I have received a charge for leaving a car park 52 seconds too late

According to the time on my clock we returned to the car park before 6pm.

By the time we had loaded the boot with pushchair, then put our young 2 year old daughter into the car,

we did vacate the parking spot before 6pm and in fact left the car park according to my clock before 6pm

but their camera picture states 6pm and 52 seconds.

I am really annoyed.

Also even if their time is correct that is still only 52 seconds over ,

the picture they show is with the car on the giveway waiting to exit the car park on to the road 6pm and 52 seconds.

This is absolutely scandalous. I have no intention in paying fine , any feedback appreciated.

I think there's a guideline about the 10 minutes allowance.

Others will point the correct link.

Thanks - if anyone can send me the link will be appreciated? Should I state this in my appeals letter?

It is not a fine.

Doesn't use that word anywhere on their paperwork

Thanks - sorry yes, it does not say fine on the letter it says "charges"

please complete this:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

understand something else,

the contractual time limit is for PARKING, not for being on site so that is why they have a mandatory 10 minute grace period.

It gives you time to enter, read the signs, decide if you want to park and be bound by that contract,

park, get out, read the signs again properly because they usually have things like "T&C's apply"

the contract is actually elsewhere such as on the parking meter and then at the end of your parking period, get in, queue to exit the car park etc.

52 seconds over the time is taking the mickey and they know it.

What to do?

Well, in your case I would advise writing to them in the third person

so refer to yourself as the keeper and say thing like the driver at the time did this and that, never I or we.

So, short letter.

Their ref.

The recipient of the charge notice ref xxxxyyyy believes that it has been issued contrary to the BPA code of practice regarding the grace period allowed and for assessing the time a vehicle is parked.

As you have not shown any proof of the actual time the vehicle was parked as per the normal definiton of that event

it is denied that the vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time causing you to claim monies

and also that the demand is in breach of the ATA CoP you have signed up to.

for these reasons it is requested that the demand be cancelled forthwith.

If you do not cnacle this them please furnish me with a reason as to why you arent considering this request and provide a POPLA code

They may or may not cancel.

If they dont you should be given a POPLA code so you can appeal their decision.

This will cost them money to challenge and is one of the reasons that POPLA actually accept without too much difficulty.

For PNC's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

please answer the following questions.

1 Date of the infringement 26/8/17

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 4/9/17

3 Date received - 8/9/17

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Yes

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] Yes – see below

I am very surprised to have received a parking charge in the post on 8/9/17, letter dated 4/9/17.

I wish to contest these charges for reasons detailed below.

I visited Leeds city centre with my family – wife and 2 children, aged 12 and 2 years old on 26/8/17.

We did park in the car park on Aire Street and paid for the time we parked on the day, which covered us till 6pm,

my daughter who is 12 years old paid the money into the machine,

Your cameras on site will able to verify making payment into the machine.

According to your camera/clock I was on the give way, leaving the car park on to the main road at 6pm. (i.e. 6pm and 52 seconds).

According to the time on my clock we returned to the car park before 6pm.

We loaded the boot with our shopping bags and baby pushchair, then put our young 2 year old daughter into the car, we then vacated the parking spot before 6pm and in fact left the car park according to mine and my partner’s clock before 6pm.

In any case I understand you should also allow a grace period/time to users of the car park.

I am a law abiding citizen, receiving such an additional charge, when I have paid for the parking charges due on the day in question, is very upsetting for me and my family.

I have seeked legal advice on this matter, please accept my appeal against the parking charge you have imposed.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] Yes received email today, stating my appeal has been unsuccessful see attached document below

7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Aire Street, Leeds

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes - POPLA

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

On the day in question the parking charges are £4.50 (8am-6pm).when I log on their website it states I was parked for 5hrs (until 6pm & 52s), but paid for 4hrs and 40 mins

Can someone please advise on my next steps, (see above post)

PS. message to Ericsbrother , thanks for your response , sorry didn't see that before I sent my appeal

attachment.pdf

They really are prats of the first order.

Perhaps they are in financial difficulties since it is hard to see, other than desperation, why they would even bother chasing some one for 52 seconds in the first place let alone not back down when challenged.

Notify that you are writing to the DVLA with a serious complaint about them releasing your ifo to PE without reasonable cause].

Really put the boot in to the DVLA since they have breached the Data Protection Act by divulging your details to PE.

