How I won Motorway Services ParkingEye case

SkattyKatty22

Hi all
I'm going to start this thread to help anyone and add to coupon-mad's dossier of parking operators conduct.
I have decided to break it all down in bite sized pieces so that people can get the most useful bits easily.

Those who want more detail including what was said in the hearing can continue if they wish.

I'll post extracts from my defence, witness statements, their WS etc.

As well as

1. Hilarious PE face planting moments 
2. A creative writing piece called 'mediation'
3. reflections about whether someone has had a self inflicted accident involving injury to a foot.

Please bear with me as I won't be posting everything today.

Have fun

Suki

SkattyKatty22

My case

ParkingEye

Motorway Service Station Welcome Break Oxford-Waterstock, Junction 8, M40 Motorway, Thame Road Waterstock, OX331LJ

Date of event; May 2024

ANPR evidence of 2hr 20 min stay

Particulars of Claim (POC)

Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a Parking Charge (reference xxx) issued on xx/05/2024.

The signage clearly displayed throughout Welcome Break Oxford-Waterstock, Junction 8, M40 Motorway, Thame Road, Waterstock, OX33 1LJ states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including the payment tariffs, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract).

ParkingEye’s ANPR system captured vehicle XXXXXXX entering and leaving the site on XX/05/2024, and parking without paying to park and parking tariffs apply after a free stay period.

SkattyKatty22

Reasons why Judge dismissed the case

2 hours free parking plus the grace period of 15 minutes had not expired at the time the Defendant’s evidence proves they were in the petrol station.

The petrol station is not a car park (nor does ParkingEye have the authority from Welcome Break to manage it as one).

Defendant had left the car park within the time permitted to remain in the car park.

Therefore no over stay.

He said a lot more than this which I will post soon

SkattyKatty22

Marked up site plan sorry about wibbly wobbly writing.
Site plan provided kindly provided by ParkingEye in support of their claim.

SkattyKatty22

Top half shows very interesting, admittedly tiny, addition to a lamp post.
Lower half shows location of said lamp post.
Top secret location of ANPR disclosed by PE's own ANPR photo of Defendant's car, and Defendant using google maps.

SkattyKatty22

SECOND WS of PE exhibits a serious effort to win the Guinness world record in mental gymnastics;

Parkingeye would clarify that it is common terminology for a private parking operator that the site is managed as a whole car park and is therefore referred to as such.

Err good try, I guess?

Next upload will show the one and only exhibit to this second WS.

I'm LMHO because, although I knew this at the time I was too stressed to laugh, but seriously this second WS and its pathetic exhibit actually strengthened my defence.

I had a great Judge because he knew it too.

And because he knew it then that meant he had taken the time to read everything.

Another good reason to reject your case being looked at without an actual hearing.

SkattyKatty22

In their second WS PE say this about this exhibit 

We note that the Defendant has stated that they left the main car park and then stopped at the petrol station where they believed that the terms and conditions no longer applied. We would note that shortly before the petrol station is an item of signage that states the terms and conditions which would indicate that the terms and conditions apply throughout the entirety of the site. I refer to a copy of this image marked Exhibit 1.

LMHO again because I hadn't realised that this was their second serious effort to win the Guinness world record in mental gymnastics.

This claim was literally disproved by the Judge like PE were the 5 year-old!!!

Can anyone explain why they even turned up at the hearing??

In the hearing the judge asked PE 

1. Can a motorist park after seeing this particular sign?
2. What if a car burst into flames after this sign?

Next post will be the exhibit

SkattyKatty22

Judge:

1. I can't read this sign in this exhibit please show me a readable version of it from your previous 20 plus exhibits.
2. Can a motorist park after seeing this particular sign?
3. What if a car burst into flames after this sign?
4. Are there any typical car-park markings in the petrol station?
5. Where in the Welcome Break contract does it say ParkingEye can manage the petrol station as a car-park?

ParkingEye, Err can I have a bit of time to ...?..... rustle... rustle... Err ... oopsie???

Coupon-mad

SkattyKatty22 said:

SECOND WS of PE exhibits a serious effort to win the Guinness world record in mental gymnastics;

"ParkingEye would clarify that it is common terminology for a private parking operator that the site is managed as a whole car park and is therefore referred to as such."

