Parking Eye Overstay by 11 mins Options

[PCNdriverhelp]

Hi All,

I am hoping you can help. My wife parked in a city centre car park and has been sent the attached letter. It does not state what the contravention is but assuming it may be that the ticket ran out 11 minutes before she drove out. When she got back to the car she took her time using sat nav, filling car up with bags etc, thinking that she had not got a ticket by a warden already. She drove out of the car park 11 mins after her ticket ran out not realising it was done by automated cameras.

Does she have an argument over this?!

[attachment=57055:IMG_8576.JPG]
[attachment=57056:IMG_8577.JPG]

This post has been edited by PCNdriverhelp: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:53

[Advertisement]

[John9999]

Check around the forum in regard to application of "grace period" as a defence as to whether your PCN is enforceable.

[ostell]

It's PE so could you post up the back as well please and undelete the dates on the first page. Edit. You added it.

It could be said that she was not actually parked for the 3 hours 11 minutes. You can not be parked if you are moving in front of a camera. The trade association, the BPA, state that a grace period of at least 10 minutes is allowed. Is the paid for ticket still available? The driver needs time to get into the car park, find a space and then park and pay. On leaving there is also time to leave the space and drive out of the car park. With both periods taken into account then the grace period is well below the 10 minutes.

Could you get a picture of that sign, especially the unreadable text at the bottom, to see what it says. Is this the place? And any conditions on the payment machine. Were there any conditions posted inside the car park? No driver could read those conditions while driving.



This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 14:00

[PCNdriverhelp]

It's PE so could you post up the back as well please and undelete the dates on the first page.

It could be said that she was not actually parked for the 3 hours 11 minutes. You can not be parked if you are moving in front of a camera. The trade association, the BPA, state that a grace period of at least 10 minutes is allowed. Is the paid for ticket still available?

She still has the paid ticket. So essentially the rest of the time could have been spent reading the signs, waiting for other vehicles to move, and queue to exit the car park

ticket was 9:05 - 12:05

[nosferatu1001]

It is trit law that, UNLESS the signs *explicitly* state the contrary, the parking contract in a pay and display car park STARTS when the ticket is purchasd - that is because that is definite proof of when the contratc was accpeted and consideration exchanged.

Parking eye cannot lawfully decide it was an unknown period before this point, especially when there was a ticket proviing otherwise.
Get photos of the signs.

[PCNdriverhelp]

It is trit law that, UNLESS the signs *explicitly* state the contrary, the parking contract in a pay and display car park STARTS when the ticket is purchasd - that is because that is definite proof of when the contratc was accpeted and consideration exchanged.

Parking eye cannot lawfully decide it was an unknown period before this point, especially when there was a ticket proviing otherwise.
Get photos of the signs.

But even if the contract started when she got the ticket at 9:05, it still ran out at 12:05, and they have a picture of the car leaving the car park at 12:16. I read a similar case on here where someone suggested 'De Minimis' would apply as it is only 1 minute over the BPA 10 min grace period? Could we also argue it took time to leave the car park as it is full of pot holes with no labelled parking bays? (it is basically a gravel pit)

[PCNdriverhelp]

* Sorry should have said, we only have one day left to appeal with PE before it goes to £100.00. Does this matter

[Jlc]

Yes, but unfortunately that argument may well be at a court hearing if they push it that far. They don't have the strongest case but may well pursue anyway as is their process...

POPLA will likely conclude the PCN was 'correctly issued'.

Does this matter

Unless you are thinking of contributing to their coffers?

[ostell]

So it took more than a minute for the car ro have stopped parking and proceeded towards the exit and the cmaeras. So the actual oveer stay was probably a lot less than the 11 minutes and less than the grace period.

[PCNdriverhelp]

So just as an update...

As expected ParkingEye refused the appeal and this has gone to POPLA. I appealed on the following grounds from previous Aire Street Parking POPLA appeals....

