PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Eye Claim Form Lido Car Park, Ethelbert Terrace, Margate
Mike108
post Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 23:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946



Hello I could use some help -

On 1 January 2018 I visited Margate and paid and parked in the town.

Having finished the visit it was becoming dark and I was driving back towards Ramsgate when the satellite navigation system on my phone jammed. I pulled off the road into an empty car park (the Lido) which looked closed and run down, to attend safely to the satellite system on the mobile phone. when I had gotten the navigation system working again I tried to find my way back onto the main road again. There are a number of posts missing from the side of the car park which lead onto a road which I mistook for the exit. At a certain point I realised this was not an exit but in fact Newgate Promenade so I then turned the car around and drove back towards the road by the way that I had entered. When I received the pcn from parking eyeicon they included 2 dark pictures with only headlight and number plate visible - entering (16.47) and leaving (16.57) the time difference being 10 minutes. I had no idea they were taking pictures on the site I suspect there are no signs stating this fact.

Since then I appealed to parking eye and then POPLA, I didn't get any advice on legal arguments and they both turned it down. They also refused the pictures of missing posts that I copied from google street view saying they were from 2015 while offering no possibility to provide recent pictures but simply discarding that claim

(I include as attachment the POPLA verdict).

Now I have received a claim form dated 23 July 2018 from the CCBN County Court Business Centre for £175. I would usually pay a parking fine to avoid the hassle but as I find this so unfair I continue to wish to contest it.

I have only a few days left to send in my defence the court has given me an email address, I have untill 4pm this Tuesday (28 Aug 2018). So I believe the defence needs to cover any points I wish to make so I need to sort them out very quickly.



My arguments in the POPLA appeal
(in the pdf attachment Parking Ticket Margate 1-1-18 redacted)
were basically that

I never intended to park
I pulled over for road safety concerns to fix the sat-nav.
Because the posts in the car park were missing I mistook the exit route and thus prolonging the stay this being due to the bad state of repair of car park.
It was only 10 minutes in total so petty to try to charge

I didn't mention the fact that it was badly lit, nor questioned the signage - I believe the notice board by the entrance is not lit but I didnt know if this would be an acceptable argument at the time and didnt mention it. Also I am unaware what kind of curtesy/grace period Parking eye allow as to give a ticket after only 10 minutes seems extreme.


Unfortunately I live in London so taking pictures of the car park and checking the condition is pretty difficult and would mean a 5 hour trip.


Questions

Any advice/suggestions on how best to proceed would be much appreciated - I have to send in my defence (the court has given me an email address) by 4pm this Tuesday (28 Aug 2018) so only 3 days left.

I thought a curtesy period of 10 minutes was law but I’m not sure where I saw that now?, does anybody know if parking eye allow a curtesy period in their car parks as one would imagine 10 minutes to be reasonable?

This post has been edited by Mike108: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 23:57
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Parking_Eye_POPLA_Verdict.pdf ( 46.5K ) Number of downloads: 84
Attached File  POPLA_appeal___no_picture_1_1_18.pdf ( 69.68K ) Number of downloads: 53
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sat, 25 Aug 2018 - 23:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 00:15
Post #2


Member


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



It is not law on private land

Grace periods are in the BPA cop. At least 10min min at the end, undefined at the start.

So 10 min total is inside this. How many seconds?

You defend on
Grace periods
No intention to park
No contract entered into
If somehow they argue grace was exceeded it was de minimis
Poor signage ( weak as you were not intending to park)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
publicenemyno1
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 12:38
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 118
Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,938



I am guessing most POPLA appeal decisions also look like cut'n'paste RoboDecisions?

This post has been edited by publicenemyno1: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 12:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike108
post Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 19:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946



Thanks nosferatu1001

Yes I found a file I thought I'd lost from parking eye from my rejected POPLA appeal of the papers they had submitted, in it they themselves explain their grace period is 10 minutes minimum! to "give 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 parking"

and I was timed at 10min 13sec! so it seems to be within their own documented terms!

