PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Eye two separate parking periods paid for vs genuine pre estimate of loss
cetico
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 23:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Hello all. Basically here is the situation: the driver enters the car park at 13h31 and buys a ticket at 13h34 for a 2-hour period for £3. Comes back to the car park and buys another ticket at 15h48 for one hour having paid another £2. Leaves the car park at 17h04 therefore having overstayed the last period for 16 minutes.
Now, the interesting point is that, had the driver paid £5 at the start then the allowed parking period would have been 4 hours and there would have been no issues at all.
I have seen some posts saying that the genuine pre estimate of loss is no longer a valid appeal avenue and others saying the opposite. Given the above facts do you think that this would have a chance i.e. it would be the strongest point in the appeal? I have to say that I am not holding any hopes on using the grace period... Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 08:13
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



GPEOL is dead, and there is no chance of you seeing advice otherwise that dates from after PE v Beavis, which was in 2015

The driver overstayed both grace periods, and i woudl sugest there is little hope on this one UNLESS they have missed POFA compliance, which you havent even considered.

Which car park?
Does the NtK refer to POFA on the back? Delivered within 14 days?

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 08:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 08:31
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



Is this a live case or just speculation. The OP does not say whether he has received one/two or no NTK.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 09:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Real case with Parking Eye with one NtK, which is POFA compliant and delivered within 14 days. So if GPEOL is out of question I suppose the discount will be the only option left then. Thanks and please let me know in case I am missing something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 09:57
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



As this is a pay and display car park, then you should be aware of the remarks made by the Court of Appeal, whcih was NOT reversed by the Supreme Court and therefore stands, that in A Pay and DIsplay carpark the amount is ALWAYS a penalty, and cannot be recoverecd.

You would be a bit risky to try this, but a decent appeal (which preserves the discount) could be worht it. As a gamble, see if they send to Equita or instead send a letter before claim; if the former they are NOT going to try court. You risk the loss of discount.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 09:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you actually paid the 4 hour rate and so they have lost nothing. Hope you still have the tickets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:33
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



THere is an argument that there are 2 contracts in place here, and the driver gained advantage by paying in 2 amounts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Thanks nosferatu. This is still at the early stage. I like your suggested strategy. I would be happy to risk the discount for the principle. Basically I would wait until the appeal with POPLA has been finalised and in case it is rejected check how PE react.

Ostell, you are spot on because the prices are as follows:

1h £2
2h £3
4h £5

Therefore the total amount paid (if bought at the start) would enable the driver to park there for 4 hours, nearly half an hour later than the exit time recorded by the ANPR. So if GPEOL is still applicable for a pay and display car park then I think there is hope because PE has not suffered any loss whatsoever.

Apologies I forgot to mention that the driver kept both tickets. Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:44
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



ITs notthat GPEOL is applicable.
Its that the charge for breach of contract is a penalty, and cannot be recovered. USing GPEOL as a term is a no no, and you MUST do the reading I have told you to do, if you wish to advance the argument. THe transcripts are online.

PE never suffer a loss. They nevercollect ANY P&D money

Ive pointed out the obvious flaw in the "No loss"; the driver has gained by gambling they would only need 2 hours, yet staying for nearly 4.

What was the reason for failing to return in time, BOTH times? An inability to read the times on tickets?
As an aside: what timings have PE used? The time from entry to exit OR the times on the tickets? As the tickets will not have the same times. ....

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



But the argument would be that as this was not a pay on exit car park then unforseen circumstances delayed the driver and he paid for additional time. If he had paid that amount at the beginning he would have got 4 hours rather than the 3. he has paid, in total, the payment required for 4 hours, and the same period of parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 10:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,505
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Did the signs make any reference to 'topping up'?

The argument being that 2 separate contracts were in play - you then can't subsequently conflate them.

The landholder may be more amenable as PE just want paying for a breach. (As it's only how they get paid)


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:45
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



Nosferatu I am still trying to digest the points you have raised...
Ostell, yes this is the backbone of the argument. Initially the driver had no intention to stay for longer than 2 hour and only paid £3. The appointment took longer than expected and the driver had to return to the car park to pay for an additional period. The NtK only shows the entry and exit times based on ANPR cameras and it is very generic as it states "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted(...)the parking charge is now payable to Parking Eye".
Jlc, the signs do not make any reference to 'topping up'. The landowner is a hotel and would happily help if the driver had been a guest but in case you were not then they will left you to your own devices. Just to avoid any confusion: non-guests can also use the car park.

This post has been edited by cetico: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:18
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So they are complaining that you have not purchased the appropriate time. You did purchase the appropriate time, in fact more than necessary. Thir system cannot handle this, it's only detected on ticket rather than the two.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, the appropriate time was NOT purchased

It was pay in advance, and 2 contracts were entered and concluded. For pay and display this is trite law.
WHile the total was the same, the driver gained advtange by delaying payment for the second period.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cetico
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:50
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,486



nosferatu, I struggle to understand this advantage you refer to. Delaying the payment of the second parking period has made no difference at all because if the driver had paid £5 exactly at the time registered in entry, he would be allowed to stay until 17h31, which is 27 minues later than the actual exit time. A system where the driver pays when exiting (like in many shopping centres) would easily solve this but obviously Parking Eye will not want to kill the golden goose and unless proper regulation is created (maybe there is hope with Sir Greg Knight's initiative) they will keep fleecing the public forever
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:28
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



ITs fairly obvious

If you pay £5 now you are committed to paying £5
If you think you only need to spend £2, and may need to spend £3 more, then you have gained an advantage by splitting the payment in two. IF you only need £2 worth you gain £3 over the first approach.

Yes, of course they will. They have NO incentive to haev sensible parkign rules, because they ONLY make money when arbitrary rules are not followed. They get NO INCOME from the site otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:23
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here