not sure where you get that BPA statement from ?

here is the current BPA CoP

I agree that the "standard period" is considered to be 10 minutes, (or more)

clearly FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT due to the shenanigans on the car park are a factor in any delays

PE monitor time on site , they always do, so have no idea what went on between entering and leaving past their ANPR cameras

cant understand how you failed at POPLA using the same arguments ?

I think you need to add more of the usual defence points , making them prove their contract is valid , signage is compliant, and any other BPA CoP failures etc

study post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and see what defences look like too, as well as having a look at recent BARGEPOLE posts where he has honed a few defences down to the bone for other members

and study the ivor pecheque case at Fistral Beach a few years ago where the judge said driving round a car park and looking for a spot, then leaving , does not constitute parking , that was against PE too so no idea why you havent found it as it was on the parking prankster site

CS018 ParkingEye v Mrs X (driving around for 31 minutes is not parking)

you need to realise that the defence is about legal arguments as to why the claim should fail

the WS comes nearer the court date and is when you get to tell the story about the events on the day in question (to tell your side)

Perfectly reasonable, PoPLA should be ashamed.

if you cannot leave because of traffic you cannot leave, but you are not parked, you did not contract to pay for time in a traffic queue. Read this:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

While you do need to wait to see what PE's next move is, you could start doing some early research about how to deal with a court claim by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which covers the process from the Letter Before Action/Claim right through to the hearing (and all points in between).

While PE have been the country's most litigious parking company, they cannot and do not take every case to court. They may find themselves sailing a bit close to the wind in risking a 'de minimis' Claim on a debatable couple of extra minutes of a grace period. Come back and tell us what they do, and we'll help.

Bur surely grace periods do not come into it. OP was not able to read the T&C of the contract as he could not park. If the PPC cannot offer parking there can be no contract. No contract, no breach. Or am I being simplistic?

This is why I think PE will feel the case is too close to the wind. Too many holes to fall through.

But, never second guess a predator - you must have come across a few Bengal tigers during your service in the colony?

You are quite right RedX, thank you so much for pointing that out. I was reading sec.13.2 of BPA when quoting the 10mins minimum which is referring to people who have managed to get parked, as I was unable to get parked it is s.13.1, which just states 'reasonable grace period' must be given which strengthens my defence even more.

Whats more, to fully quote 'word for word' what Parkingeye wrote on the 'case summary' that they submitted to POPLA, it reads;
Parkinge eye operates a minimum grace period of 10minutes or more on all site which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the parking.
A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 13.2 of BPA code of practice which states 'if the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes'

And so, irrespective of Parkingeye quoting the wrong section as mentioned above, they have also acknowledged they give '10mins or more' on all sites, with the 'or more' amount being essential information, yet it isnt displayed anywhere. They then say that this is to 'park' and establish whether to stay. (Well, I wasnt able to get parked). Then in the 2nd paragraph, when talking specifically about the site in question, they they say again that 10mins 'or more' is given. (they cannot even be specific about the amount given when referring to the actual carpark in question, yet beleive that they can enforce on this wording..

Thank you for all your help guys/gals and for the boost in confidence in fighting this. Could I ask for a few more bits of advice.

1. Is it my responsibility to prove that I couldnt get parked OR Is it Parkingeys responsibility to prove that I was parked. As neither of us have evidence of this.
2. Do you think its worth me sending a 'pre-emptive' letter to Parking eye, quoting the above flaws in thier case. (with the other case law points mentioned by RedX thrown in)

Thanks again!