photo where the lighting column and metric payment machine is “located”) the lighting column and metric payment machine located on top of or inside the building. This building is no longer standing therefore this deems the plan inaccurate. 

I would also like to make reference to the timestamps provided in the original letter. It states that the vehicle entered the car park at 18:33:02 and for a duration of 36 minutes but from the evidence I have provided regarding the terminal, it shows that the vehicle entered at 18.32.06 and for a duration of 37 minutes. This shows that the terminal and the cameras provided by parking eye are inaccurate and cannot be relied upon.

There also been no proof provided of where the vehicle had been parked therefore the assumption that any signs were noticeable is only an assumption and not factual (on the left hand side of the car park shown in the signage layout plan there is no lighting or signage shown).

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge.

Gr1pr

I thought that you wrote that you lost at popla   ?

You don't get a go around,  the popla decision is final