Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Baball
    • By Baball 21st Aug 18, 9:32 PM
    • 17Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Baball
    ParkingEye
    • #1
    • 21st Aug 18, 9:32 PM
    ParkingEye 21st Aug 18 at 9:32 PM
    Hi all,

    I have received a PCN as my car was recorded driving into a car park and leaving less than 15 minutes later. No parking was paid for as the occupants decided not to visit the attraction. It took some time to park, discuss what to do, plan their next destination, get their young child back into the car and depart again.

    1) Given the circumstances, do you recommend I appeal?
    2) If yes, should I bother to embellish the initial appeal to PE with the specific circumstances? Another forum user had their ticket cancelled at that stage with very similar circumstances.
    3) Two vehicles were travelling together so both keepers have received PCNs - can the same appeal content safely be used for both appeals as the circumstances were identical?

    Cheers
    Last edited by Baball; 21-08-2018 at 9:34 PM.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 21st Aug 18, 9:36 PM
    • 10,525 Posts
    • 10,924 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 9:36 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Aug 18, 9:36 PM
    Send the blue text appeal from the first post in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Send it as the keeper.

    Send it unchanged - no additions or changes needed.

    That's all there is to it at this stage.

    The keeper of the other vehicle should do exactly the same.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 21st Aug 18, 9:41 PM
    • 20,185 Posts
    • 31,857 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 18, 9:41 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Aug 18, 9:41 PM
    1. Absolutely.

    2. Yep, use the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 template. Add a final,paragraph, but be really careful not to identify the driver. If it's worked previously, then why not try again, but take nothing for granted. Hope for the best, expect the worst!

    3. Why not. In all likelihood the appeals will go to different appeal handlers. If you have time available (from the PE 28-day appeal window), why not send one off, see how that goes, then adapt the second one if necessary. Any inconsistency (given the identical nature and circumstances of the charges) can ultimately be raised with POPLA
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Baball
    • By Baball 30th Aug 18, 10:02 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    • #4
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:02 PM
    • #4
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:02 PM
    Well, the appeal to ParkingEye was unsuccessful, no surprises I guess. Time to start drafting the POPLA appeal...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 18, 10:04 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:04 PM
    • #5
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:04 PM
    POPLA like it if you prove that you went to an alternative site/parked somewhere else, as it proves you did not accept the 'parking contract' and left and went to somewhere else (what evidence might you have, even a corroborating statement from your OH passenger?).

    Search the forum for Parkingeye POPLA grace period left alternative
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 30th Aug 18, 10:05 PM
    • 2,858 Posts
    • 3,589 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #6
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:05 PM
    • #6
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:05 PM
    and ....


    write to your MP .......




    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

    and slightly longer, the committee stage

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

    ''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

    and some quotes from the committe stage

    "The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
    " is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
    "They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
    "Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
    "The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
    “I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
    "The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
    " It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
    "The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
    "what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
    " the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
    "tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
    "They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
    " because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

    All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard





    Ralph
    • Baball
    • By Baball 30th Aug 18, 10:38 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    • #7
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:38 PM
    • #7
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:38 PM
    POPLA like it if you prove that you went to an alternative site/parked somewhere else, as it proves you did not accept the 'parking contract' and left and went to somewhere else (what evidence might you have, even a corroborating statement from your OH passenger?).

    Search the forum for Parkingeye POPLA grace period left alternative
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Ah this is interesting, I've not come across this in other threads yet. The vehicle left and went to a nearby town where it was parked for an hour or two (fully paid), annoyingly the driver doesn't have the ticket anymore though. What kind of statement would be considered formal enough?

    Also, is using Google maps timeline an option? It shows the vehicle was only briefly in the car park where the PCN was issued, but later stayed for a while in a different car park.
    Last edited by Baball; 30-08-2018 at 10:53 PM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 30th Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    • 19,864 Posts
    • 25,166 Thanks
    Redx
    • #8
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    • #8
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:42 PM
    of course you can use google map evidence to support the view that the driver went elsewhere and so was NOT PARKED for the duration
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 18, 11:34 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 30th Aug 18, 11:34 PM
    • #9
    • 30th Aug 18, 11:34 PM
    Also, is using Google maps timeline an option? It shows the vehicle was only briefly in the car park where the PCN was issued, but later stayed for a while in a different car park.
    100% yes - POPLA love that, plus a letter signed by the passenger giving VRN, time/date and locations, confirming what happened.

