Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 11:39
Post #1403926

Hello everybody,

I have just received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Parking Eye, which informs me that a week or so ago a car, of which I am reg'd keeper, was parked in the carpark of the Mercure Hotel, Wetherby, for a grand total of 20 minutes and 52 seconds. For this privilege they are inviting me to pay them £100!

The PCN includes photos of the car, which are marked with an arrival and departure time. To the best of my knowledge, any signs explaining about possible parking restrictions are either not there, or extremely easy to miss(!). I was not a patron of the hotel at the time.

Before posting I have spent a bit of time trawling the site to see what I could learn. However, from what I gather the advice can vary a bit depending on several factors such as the location or even the firm which has issued the notice... also there appears to be a bit of an ignore/appeal debate going on, the current feeling on which appears to be swaying towards toeing the line and appealing?

So I figured I'd post this up for some more specific advice, if you'd be kind enough to give it!

Obviously happy to share more information as needed.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 12:35
Post #1403936

What have they alleged and why was the car there ?

Is it a pay car park or is the driver supposed to register the car at reception ?

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 13:02
Post #1403944

Hi Redivi

The closest thing I can see to any allegation is the wording in the "parking charge information" part of the form. Essentially that their signage states that the car park is on private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd. and is for hotel patrons only. The allegation is of "either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering registration details via the terminal [in the hotel reception]"

No details of the car had been entered in the reception terminal. I'm surmising, but I guess it works on the terminal only, i.e. not a pay car park.

The driver was staying in the Wetherby/Harrogate area and had made a plan to meet a family member that day, who was to be driving past nearby, up the A1. The plan was intially quite general, in that a meeting had been agreed, but only an approximate time and place. The intention was to stay in touch via phone and then narrow down the timing and location as the day progressed. Since it was a convenient/safe place and a good landmark, it was decided to use the Mercure Hotel on the A58, which has a car park right beside the road.

The other party arrived approximately 10-15 minutes after the driver and also parked in the same car park. After some more minutes of exchange, all parties then left the carpark and went on their way. I am given to believe the other party has not yet received any form of "notice", which I assume is because they were not present in the car park for as long.

I have not yet contacted the hotel, (which I'm guessing will be high up on the advice list!). Not that I expect I'm likely to get much joy out of them, but I guess even as a formality/part of the process it still has to be done.

Posted by: ostell Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 15:52
Post #1403992

Does the NTK mention POFA? Probably on the back page.

Is this a hire car?

Be careful that you don't infer who was driving, or hint at it. #3 hints at it.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 16:25
Post #1404016

Yes, there is a paragraph relating to the Protection of Freedoms Act on the back of the notice.

Nope, not a hire car.

Sure, I'm totally with you. However since Redivi asked what the car was doing there... All suggestions for a better way to answer that question, in a "forum friendly" way, gratefully received :-)

Thanks

Posted by: ostell Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 16:28
Post #1404020

As is stated in many other threads use "The driver......." etc.

Posted by: kommando Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 16:32
Post #1404024

Its not forum friendly when seen in a PPC's evidence pack.

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 17:07
Post #1404029

Is it me or does the panache of "Mercure" and "Wetherby" jar somewhat.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 31 Jul 2018 - 19:04
Post #1404066

Haha, probably not just you.

In its defence, Wetherby is a nice little town from what I have seen of it.





Ok, thanks for the clarification. My response to that question was about the best I could come up with, but it's apparently quite a difficult line to tread when you're not used to this sort of thing!




Forgive me, kommando. What I meant by "forum friendly" was just "within the guidelines of this forum", or "better than what I'd already said". It was a genuine request - I'm not sure from your response if you thought I was being sarky or childish - if so, apologies, please be assured I wasn't! If not, then it's me who's misinterpreted and I'll shut up now :-)

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 00:58
Post #1404130

Edit #3 remove any I, you, they, he she etc, refer to the person carrying out the drivers actions as ‘the driver’ and you as the reciepent of the PCN as ‘the keeper’, don’t vary from this.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 08:36
Post #1404154

OK, hopefully sorted now, thanks.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 10:04
Post #1404852

I was poised to give the hotel a ring and then I had a thought - should I also avoid making all reference to anyone but "the driver" when speaking to them?