Err good try, I guess?

Reasons why Judge dismissed the case

2 hours free parking plus the grace period of 15 minutes had not expired at the time the Defendant’s evidence proves they were in the petrol station.

The petrol station is not a car park (nor does ParkingEye have the authority from Welcome Break to manage it as one).

Defendant had left the car park within the time permitted to remain in the car park.

Therefore no over stay.

Judge:

1. I can't read this sign in this exhibit please show me a readable version of it from your previous 20 plus exhibits.
2. Can a motorist park after seeing this particular sign?
3. What if a car burst into flames after this sign?
4. Are there any typical car-park markings in the petrol station?
5. Where in the Welcome Break contract does it say ParkingEye can manage the petrol station as a car-park?

SkattyKatty22 said:

Marked up site plan sorry about wibbly wobbly writing.
Site plan provided kindly provided by ParkingEye in support of their claim.

So in your case, you were 'on site' for 2 hours 20 minutes but your actual car park use was under 2 hours so there was no contravention. The grace period was admitted to be 15 minutes at this site. The roadways are long.

Your thread proved that you spent time at the petrol station after vacating the car park within the grace period:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6594541/sos-am-i-going-insane-or-is-it-them/p1


It is clearly completely wrong for ParkingEye to say that the DFT's rule applies as a 'total stay'!

I'm actually asking the MHCLG for this at MSAs - the first two don't relate to you because you didn't overstay!:

1 - the right to pay the tariff for over 2 hour stays (£15 ish) retrospectively and clear signs offering that option, in large lettering on exit.  This was the will of the DFT in 2013 when they had a report by an inspector who recommended that tired motorists 'should not be penalised'.  The BPA and ParkingEye responded to the public consultation and walked all over it to change it to 'let's penalise everyone at £100'.

2 - the PCN not to be as high as £100 for these sites as they aren't 'special' and should not be at Higher Rate (except perhaps for lorry parking because the tariff is higher for those and it would deter companies storing trucks and lorries).  Disregarding lorry parking rules, not paying a tariff and overstays are at Lower Rate everywhere else (retail parks).  If anything, tired motorists should be protected much more and MSAs aren't destinations of choice. They aren't places where trespass by people dumping their cars to go to work or catch a train needs deterring!

3 - the cameras calculating the 2 hours free parking (Mandated by the DFT) must be at the car park itself and NOT placed (as happened to you) at the end of long roadways out, and certainly not including the petrol station area as if it's part of the car park!

4 - longer time for disabled persons, which doesn't involve ANPR posts at individual bays (horrifically intrusive new surveillance!) and doesn't require the person to 'register their Blue Badge' because that just sets people up for a fall. That's an unexpected burden that doesn't happen on street, and if the facility is closed at night, you can't 'register' a Blue Badge anyway but are still legally entitled under the EA 2010, to more time than the flat 2 hours.  The fact that PPCs use ANPR because it's cheap doesn't mean they (or the landowner) should not be policing Accessible bays ON FOOT, which is the only way to fairly oversee the specific needs of those service users and check that accessible bays are being properly used.

5 - I'd like the MHCLG to refer in the Code to the Government policy for motorway services has been set out in a succession of Department for Transport Circulars, the current version being issued in December 2022:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development#roadside-facilities

In the link, you see TWO SEPARATE entries in the table:

"Free parking for a minimum of 2 hours for all vehicles permitted to use the facility."

"Provision of fuel for petrol and diesel vehicles and EV charge points"

They are in separate boxes.

Free parking for a minimum of 2 hours (to rest when on a motorway journey) is clearly very different from fuelling or charging a car!

ParkingEye are having a laugh and this is making money under false pretences IMHO. Even if I'm wrong the DFT rules MUST be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer (Consumer Rights Act 2015, ambiguous consumer notices).  Thus, the offer of '2 hours minimum free parking' set by the DFT MUST be taken to mean what it says.

SkattyKatty22

For clarity; My car park use was more than 2 hours but within the 2hrs plus 15 mins grace period