    Concentrate on deciding not to accept the terms of the CAR PARK, not that you arrived then decided not to use the attraction. This needs to be about the car park terms not being accepted, and proof that you went elsewhere. And that it took 14 minutes because it was the height of the Summer, a very busy beach car park (or whatever) and cars were at a standstill and there were a lack of parking spaces, and then you decided not to stay and never accepted any parking terms, and left as soon as possible, waiting as you had to, for other cars manoeuvring and pedestrians walking around, children with buckets & spades and the fact the exit leads out to a main road with a red traffic light and a queue...etc. (edit to suit!).

    Then all the usual POPLA templates from the NEWBIES thread post #3 to make it 12 to 14 pages long, including a screenshot imbedded into the appeal PDF, showing the Google maps proof. And then upload the very long appeal, plus the witness statement from the passenger.

    What about having tickets/proof of payment to the alternative attraction or shops you ended up at, instead in another part of town later that afternoon, that shows you moved on with your patronage?

    Out of interest - does your Google maps timeline match the minutes the PPC has invented, to the minute? Just wondering.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 30-08-2018 at 11:37 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Baball
    • By Baball 11th Sep 18, 7:53 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    Google shows the vehicle was there for around 10 minutes, and then headed off to another town.
    • Baball
    • By Baball 11th Sep 18, 9:18 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    So I'm putting together the POPLA appeal, using the template points and some inspiration from other appeals.

    Regarding the planning permission for signs and ANPR cameras, is this point valid where the car park is on private land? Or is planning permission still required?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Sep 18, 9:32 PM
    • 20,185 Posts
    • 31,857 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Regarding the planning permission for signs and ANPR cameras, is this point valid where the car park is on private land? Or is planning permission still required?
    Originally posted by Baball
    A totally moot point which POPLA will completely ignore. While you can put it into your appeal to give the PPC more to respond to, I'd waste no time in contemplating your navel about any of the finer points about it.

    If you want to have any prospect of doing 'damage' on this point, in some attempt to give the PPC 'grief', then take it up with the Local Authority in whose area the car park resides. POPLA is of no use to you in this regard, nor in terms of your appeal being upheld.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Baball
    • By Baball 11th Sep 18, 11:15 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    A totally moot point which POPLA will completely ignore.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Hi Umkomaas, which bit is moot, the planning permission argument generally, or the requirement on private land, or both? Several template appeals have had this point in it so I thought it should be included...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Sep 18, 11:28 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    the planning permission argument generally,
    Forget that entire argument. It is not one of the template POPLA points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for good reason (if it is there tell me and I will delete it right now).

    Do not include it.

    Google shows the vehicle was there for around 10 minutes, and then headed off to another town.
    Are you saying that you have proof that the ANPR camera images are several minutes wrong? Tell POPLA that the operator appears to have exaggerated the time on site, or used unsynchronised timers for the in/out ANPR cameras because GSV proves that the car was only there for around 10 minutes (and Google Maps follow a phone's location in real time) yet the ANPR images have made up another 3 minutes and this is proof of error by the operator's system.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Baball
    • By Baball 12th Sep 18, 9:39 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    Forget that entire argument. It is not one of the template POPLA points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread for good reason (if it is there tell me and I will delete it right now).

    Do not include it.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad,

    I'm confused now, that argument is featured in many of the appeals posted here for review, including one linked in the newbies thread (although to be fair that was cited as an example of the grace period argument). If I'm to include only arguments listed in the newbies thread that apply, that would leave me with:

    Grace Period
    Signage
    Landowner authority

    Is that sufficient? That doesn't feel like the 'kitchen sink' approach I've seen mentioned, and nor have I seen many examples with so few points. Many of the posted appeals contain points such as ANPR compliance, ANPR reliability, planning permission.

    Apologies if I'm totally misunderstanding, I'm just trying to get my head around the best way to do this as it feels like some of the guidance is conflicting.


    Are you saying that you have proof that the ANPR camera images are several minutes wrong? Tell POPLA that the operator appears to have exaggerated the time on site, or used unsynchronised timers for the in/out ANPR cameras because GSV proves that the car was only there for around 10 minutes (and Google Maps follow a phone's location in real time) yet the ANPR images have made up another 3 minutes and this is proof of error by the operator's system.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I would have thought a few minutes would be a reasonable margin of error between the two systems and that the Google information is better suited to proving the vehicle moved on and parked elsewhere?

    Thanks again for your help, I really do appreciate it. I just want to nail this, and ParkingEye!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Sep 18, 9:54 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Forget Planning permission, the only reason it was tacked on the end of someone's POPLA appeal that was used as an example would be if the rest of their POPLA appeal was good. A Planning/Advertising Consent argument does not win at POPLA.