Posted by: ostell Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 10:42
Post #1404862

Your thoughts were correct, it is often the case that everything will be handed to the parking company for action so don't identify the driver

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 10:58
Post #1404868

OK, thanks.

It's a shame in a way, as I would think the chances of appealing to the hotel's better side (if they have one) would be stronger if I didn't have to adopt (what some might see as) a rather defensive position of not saying who the driver was! But I understand why one has to do that, so I'm glad I asked here first anyway.

Under normal circumstances, who actually has the right to revoke the charge? Is it only the landowner? If the hotel say they can't do anything about it are they just being lazy?

Cheers

Posted by: ostell Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 11:46
Post #1404883

It's whoever contracted with them. In your case it would probably be the hotel. When you get a "nothing to do with us" response it normally means "we can't be arsed"

If the hotel is a chain then an email to the CEO often helps.

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 13:58
Post #1404939

Tell the hotel that they ARE responsible for the actions of their agent and, in the event that a cause for action may arise against their agent, they will be joined to the action as principle. They are perfectly capable of getting this cancelled, particularly as the driver hasn't yet completed their Trip Advisor review.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 16:18
Post #1423351

Small update.

Firstly, to be totally honest, and as much as I know I'm going to get told off by folks on here, I have now probably let this one run on much longer than I should, for which reason I am a numpty. Apart from anything, sorry for those that replied earlier that you'll probably have to read back over the thread to remember what it was all about!

Latest correspondence from Parking Eye is a "Letter Before County Court Claim", dated 13/09/18, stating they require the full £100 and that if I "wish to contact them" I must do this within 30 days from the date of the letter (which would take us to the 13th october), and enclosing a form with a variety of answers I can tick.

From the start I have not made any contact with Parking Eye about this, and have instead spoken with the Hotel in the hope that I can cut out Parking Eye entirely and just get them (the hotel) to cancel the charge.

I spoke by phone to a staff member at the hotel, who gave me an email address (seemingly owned by the hotel group, not Parking Eye) to send details to. I sent pretty much a verbatim copy of the original details I gave in post #3 above (also referring only to "the driver") along with a plea to cancel the charge, and have not yet received a response.

Speaking to another person at the hotel I have now been informed to expect a 28 day turn-around on that email address. This is of course useless, as it would take me beyond the 13th October date imposed by the latest Parking Eye letter.

I then spoke to the customer services of the Mercure parent, Accor Hotels, hoping to get to speak to somebody in a relatively senior position. Was informed that I could not be put through to the hotel's manager directly, but was asked by the customer services operator to send her the details via email, which she would forward to the relevant person. Feels a bit like another dead end.


In the meantime, I happened across an online review of the same hotel by a patron who had received two £100 notices and was naturally not over the moon. In a response to this review, the general manager mentions that if residents receive a parking charge due to not following the protocol, they (the hotel) can request Parking Eye to cancel the charge. Not that the driver was a hotel patron in my case, but at least this seems to suggest that the power of cancelling the charge lies with the hotel.


Finally, in speaking to the hotel I also found out that the time limit for parking is 20 minutes. The entry time was 14:56:06, and the leaving time was 15:16:58, resulting in an "over-stay" of just 52 seconds! I know of a few expensive car parks, but I've never seen one which charges nearly £7,000 per hour :-)

So, I'm wondering what might the next step be? Time to respond to Parking Eye with an explanation/request to cancel? I realise they have already provided an opportunity to appeal which I have yet to take, but my gut feeling was to try and sort this out solely via the hotel, and that any plaintive response to Parking Eye was nothing more than a waste of time. Anyway, I realise I've probably not followed the path the experts on here may suggest, and have not acted as fast as I should. However I'd really appreciate any pointers.

