Parking Eye - Luss Options

[nickenchuggets]

Hi Folks,

Looking for a bit of advice here please. Want to get some opinions if maybe I am just a complete donkey or not, or if this is worth fighting.

In June I visited a newly built car park in Luss (Scotland) run by Parking Eye, owned by Luss Estates.

On arrival to the car park I read the sign and it said to pay at the machine for the duration of your stay before exiting the car park, link to image of the sign below (see top right section of the pic).

https://ibb.co/4jmNqr3

I interpreted this to be that you pay on departure. the sign states to pay for the duration of your stay before you exit the car park. So in essence you leave the car park twice, you leave it when you arrive, and when you are finished your visit.

I was at the place for 2 hours and when I left, I paid at the machine and it spat out a ticket saying £1 paid. I knew something was wrong at this point, but it is impossible to correct at this stage, and I kind of forgot about it until I got the fine.

I appealed to Parking eye and got a rejected appeal today. I have since raised another appeal via POPLA, but the more I look into POPLA it seems they are in each other's pocket, and the only thing they seem to be waiving is common sense.

The clock is now ticking, as Parking eye said, I have 2 weeks to pay £60 and after that it's £100.

I also raised a complaint to BPA directly advising that Parking eye are in breach of the code of practice

BPA code of practice
on this document on part 19.3 I said they are in breach of car parking signage terms, as the terms they have are ambiguous and misleading.

I would be interested to see what people think about this one, if it's me being an idiot here, and I should just cancel the POPLA and pay it and forget about it.

Reading trip advisor reviews for Luss Visitor centre, I am aware that many people are in the same boat, and it seems highly unfair to me.

many thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

[Ahelpinggand]

Did you ID the driver in your Appeal?

This could have been ignored as it's Scotland

[The Rookie]

In Scotland there is currently no keeper liability, so if either the parking event or the keeper (or both) is in Scotland then the best advice is to ignore (but file).

That said for a single ticket it is still very rare for them to undertake court action as the cost of the action far exceeds the claimed amount, as such it is still unlikely they will take court action. You put your case, ignore (but file and keep for 5 years) anything further unless it is a court claim (simple procedure as it's known).

[nickenchuggets]

Thanks folks, would ignoring not lead to debt collection agency and then CCJ? I work in a job that requires pre employment screening, credit checks if I move roles, I don't want any CCJ on my file, as it's not an option for me. Or would I have a chance to fight it in court before it becomes a CCJ? sorry if this is a total noob question.

[Glacier2]

No such thing as a CCJ in Scotland as there are no county courts there.

You will get to submit a defence and have your say before they can get a judgement.

As said in Scotland the chances of a claim are very small indeed. I wouldn't lose much sleep over them.

[ostell]

Answer the question about if the driver has been identified, yes or no

If they do not know the identity of the driver then they can do nothing

Debt collectors can do nothing

[Ahelpinggand]

Indeed as requested earlier. If the drivers ID has been revealed then ignoring is not a good option

[Fluffykins]

You need to edit your first post. Always only refer to "the driver".
Tell us "the driver did this" "the driver did that".
Never "the wife", 'the girlfriend", "the cats mother", "I", etc.

This post has been edited by Fluffykins: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 - 15:15

[The Rookie]

You need to edit your first post. Always only refer to "the driver".
Tell us "the driver did this" "the driver did that".
Never "the wife", 'the girlfriend", "the cats mother", "I", etc.

Given the appeal almost certainly gave away the driver ID, that horse has bolted.

[nickenchuggets]

Yeah to confirm, they know it was me, so pretty much stuffed then. My appeal was based on the poor signage, and the fact that i paid the ticket at the end, so I gave away the fact it was me. Wish I'd came here first.
Thanks everyone, appreciate you taking the time.

[Umkomaas]

Yeah to confirm, they know it was me, so pretty much stuffed then. My appeal was based on the poor signage, and the fact that i paid the ticket at the end, so I gave away the fact it was me. Wish I'd came here first.
Thanks everyone, appreciate you taking the time.

You are not 'stuffed'. You can ignore the charge and see if PE will take this further than silly debt collector letters. As The Rookie says above, taking anyone to court in Scotland - even as an identified driver - will cost around three times more than any possible amount PE can recover. While there are a lot of daft PPCs around, ParkingEye are not one of those!