    I would have thought a few minutes would be a reasonable margin of error between the two systems and that the Google information is better suited to proving the vehicle moved on and parked elsewhere?
    Why the question mark, isn't that what I said? It's a major point for you, your first point!

    If ParkingEye's ANPR says the car was there for say, 14 minutes, and you can prove from Google Maps location, that the car & driver were there for just, say 10 minutes, that margin of error by the ANPR camera is enormous!

    It makes all the difference for ParkingEye, is arguably fraudulent and disingenuously allows them to produce PCNs for everyone who only visited the site for 7 - 10 mins, because they are saying those drivers exceeded a grace period that they did not.

    It is so bad, such a serious margin of error, that your evidence is worth reporting to the ICO, and how about telling 'Big Brother Watch' who have some clout too.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-09-2018 at 9:56 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Baball
    • By Baball 14th Sep 18, 10:06 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    OK, before I go too far down the wrong road with all the content, how is this for the structure and argument points?

    1. Grace Period
    a. BPA CoP (updated for 2018)
    b. Signs at entrance not obvious as to parking conditions, much smaller than the direction signs you are more likely to observe
    c. Busy summer’s day, took time to locate parking spaces, disembark, locate and read signs, discuss between both parties (there were two vehicles), get toddler safely restrained in car seat again, and navigate a busy car park to the exit

    2. Alternative parking then sought
    a. Further evidence contract not accepted
    b. Google timeline
    c. Transaction evidence from alternative location

    3. POFA compliance
    a. No ‘period of parking’, only entry/exit and ‘time of stay’
    b. ANPR exit image is at a busy road junction, vehicle could be waiting at that position, no evidence on when the image was captured

    4. Keeper liability
    a. Template version

    5. Landowner authority
    a. Template version

    6. ANPR system reliability
    a. Refer again to Google timeline
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Sep 18, 11:18 PM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes - looks good.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Baball
    • By Baball 25th Sep 18, 12:24 AM
    • 17 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Baball
    OK, first draft. Excluding the ANPR reliability point for now (not sure it is strong enough). All feedback welcomed and appreciated.

    1. Grace period
    A ‘total time in car park’ of only XX minutes should be considered to be within the limits of a reasonable grace period.
    The British Parking Association’s Code of Practice (version 7, January 2018) section 13 concerns the application of grace periods by car park operators. In cases such as this, where there was no agreed contract, paragraph 13.1 is highly relevant and states that:
    “If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.1

    It is reasonable to consider then, that a driver should be afforded both:
    1. Time to park, locate and consider the offer made by the car park operator and, if deciding to reject the offer,
    2. A grace period in which to leave.

    Paragraph 13.1 leaves ‘reasonable grace period’ undefined, but we can find guidance on what could be considered a ‘reasonable grace period’ in the subsequent paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4 (emphasis added):
    “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.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.2


    “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
    BPA’s Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018) paragraph 13.4

    Both paragraphs 13.2 and 13.4 clearly stipulate a grace period should be a ‘minimum of 10 minutes’. Whilst paragraph 13.4 applies in cases where a parking contract has ended (in contrast there was no contract in this case), it is reasonable to suggest that the ‘minimum of 10 minutes’ is also a ‘reasonable grace period’ to apply to paragraph 13.1.
    The grace period should be a minimum of 10 minutes so it is argued that a total ‘time in car park’ of XX minutes, as in this case, is within the limits of a reasonable grace period given:
    a. How busy the car park was – it was midday in August at a busy tourist attraction and therefore took longer than normally expected to locate a vacant parking space.
    b. The signage communicating the terms and conditions – the full details of the offer made by the car park operator include a solid block of text that is difficult to read and takes time to understand.
    c. The occupants – a toddler travelling in the vehicle had to be safely restrained in their car seat before departure. Any parent will attest to this being an unpredictable and frequently lengthy process.
    d. The ‘time in car park’ is calculated as the difference between the ‘arrival’ time and ‘departure’ time as captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera located at the entrance/exit. Vehicles exiting the car park must join a main road and do so while in the field of view of the camera. It cannot be shown when during any period of waiting the ‘departure’ time is recorded.