Thanks all.

Posted by: anon45 Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 18:32
Post #1423378

Were you actually *parked* for more than 20 minutes, or, as I suspect, was this time of entry into and exit from the car park as recorded by PE's ANPR cameras?

PE signs do typically state in tiny font that "parking" is deemed to be the time taken in the car park, but I would argue that this interpretation of the phrase "parking" is contrary to the natural meaning of the English language, is onerous and detrimental to the consumer by setting a concealed trap with a punitive charge (falling foul of Lord Denning's "red hand rule"), and not saved from the Consumer Rights Act (edited) 2015 by its (lack of) prominence in the the way that the "core charge" almost certainly is, post Beavis.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 19:42
Post #1423395

I've tried to work out from the photographs supplied on the PCN, along with a bit of google satellite view, where exactly the "boundaries" of the ANPR system are. It looks like the point where the car triggered on the way in is quite different to where it was re-photographed on the way out. In both the in and out photos it's the front of the car in the shot.

It's clear from the "in" photo that the car was ~50m in from the main entrance off the A58, and maybe 20-30m from the point where the car was eventually pulled into a space. The "out" photo less easy to place.

In any case, even assuming that the exit camera was in about the same place as the entry one, then yes it is perfectly possible that those expensive 52 seconds were spent driving to, looking for, reversing out of and then driving away from, the space in which the car was eventually parked. If the exit camera was actually closer to the main road on the way out, then there might have been even a few more seconds of "not-parking" :-)

Incidentally, the google view also shows that there were originally barriers at the position of the ANPR, these can be seen in the satellite view but are magically gone on the street view. They were not there by the day in question (which is a shame as it would have meant the driver would not have entered!)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 06:48
Post #1423438

CRA2015, not UCTA2015

Posted by: NGR Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 08:36
Post #1423460

Did you go into the hotel, maybe to inquire about room availability or restaurant facilities or for a possible planned visit in the future?

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:23
Post #1423472

Good question but no, the driver never actually left the car unoccupied. It's back at post #3 where I've explained why the car was there. As tempting as your line of explanation is, I've already sent a full description to the Hotel via email so I don't think it'd look very good changing the story at this stage :-)

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 09:48
Post #1423480

As of now, with Parking Eye's "deadline" from their latest letter approaching in less than a week, what are people's thoughts on whether I should be responding to this letter, or continuing to try and resolve it via the Hotel?

Thanks!

Posted by: ostell Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 10:02
Post #1423487

You do both. The hotel can tell PE to cancel at any time, even if in the middle of court proceedings.

Posted by: NGR Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 12:55
Post #1423527

Indeed, wasn't suggesting anything untoward

However, it's an indication of how ridiculous parking has become in this country where you could quiet innocently inquire at an establishment and end up being dragged through the courts by a parking scammer!

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 15:38
Post #1423561

OK, that's heartening. I feel slightly less hassled knowing that. Which is of couse how the whole system operates - piling on of deadlines and ultimatums to make it look like your safest option is to just drop 100 quid to make it go away.




See your point and couldn't agree more. It would be a bit more palatable if, when this sort of thing happens, one has a fairly reasonable chance of a quick and fair appeal. All I've seen so far suggests that any option other than just paying up is a potential headache.

So, given Ostell's response I will continue to badger the Mercure customer services and in parallel draft a response to the letter from PE.

Now, I realise nobody here has a crystal ball but on the basis of what I've outlined so far, then assuming "the worst" happened and PE ended up chasing this to court, is it possible to say what my chances are??

I have no objection to court per se, as I feel like I'm pretty justified in my appeal. But obviously I'd rather not be dragged down that route and if I am, it'd be nice to have a little bit of confidence/optimism on the way there!