I would upload the file which is of interest but its 10MB and I only seem able to upload 1.95MB which seems very small. - (oh just found out how to do this - this is the link to parking eye documents submitted to POPLA appeal).
http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/...20POPLA%202.pdf

This is the relevant section from their paperwork:

Grace period
ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites 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 parking.

A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2 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’.



"10 minutes or more" (what 12 but not 13 seconds more?) How can they be fining me seemingly in contradiction to their own terms is that not bizarre?

Do you think I would be wrong in presuming that this means they have no case?

This post has been edited by Mike108: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 - 20:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 07:17
Post #5


Member


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



They have a case, just a weak one. "no case" is quite a rare thing.

So the total time, from passing the cameras on the way in, to passing them on the way out was 10min 12seconds?

You defend on te obvious
The grace peirod is there at the start to allow the motorist time to
- enter, find a spcace, park, find signs, decide to leave or not

The period at the end is to allow the motorist time to leave, and must be 10 minutes by itself.

The two totalled CANNOT be less then 10min 13 seconds...

So I would hope, by now, you have written a defence! You have until 4pm today, after giving us NO time to help...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike108
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 10:18
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946




Thanks for response. Yes I know I rather messed it up and didnt realise it would be helpful if not nessasary to get help form blogs like this one, but in any case the situation is now as it is so I have until 4pm to email my defence - imperfect as it may be.
This is from their 'case detail' from the POPLA appeal where they state time allowed 0 hrs 0 min 0 secs - which contrasts with their stated grace period of 10 minutes OR MORE!
I hadn't thought the arrival and departure times might be combined but as I didnt buy a ticket I guess they could say I have no departure period.


Date/Time In 01/01/2018 16:47:01
Date/Time Out 01/01/2018 16:57:14
Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Time In Car Park 0 hours 10 minutes 13 seconds
Time Paid For 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Payment Options Machine/PayByPhone
Number of Paid Parking Machines 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 12:04
Post #7


Member


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



No theyre claiming "time allowed" is "how long you are allowed to park"

Show us your defence. You MUST have found a fair few by now, to know how they are laid out and please dont ask if you add evidence yet... arguments only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike108
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 12:23
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946



well another site was advising keeping it as short as possible that too many points would weaken the case?
so maybe mentioning the signage is unnecessary considering I wasn't wanting to actually park
I guess no intention to park and also the de minimise point can be bought up later?


1) It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2) It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

3) The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all due to the claimants self declared grace period of "10 minutes or more" as stated in the claimants own documentation. [included as attachment]

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 12:40
Post #9


Member


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



Why do you think you can amend your defence later on?
You get one chance

You put as many real legal arguments in as makes sense
You msut include the signage
You msut include that there was no intention to enter any legal contract. THe driver was there purely to fix sat nav.
Evn if... There was no contract entered into because the signs were poorly lit.

You dont waffle, but youcmust include the arguments you wish to advance NOW. If you dont, and want to include them later, be prepared to pay £255.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike108
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 13:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946



Thanks - makes sense hows this look?

1) It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2) It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract because the the driver was there purely to fix sat nav. And even so there was inadequate lighting in the car park for the signage - the general sate of repair being very poor missing posts, no lighting, faded bay markings etc

3) It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all due to the claimants self declared grace period of 10 minutes or more as stated in the claimants own documentation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 14:09
Post #11


Member


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



You cannot put the due to... it doesnt make ense.
Make 3 your first point
the end of 3) becomes your new point 4)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike108
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 14:53
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Member No.: 47,946



ok thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 15:28
Post #13


Member


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



The 10 minutes grace period is not self declared, it is in the BPA code of practise which Beavis case stated was mandatory for the parking compnaies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 22:33
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (Mike108 @ Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 14:23) *
It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].
That's registered keeper
QUOTE
2) It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract because the the driver was there purely ...
It is denied that the driver entered into a contract.....
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:51
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