Just because they are an accredited member of the BPA does not mean that PE are an honest company.

In fact a Judge recently described their Witness Statement as "tantamount to Perjury"!.

PE are in breach of their BPA guidelines which they are supposed to abide by in order to receive information from DVLA-viz.

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave

the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

It is generally accepted that the grace period is at least 10 minutes.

The DVLA give out data to these crooks on the basis that they adhere to the BPA guidelines

-something that definitely did not happen in your case.

Ask them why they don't ask the reason why PE wanted your info.

Then they would not have given your details if they had known you had allegedly breached the time limit by 56 seconds but still well within the 10 minute grace period.

Advise them also that you expect a reply within fourteen days as to why they have breached the DP Act and if they don't a complaint will be forwarded to the ICO. 52 seconds over time is nowhere near a "reasonable cause" to have your info sent out.

Also demand tan answer as to why they think they are not liable to a financial claim from you for the breach by them.

Then complain to the ICO about them anyway.

Complain to your MP as well since they might start to push the DVLA into growing a pair and actually carry out what they erroneously describe as a "robust" procedures when it comes to giving out keeper information.

You could also complain to the BPA but they are as much use a chocolate fireguard so don't expect anything from them.

@ lookinforinfo thanks for your post. - just to confirm are you suggesting I ignore the letter from parking eye and not appeal via POPLA but write to the DVLA?

Amane you have already seen how dumb PE is.

They hope that by constant stone walling of your denials you will finally give up and pay especially when they start increasing their charges. These are of course unlawful but if you don't know you might be tempted to pay .

However you can try POPLA who should toss it out straight away

so it is worth a try but POPLA is a bit of a lottery.

Whatever that outcome you could hope that the DVLA,

if you remind them that 56 seconds is a breach of BPA guidelines,

could sort out PE if POPLA don't come through.

@ lookingforinfo Thanks for your reply. Is the response below to the DVLA OK? I have 28 days to write/send the appeal to POPLA, ,so will appeal soon after I have received a response from the DVLA - all being well within 14 days.

Dear Sir/Madam

I recently parked my car at Aire Street Car Park in Leeds and received a charge of £60 for allegedly leaving the car park 52 seconds too late. I visited Leeds city centre on a Saturday with my family and paid £4.50 which covered us for parking till 6pm. According to Parking eye (car park management) we left the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds, according to my clock it was before 6pm that we left. I think this is very unreasonable even if someone has gone over by a minute, as I understand they should be allowing entrants/users of the car park a 10 minute grace period.

I have included below an extract from the appeal letter I sent, which has been rejected – please see attached response I have received.

“I am very surprised to have received a parking charge in the post on 8/9/17, letter dated 4/9/17. I wish to contest these charges for reasons detailed below.

I visited Leeds city centre with my family – wife and 2 children, aged 12 and 2 years old on 26/8/17. We did park in the car park on Aire Street and paid for the time we parked on the day, which covered us till 6pm,

my daughter who is 12 years old paid the money into the machine, Your cameras on site will able to verify making payment into the machine.

According to your camera/clock I was on the give way, leaving the car park on to the main road at 6pm. (i.e. 6pm and 52 seconds).

According to the time on my clock we returned to the car park before 6pm. We loaded the boot with our shopping bags and baby pushchair, then put our young 2 year old daughter into the car, we then vacated the parking spot before 6pm and in fact left the car park according to mine and my partner’s clock before 6pm. In any case I understand you should also allow a grace period/time to users of the car park.

I am a law abiding citizen, receiving such an additional charge, when I have paid for the parking charges due on the day in question, is very upsetting for me and my family.

I have seeked legal advice on this matter, please accept my appeal against the parking charge you have imposed”.

I am really annoyed with Parking Eye and the DVLA. I cannot understand why the DVLA released my personal details in the first place without reasonable cause? Surely the DVLA should not have provided my details if they had known I had allegedly breached the time limit by only 52 seconds which is well within the 10 minute grace period.

I understand Parking Eye are in breach of their BPA guidelines which they are supposed to abide by in order to receive information from DVLA-viz.

“13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action”

Can I please query why the DVLA did not ask the reason why Parking Eye wanted my personal details?