Posted by: ostell Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 19:04
Post #1423622

If it got as far as court a sensible judge would see that you weren't parked for the time they say so they are being unreasonable.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 20:54
Post #1423660

You'd only be risking about £75 to find out, and we see wins in almost every defended cases on here and on MSE. The odd person who loses v the likes of PE pays about £175 and has no repercussions, no CCJ, nothing bad or unsafe or affecting your credit rating, because you would then pay it, if a Judge said so.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 19:13
Post #1423993

Do you mean £175 including the £100 they're currently asking for? If so I think those odds are pretty good. In the case of a loss, I'd console myself that it hopefully would have cost them more than £75 to administer the court claim! Is it all done via a small claims/Money-claim online type of thing? As a matter of fact they mention in the last letter that costs are including, but not limited to, £50 solicitor plus £25 claim fee, perhaps this is the £75 to which you refer?


Anyway, I have to respond to the LBCC by the 13th, so I am going to put something in the post tomorrow. I have yet to hear anything back from the emails to the hotel (big surprise there, huh?!) but will of course continue to pursue that.

As for the response to Parking Eye, I'll be ticking their "I dispute the debt" box and attaching the following - perhaps people would be kind enough to tell me if I'm way off the mark or not!? I'm essentially telling them the same facts I have told the hotel:

Dear Sir/Madam

I dispute the £100 charge and I am asking Mercure Hotels to kindly cancel it, given the circumstances which I will outline below.

The driver of the car **** *** was staying in the Wetherby/Harrogate area on holiday on the weekend of the 21/07/18, and on the day in question was touring the Wetherby area by car, and had in place a plan to meet with another family member who was also due to be driving past nearby, up the A1. After speaking by phone to the family member in the other car, and since it was a convenient/safe place with a car park right beside the road, it was decided, more or less on the spur of the moment, to pull off the A58 and wait for them at the Mercure Hotel. The other party arrived approximately 15 minutes after the driver of the Alfa Romeo, and also parked in the same car park. After a few minutes of exchange, both parties then left the carpark and went on their way. At no point was either car left unattended and there was plenty of room for other cars in the car park.

Although I am informed by the hotel staff member, with whom I have subsequently spoken, that there are multiple signs explaining the parking rules, it probably goes without saying the driver had not noticed any of these. I also understand from my conversation with the hotel staff member that there is a maximum of 20 minutes parking before charges come into effect. The parking charge notice states that the entry time was 14:56:06, and the leaving time was 15:16:58, resulting in an "over-stay" of just 52 seconds.

I believe the £100 charge to extremely unreasonable given the circumstances. I have begun conversation with the customer services team at the Mercure parent group, Accor Hotels, and I am asking them to instruct Parking Eye to cancel the charge.

Yours Faithfully

I ought to reiterate, if it makes any difference, that up to now I've only spoken with the hotel and its parent company. This is the first response I will have made to PE, which means I did not lodge any appeal with them within the 28 day period they mentioned in the initial PCN. I hope this doesn't count against me if this does get as far as court?!

Thanks

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 23:14
Post #1424052

Yes, as I said, you are risking just seventy five quid...

No CCJ, nothing bad, no huge costs, no sitting on the norty step. Pay only if a Judge says so.

Not 'all done' that way, a MCOL leads to a hearing at your local court where you can be heard and most people we help, win.

No they can't add £50 (unless you roll over and let them without arguing it)!

PE can't add solicitors costs as they have an in house legal team and they issue robo-claims with just admin teams handling them, no supervising solicitor even looks at the bulk of copy & paste claims.

The £175 if you lost, might be the £100 PCN, £25 MCOL fee, £25 hearing fee and a bit of interest, so probably less than I said.

Posted by: AlfaRomeo Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 06:52
Post #1424068

OK, thanks for the clarification. On the basis of that info I do feel more confident in proceeding.

I am going to post the above response to PE today - does anyone have any comments before I do?

Thanks

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 09:41
Post #1424098

for them to turn up to a hearing willl ocst them around £300
So even if they win, they lose - as they cannot claim that £300 back.