£100 PCN for taking longer than 10 minutes to pay.

Lemur2000

Coupon-mad said:

You can find TV clips of the '5 minute rule' change easily. It was only weeks ago.

Good Afternoon Coupon........i have tried to find clips but have been unsuccessful. It has been mentioned in the Sun, Independant and Guardian and also on the 'Money Saving Expert' Website......However, they mention the following in their report....... 'From today (Monday 17 February), drivers using private car parks with camera technology (such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) or CCTV camera monitoring) should no longer receive a parking charge notice as long as they pay in full for the duration of their stay before leaving the car park' as my incident was back in November 2024, can POPLA argue that this does not apply to me as they have mentioned that exemption starts on 17th of February......Thanks.....

Coupon-mad

That's strange. I just Googled 'parking 5 minute rule bbc breakfast' and found the clip on Facebook among the first results in less than a second.

  

Lemur2000

Coupon-mad said:

That's strange. I just Googled 'parking 5 minute rule bbc breakfast' and found the clip on Facebook among the first results in less than a second.

  

Brilliant....Yes i have found them.........i am not IT savvy at all.........just noticed that you can google search videos.......Thanks Coupon......But what about the February 17th start date, when my incident occurred in Nov 2024......

fisherjim

Lemur2000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's strange. I just Googled 'parking 5 minute rule bbc breakfast' and found the clip on Facebook among the first results in less than a second.

  

Brilliant....Yes i have found them.........i am not IT savvy at all.........just noticed that you can google search videos.......Thanks Coupon......But what about the February 17th start date, when my incident occurred in Nov 2024......

Doesn't that video clip show what a total plank Hurley is, he was tied up in knots and spouting utter rubbish about having processes in place to know if you have parked or not!

But basically, what he was admitting to was the fact that they had got found over one of their scamming tactics and had sorted it out, what had been happening was historically wrong so you can quote that.

Here is another case from back in February 2024 when a judge called them out for exactly the same thing although Excel were operating the scam:

........He paid £2 in cash at the machine, which covered him for two hours of parking. However, he told the court it took him about 15 minutes to find a suitable parking space and park, so 19 minutes had passed by the time he bought his ticket.

Excel Parking made a claim against him for breach of contract, because it has signs saying people must pay for parking within five minutes of entering the car park. However, Mr Barton argued he was not aware of this when he entered the car park.

I wasn't aware of the terms and conditions until I went to the parking meter to pay, but it took me 19 minutes until I was able to park and pay, so I had obviously exceeded the five minutes you have to purchase a ticket."            Mr Barton also said he had not read the particular term stating people must pay within five minutes."I didn't but even if I had read it, it was already too late," he said.

Dismissing the claim, Deputy District Judge Nathan Smith said the contract between Excel and Mr Barton "was not concluded until he read the terms and conditions next to the parking meter".

This meant that it was not legally binding at the point he entered the car park.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmd7g1knpo

Coupon-mad

Lemur2000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's strange. I just Googled 'parking 5 minute rule bbc breakfast' and found the clip on Facebook among the first results in less than a second.

  

Brilliant....Yes i have found them.........i am not IT savvy at all.........just noticed that you can google search videos.......Thanks Coupon......But what about the February 17th start date, when my incident occurred in Nov 2024......

But - to my recollection - Will Hurley assured MPs and journalists that older cases would be cancelled at appeal stage.

Lemur2000

Coupon-mad said:

Lemur2000 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's strange. I just Googled 'parking 5 minute rule bbc breakfast' and found the clip on Facebook among the first results in less than a second.

  

Brilliant....Yes i have found them.........i am not IT savvy at all.........just noticed that you can google search videos.......Thanks Coupon......But what about the February 17th start date, when my incident occurred in Nov 2024......

But - to my recollection of his TV blatherings - Hurley assured MPs and journalists that older cases would be cancelled at appeal stage.

Afternoon there Coupon......i trust all is well with you. I have finally had the time to compile a complaint to Popla. Would this reply suffice....there are four points in total.........thanks for all your help in this it is very much appreciated........the reply is as follows.

Dear Sir/Madam

I am making a complaint against the Assessors' decision in relation to Case Number - . 

Firstly, the assessor stated that ''I note the appellant says that they can provide a copy of the original PCN when they return from their trip to France''.

I have not mentioned anything about providing a copy of the original PCN. Intstead, I said ''Records can be supplied'' and in context this is the sentence i used ''I have used the 'Phone and Pay' app many times before at King Parking for 24hr and 12hr parking (indeed 8 times before between March and October - records can be supplied)''

Secondly, the assessor stated that ''The appellant has provided further comments stating that points 7 to 22 are not relevant'' . I said that points 7 & 22 are not relevant. 

Thirdly, referring to the ParkingEye Vs Beavis Case, the assessor states that ''I accept the appellant believes that this case applies to them''. I did not say that the case applies to me......i said that the case does not apply to me.

