PPS private parking solutions - PCN issued whilst passengers in the car

Rickerdoom

This is my final draft regarding the insufficient time period which I adapted from another thread. What do you think?

The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice clearly outlines the need for parking operators to allow a grace period at the beginning of a driver’s visit. This ensures that motorists have a fair opportunity to read the terms and conditions displayed on signage, consider whether they wish to remain on the site, and if not, leave without penalty.

The relevant sections of the BPA Code of Practice (Version 8, January 2020) include:

Section 13.1
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

Section 13.2
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

Section 18.5 further reiterates:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave…”

In this case, the operator’s evidence consists of two timestamped photographs taken between ___ and ____ on ____, a total span of 1 minute ___. These images are presented to suggest the duration of the vehicle’s presence on site. Therefore, the total duration of the alleged contravention is at most 1 minute and 7 seconds based on the operator’s own evidence.

This extremely short interval is insufficient time to accept contractual terms. It is both unreasonable and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice to penalise such minimal activity with a Parking Charge Notice.

Furthermore, this position is supported by the BPA’s own commentary. Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the BPA, stated:

“There must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

The Code deliberately avoids setting a specific grace period for arrival because it recognises that the time required may vary depending on individual circumstances. However, it is commonly accepted through POPLA precedent and BPA guidance that anything up to 10 minutes is reasonable.

This was reinforced in a recent POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) where a visit lasting 11 minutes was deemed to be within a reasonable grace period and not indicative of a parking event. In that case, the Assessor stated:

“By seeking alternative parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

While the BPA Code (Section 13.4) explicitly sets 10 minutes as the minimum grace period to leave after parking, it is logical and consistent that an equivalent or similar period should apply before any contract is formed — during the initial arrival and consideration period, particularly when no parking has occurred.

In my case:

·         No contract was entered into; the vehicle was on-site for just over 1 minute.

·        The duration was extremely brief — consistent with a driver assessing signage and then choosing to leave.

·        The photographic evidence consists only of wide-angle images taken from a distance and does not show whether the vehicle was parked or whether the driver exited the vehicle.

·        As such, there is no proof that a parking event took place, nor that the driver remained on site for any purpose other than to decide whether to stay or leave.

It is therefore respectfully concluded that the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled, as the BPA Code of Practice has been breached due to the operator’s failure to observe a reasonable grace period for drivers deciding not to park.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except:

- surely the 2024 Joint Code doesn't have those paragraphs at 13?

- The unreported POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was neither 'recent' nor important!

Rickerdoom

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine except:

- surely the 2024 Joint Code doesn't have those paragraphs st 13?

- The unreported POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was neither 'recent' nor important!

Thank you, and the paragraphs from section 13 are from BPA Code of Practice (Version 8, January 2020). Is that not appilicable?

I will remove POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) part.

Kaizen2024

The Consideration Period exists to give people time to read the signs. If the operator has evidenced that the signs were unattended a charge can be issued instantly.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

The Consideration Period exists to give people time to read the signs. If the operator has evidenced that the signs were unattended a charge can be issued instantly.

Luckily the skewed Joint Code - which includes untruths about liability and other shockingly anti-consumer alterations - will soon be history and if the good guys & gals (and MPs) have any say, there will be no instant ticketing in future.

A PCN issued in one minute seven seconds is indefensible to any right-thinking observer.

What did you make of this week's backbench debate?

Coupon-mad

Rickerdoom said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine except:

- surely the 2024 Joint Code doesn't have those paragraphs st 13?

- The unreported POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was neither 'recent' nor important!

Thank you, and the paragraphs from section 13 are from BPA Code of Practice (Version 8, January 2020). Is that not applicable?

Of course not.

The 'joke' Code applies

Rickerdoom

Coupon-mad said:

Rickerdoom said:

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine except:

- surely the 2024 Joint Code doesn't have those paragraphs st 13?

- The unreported POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was neither 'recent' nor important!

Thank you, and the paragraphs from section 13 are from BPA Code of Practice (Version 8, January 2020). Is that not applicable?

Of course not.

The 'joke' Code applies

Apologies if this is a silly question so should I remove it or change it to something else. I am bit confused. 

Coupon-mad

Depends if there's anything useful in it.

Must admit I never read it now, after it first came out I read it carefully and that was more than enough BS to suss it out!

Kaizen2024

What did you make of this week's backbench debate?

I turned it off after 25 mins as they kept talking about the so called ‘5 minute rule’ that is now history (a change I approve of BTW). Equally annoying was the fact that they kept interrupting each other mid sentence with request to ‘give way’; just let them finish FGS.

Coupon-mad

Normal for these debates.

You missed the slagging off of the IAS then, and Alex Norris' response?