    Considering factors such as these, Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) posits that there can be ‘no time limit’ to the act of locating, considering and ultimately rejecting the terms of the contract:

    “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that 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.”
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    Pertinent factors in this case that give rise to variability among car park users, including, but not limited to the time taken to:
    • Understand and follow direction signage
    • Locate a parking space
    • Locate a sign disclosing full terms and conditions
    • Read the full terms and conditions
    • Consider the terms and conditions and decide to accept or reject those terms
    • Upon rejection of the terms and conditions, prepare the vehicle and its occupants for departure. In this case this involved securing a stubborn infant in their car seat.
    • Exit the parking space, transit through the car park and exit safely


    2. No contract entered into
    The terms of the offer were not accepted and an alternative location was sought.
    After reviewing the terms and conditions of the contract offered by the car park operator, the driver of the vehicle signalled their rejection of those terms, through their conduct by leaving the car park. Without acceptance of the contract, there can be no breach that gives rise to liability for a parking charge.
    The driver then sought an alternative parking location where the terms were accepted and payment of the correct tariff was made. This can be seen in the location data captured by a mobile phone belonging to an occupant of the vehicle that clearly shows:
    1. The car park cited in the parking charge notice was visited from XXXX-XXXX (X minutes, not the XX minutes claimed by the operator)
    2. The vehicle travelled to an alternative location
    3. The vehicle was parked at the alternative location from XXXX-XXXX

    Include Google timeline
    Include receipts from alternative location

    In November 2017, a similar appeal to POPLA (Appellant versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

    3. No evidence of period parked
    The parking charge notice does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 grants the right to a car park operator to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle only if the conditions of the schedule are met.
    Relevant to this case is the second condition that the operator has given notice in accordance with paragraph 6 and, in this case where a notice to driver was not issued, paragraph 9.
    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(1):
    “A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following conditions are met.”

    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2):
    “The notice must-”

    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a):
    “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”


    The parking charge notice received from ParkingEye, dated XXXXXXXXXX, specifies the vehicle and the relevant land but fails to specify the period of parking and therefore does not meet the requirement of paragraph 9(2)(a). Instead, the notice states only ‘Time in car park’, calculated as the difference between the arrival time and the departure time captured by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera located at the car park entrance and exit.
    ‘Time in car park’ cannot be substituted for the ‘period of parking’ that is required by paragraph 9(2)(a) as:
    1. There is no evidence of the duration that the vehicle was parked in contrast with the time spent driving into, around and out of the site. Navigating the site to locate and subsequently wait for a parking space cannot be considered components of the ‘period of parking’.
    2. The ‘departure’ time is recorded at the junction of the car park exit and a main road. There is no evidence of the duration that the vehicle was required to wait in the field of view of the camera before a safe exit to the road could be made. Therefore, it cannot be shown if the time reported as ‘departure’ time was the time at the beginning or the end of the period of waiting to safely join the main road.


    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid notice given in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'notice to keeper' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and only full and strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
    Understanding keeper liability
    'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
    There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from me as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

    The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

    It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Sep 18, 12:33 AM
    • 63,826 Posts
    • 76,450 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This can be seen in the location data captured by a mobile phone belonging to an occupant of the vehicle that clearly shows:
    1. The car park cited in the parking charge notice was visited from XXXX-XXXX (X minutes, not the XX minutes claimed by the operator)
    Hang on.

    Are you saying that the ANPR camera data is pretending that the car spent, say 14 minutes on site...

    ...and yet you have Google location (correct in real time, which does not rely upon two cameras) that proves the stay was in fact LESS than ten minutes all told?

    OMG, that's a significant and huge margin of error and means your car WAS within the 10 min grace period. Detailed complaint to the ICO and Big Brother Watch is called for, as the latter appear to have clout re camera surveillance:

    https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/

    As already said:

    If ParkingEye's ANPR says the car was there for say, 14 minutes, and you can prove from Google Maps location, that the car & driver were there for just, say 10 minutes, that margin of error by the ANPR camera is enormous!

    It makes all the difference for ParkingEye, is arguably fraudulent and disingenuously allows them to produce PCNs for everyone who only visited the site for 7 - 10 mins, because they are saying those drivers exceeded a grace period that they did not.

    It is so bad, such a serious margin of error, that your evidence is worth reporting to the ICO, and how about telling 'Big Brother Watch' who have some clout too.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

119Posts Today

1,487Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @laurawithers84: @MartinSLewis Our school is going to use your book for our new finance fortnight for year 8 students. We thought we wou?

  • RT @katiejane13uk: ????????IMPORTANT - CALLING ALL LEASEHOLDERS TO COMPLETE???????? @mhclg Leasehold Reform Consultation closes this month. This is the?

  • Just sent a text about postgrad loans. My Swype text auto-corrected it to pothead loans. Does it know something I don't?

  • Follow Martin