Which leads me to my final point.....the Assessor has not showed awareness to the UK wide ban on the '5 minute rule'. He has neither considered that ban nor mentioned it. The BPA and IPC both publicly promised in the national press and on TV that PCNs issued prior to Feb 2025 would be cancelled on appeal to POPLA or the IAS because the term was unfair in law. In addition, although referring to the ParkingEye and Beavis Case he has not mentioned the Barton Vs Excel Parking case where the judge agreed with Barton and dismissed the case. See Link below -https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvmd7g1knpo 

Below are two links for footage aired on television about the 5 minute rule. 

The first is an excerpt from 'BBC Breakfast' where Will Hurley the CEO of the IPC states at 0:17 – As long as you pay for your parking you will not receive a PCN. This statement has been reported by the following newspapers, the Sun, Independent and Guardian and also on the 'Money Saving Expert' Website

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1329275731428064

The second is an excerpt from '5 News' and mentions at 0:12 that the 5 minute rule is being scrapped and at 1:34 - 'you have until the end of the session to pay'

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1155545009065485

Yours Sincerely

Coupon-mad

You need to remove your name from that post here! Also remove this from your complaint, as there is no such case and POPLA won't have used other cases so this distracts from the main complaint:

"In addition, although referring to the ParkingEye and Beavis Case he has not mentioned the Barton Vs Excel Parking case where the judge agreed with Barton and dismissed the case."

Lemur2000

Coupon-mad said:

You need to remove your name from that post here! Also remove this from your complaint, as there is no such case and POPLA won't have used other cases so this distracts from the main complaint:

"In addition, although referring to the ParkingEye and Beavis Case he has not mentioned the Barton Vs Excel Parking case where the judge agreed with Barton and dismissed the case."

Ok.....done !......so apart from the point you made, it is good to go ?

Lemur2000

Coupon-mad said:

You need to remove your name from that post here! Also remove this from your complaint, as there is no such case and POPLA won't have used other cases so this distracts from the main complaint:

"In addition, although referring to the ParkingEye and Beavis Case he has not mentioned the Barton Vs Excel Parking case where the judge agreed with Barton and dismissed the case."

Good Morning Coupon - i trust all is well with you. I have just received a response from POPLA  in regards to the complaint you suggested.......see response below - they make three comments that are headed in Bold.......l'm now wondering what my next move is.......the best of regards....

Dear Mr........

Your complaint about POPLA decision [removed by Forum Team]

Thank you for your email outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.

Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. I have noted the following points and will address each one separately.

You are unhappy that the assessor stated that points 7 to 22 are not relevant.

Within the comments section of your appeal, you stated:

“Points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 22 are all valid points to a driver that is entering the site for the first time and this is echoed by the British Parking Association advice as follows 'This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time' given in points 7 and 22 by the British Parking Association. But for someone who has used the car park several times before they would not consciously acknowledge the signs, and this is true in my case.”

The assessor stated:

“The appellant has provided further comments stating that points 7 to 22 are not relevant as they are a regular user of the car park so they would not be looking for the signage.”

I accept that the assessor has misquoted you and I apologise for this inaccurate statement within their report. I have reviewed the appeal and I can confirm that this would not have affected their overall decision. However, I can confirm that I will provide the relevant feedback for training and quality purposes going forwards.

You are unhappy that the assessor stated that you believe that the ParkingEye v Beavis applies to you.

Within your comments, you stated:

“I don't understand and fail to see what 'Parking Eye Vs Beavis has got to do with me and how it is relevant to my case. .....Beavis paid for two hours parking and stayed almost 3 hours..”

Within their summary, the assessor stated:

“In their further comments, the appellant says that the case of Beavis does not apply in this case and they do not understand why they are being charged £100 for 23 minutes.”

Within their rationale, the assessor explained:

“I accept the appellant believes that this case applies to them and they do not understand why they are being charged £100 for 23 minutes”

Having reviewed the assessor’s full response, it would appear that the misstatement was an administrative error rather than a misunderstanding of your comments. Again, I apologise for any inconvenience that this may have caused. While I am disappointed to see the errors within the assessor’s response, I can confirm that they do not affect the overall decision.

You have stated that the assessor has not shown awareness to the UK life ban on ‘the five minute rule’. You have provided Facebook links in support of this.

I can see that this ground of appeal was not raised within your appeal and this evidence was not provided. As a result, the assessor was not able to address it. It is important to explain that the purpose of our complaints process is to address any shortfalls in our procedure; it is not the opportunity to reappeal with new grounds. As such, I will not be addressing this as part of my response.

Overall, having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented.

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

Yours sincerely,

[removed by Forum Team]

POPLA Complaints Team

fisherjim

They have said they won't respond any further as usual and you just ignore it until you get SCC claim where a proper impartial judgement would be made.