1. Grace period – BPA Code of Practice - non-compliance
2. No evidence of land owner authority – the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with
BPA Code of Practice
3. NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
4. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

Previous appeals here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...4&st=0&

and mainly following this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5617801

Turns out PE submit the same evidence pack as the case found on MSE above. I have just submitted my rebuttal based on the following:

1. Grace Period – non compliance of BPA code of practice

ParkingEye evidence letter 1 & 2 dated --- and --- respectively, notes the ‘time in car park’ as 3hrs 12 minutes. The driver paid for parking for 3 hours. I refer to my previous point of non-compliance of BPA code of practice 13.0, (13.2 and 13.4 in particular) and do not see evidence that ParkingEye have followed the code of practice in allowing the driver a grace period upon entering the car park and at the end of the parking term. I also refer again to the state of the car park being an uneven gravel car park with pot holes and no marked bays, and location being a city centre train station carpark, making this challenging to navigate and exit.

2. No evidence of Land Owner Authority

The contract sent by ParkingEye Ltd is only a supply agreement contracted by another parking firm named 'Elite Parking' (who are not shown to be or believed to be the landowners). The contract is also so heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts. Nothing at all in that blacked out document shows the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement (nor even how 'Elite Parkingcan be a party and how they interact with ParkingEye, since neither are the landowner).

This fails to comply with 7.1 - 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made. The effective date of contract is also unidentifiable due to the quality of the contract supplied, therefore ParkingEye have failed to provide any evidence that proves authority to issue PCNs at the site.

Interestingly (and as expected I guess), PE only now submit two photographs of signage with their evidence pack, after the MSE forum above identified potential photoshopping of photographs of the car park! The photographic evidence of the contract of land authority is the exact same photograph supplied in this evidence pack which won that case. Unfortunately there was no POPLA number in the MSE thread so I could not make reference to it, but hopefully the invigilator agrees with the same points raised.

Will see what POPLA appeal decision is and let you know!

[Redivi]

Have only just noticed that this was the notorious Aire Street Car Park

It has a number of issues including the status of Elite Parking that, in previous threads, was a dissolved company and couldn't possibly have a contract with ParkingEye
It phoenixed in 2014

There's also an issue of the planning permission

ParkingEye dispute this but it was granted on the condition that the car park was resurfaced and there was a minimum charge to discourage commuter parking, neither of which has been actioned

What exactly has ParkingEye alleged in its evidence pack was the driver's failure ?
How long does it say was paid for ?

The MSE thread concerns a 16 minutes stay that presumably wasn't paid at all

Your case concerns, you believe, an 11 minutes overstay

If the payment was made and the registration number entered correctly, ParkingEye would normally say that the ticket expired 3 hours after entry, not at the time printed on it
If there was a mistake with the registration, ParkingEye would say that there was no time paid for

[PCNdriverhelp]

Have only just noticed that this was the notorious Aire Street Car Park

It has a number of issues including the status of Elite Parking that, in previous threads, was a dissolved company and couldn't possibly have a contract with ParkingEye
It phoenixed in 2014

There's also an issue of the planning permission

ParkingEye dispute this but it was granted on the condition that the car park was resurfaced and there was a minimum charge to discourage commuter parking, neither of which has been actioned

What exactly has ParkingEye alleged in its evidence pack was the driver's failure ?
How long does it say was paid for ?

The MSE thread concerns a 16 minutes stay that presumably wasn't paid at all

Your case concerns, you believe, an 11 minutes overstay

If the payment was made and the registration number entered correctly, ParkingEye would normally say that the ticket expired 3 hours after entry, not at the time printed on it
If there was a mistake with the registration, ParkingEye would say that there was no time paid for

The evidence pack states insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
Time in car park: 3hrs 12 minutes
Time paid for: 3hrs

I didn't have enough text in the comments section of the rebuttal to provide more information in response to the evidence pack! I also wanted to mention the lack of photographs depicting the signs and failure to explain ANPR data being used for. The car park has not been resurfaced as you say. If this doesn't win at POPLA with the above evidence having previously won on similar grounds I will be amazed. Seems Aire Street is as you say...notorious!