[nosferatu1001]

Parking eye would have to spend over £300 to recover around £100. Not happen8jg.

[Umkomaas]

Parking eye would have to spend over £300 to recover around £100. Not happen8jg.

....... not to mention the inordinate amount of paperwork they'd need to submit, and the dissimilarity with the England/Wales court system with which they are fully familiar, would mean lots of work to understand and comply with the different requirements of the Scottish court system.

[nickenchuggets]

Thanks all, love how helpful it is in here, and responsive. I will update with any finding for your info as we let the "appeal" run its course.

[nickenchuggets]

Hi all, appeal to POPLA was successful on the basis that PE had provided evidence of photographs of outdated signage in the response to said appeal.

I had cast doubt on the reliability of PE's evidence, and without clear evidence of what the contract was that I allegedly accepted on the date of the event, and in turn POPLA in reviewing this case were unable to determine if the PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the terms of the parking contract"

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it PE!

[nosferatu1001]

Nice going! Could we have the full text from popla?

[nickenchuggets]

As requested here's the full text from POPLA as it came. I have an outstanding complaint to BPA too for breach of code of practice with signage, will post any findings from that too, it awaits response from PE to BPA since July.

POPLAs remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. First and foremost, POPLA must see evidence of the signage, as this is the parking contract. The operator has provided evidence of signage however, the appellant has provided a photograph of a sign. In their comments, the appellant says that the operator has provided outdated signage. The appellants photograph and the operators photographs both show the same paybyphone location code, so it is from the same car park, yet the tariffs are not the same. The operator’s photographs are date stamped 04/01/2021. The appellants photograph is not date stamped however, I consider it likely that the appellants evidence is more recent to the date of the parking event, as on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that the appellant would have taken a photograph before receiving the PCN, or prior to 04/01/2021, given that the parking event occurred in June 2021. Based on the above, I do consider it very likely that the signage has changed, and therefore, the terms and conditions have changed, but the operator has provided me with evidence of old signage and an old parking contract. It is not clear when the change in terms and conditions took effect from. I am therefore unable to rely on the operator’s evidence of signage when considering if the PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the terms. The appellant has cast doubt on the reliability of the operator’s evidence and without clear evidence of what the contract was that the appellant accepted on the date of the event, I am unable to determine if the PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the terms of the parking contract. For the reasons above, I do not consider the burden of proof to have been satisfied by the operator, and I must allow this appeal. I acknowledge the grounds of appeal provided by the appellant however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reasoning, these do not require further consideration.

[nickenchuggets]

Hi all, here is the response from BPA if it's any use to anyone, all it does for me is prove how corrupt they all are.



"Dear <removed>

Thank you for your patience while I contacted ParkingEye Limited T/A Car Parking Partnership for further information. I apologise for the delay in our conclusion which is as a result of the impact of Covid-19.

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining that our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of the Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme. Please appreciate that our remit does not extend to compelling operators to cancel charges or becoming involved in the appeals process.

ParkingEye has responded to advise that you can actually pay for parking at any point during your stay provided this is done before the vehicle leaves the car park. It would be the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that the appropriate tariff is paid to cover the duration of the parking event and on this occasion, the amount of parking time purchased was insufficient. The parking tariff paid allowed for 1 hour and the vehicle remained on site for 1 hour 56 minutes.

I appreciate you believe the sign to be ambiguous however, the term states before you leave the car park and this refers to the vehicle - there has not been a breach of our Code for this point raised.



As I have not identified a breach of a point raised in our Code of Practice, I have closed this investigation.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and helping us raise standards within the private parking industry.

I hope this information is helpful.



Kind regards

<removed>

British Parking Association

Web: www.britishparking.co.uk"

[hjs1414]

Hi nickenchuggets,

I have a similar case from the same car park in Luss. I am trying to fight it and would like to use your successfully defended case as precedent with respect to poor and inconsistent signage provided by ParkingEye in support of their case against me.

Would it possible for me to quote your case number in my defence, please? I am not looking for any other details, just the case number so POPLA can see they have already rejected ParkingEye on such grounds.

thanks,
hjs1414

[nosferatu1001]

HJS - do you have an actual court claim to defend?
If so you REALLY should have your own thread.