I should not have to spend my time/money having to contest this parking charge unnecessarily, when I am not liable of any parking charges owed. If the DVLA had followed "robust" procedures when it comes to giving out keeper information and acted correctly this could have been avoided.

I do expect a reply within 14 days as to why you have breached the Data Protection Act and if you don't, a complaint will be forwarded to the ICO. Parking Eye’s allegations of 52 seconds over time is nowhere near a "reasonable cause" to have my personal details sent to them.

That's very good. Interesting to see how they respond.

they haven't given you a reason as to why your appeal was unsuccessful,

clearly the 35 different stages of quality control they apply before a NTK is issues were all satisfied and they are not just greedy incompetent pillocks they appear to be.

Choices

- well POPLA is one route

but please, when dealing with parking matters do not go into any personal details

don't be telling the whole world that you were there with your children aged whatever,

you don't even admit being there yourself.

You use the third person so you say that " the driver paid the prescribed fee"

rather than a lengthy explanation that a 12 year old fed the machine.

The contract to be considered could hinge on whether a 12 yearold, having read the terms on the machine has entered a contract that is different to the one offered by signage at the entrance and thus she is the one who should be appealing so your appeal fails on the gounds of locus !

What to say

- you will need evidence of what was on offer

if it was £4.50 all day and you get penalised for an overstay

then there must be a separate condition for parking after 6pm clearly displayed

and some mechanism that allows you to pay for stopping beyond that time.

It would be better if you can post up pictures of the signage and the blurb on the ticket machine here and we will suggest things to put in your appeal.

You have 4 weeks to do this

don't feel as though you are under any pressure to deal with the matter in a hurry,

your case doesn't change even if you don't appeal to pOPLA,

it just becomes more drawn out.

@ ericsbrother , Thanks for your advise

Admittedly I was hasty in sending my appeal to Parking Eye, wish I had read your initial advice and posted my proposed response before submitting - lessons learnt. I will try and get pictures of the car park signage and ticket machine within the next couple of days. Thanks once again

Please see response below I received from DVLA today , further to the email I sent to them (see my post above on 17th Sept @ 15.40)

"Thank you for your letter regarding release of information from the vehicle records held at DVLA. As one of the deputy managers of Vehicle Record Enquiries section it has been passed to me for reply.

First may I explain that DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds for the purposes of registering and licensing vehicles, and to comply with the Act’s guiding principles. However, the Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions the release of personal data where the law allows it and DVLA is not in a position to refuse those who have a legitimate right to receive information.

Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires DVLA to release information from the vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for purposes associated with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it. ‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits.

Requests from private car parking enforcement companies are considered to meet the ‘reasonable cause’ criteria. Unauthorised parking on private land is a problem many landowners experience and providing them with information is necessary to allow them to enforce their rights to their property

Full details on the release of information, what constitutes ‘reasonable cause’, the complaints procedure and the new process for making enquiries are available at Enquiries made by electronic means have to be supported by other stringent requirements.

Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases. Representations about the display of signs or other circumstances relating to an incident should be made directly to the company concerned which you have already done or to the British Parking Association (BPA).

The British Parking Association is the appropriate ATA for the parking industry and it’s code of practice is published on the website at under the heading Approved Operator Scheme. If you feel that any of the practices employed by CPS Ltd do not comply with the BPA’s code then you may wish to refer your concerns to the BPA at Stuarts House, 41-43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH163BN. Alternatively, if you feel that they acted inappropriately in breach of consumer protection legislation, your local Trading Standards office may be able to offer advice.

I hope my explanation clarifies the position of the Agency on this matter".

Do you think the 2 sentences highlighted in red above are a contradiction?

Definitely a mealy mouthed cop out, PPC's are NOT Statutory Bodies and should not have any access, but that is one to lobby MP's on.

A 50 odd second overstay is definitely not a reasonable cause to release information given there is a 10 minute grace period anyway. Looks like DVLA have not read your email properly.

Might be worth contacting BBC Watchdog with that reply and your query, they have a big file and have battered DVLA on air several times over their ingrained incompetence.

so did you get the who and what the date they applied for your details?

The reason for bothering the DVLA is to ramp up the numbers of letters of complaint they get and so then when an MP takes up the flame they have evidence of complaints of misuse so the DVLA are forced to take respionsibility for their own actions and probably bump up the charge for access so the bandits dont act so frivolously.

As the BPA CoP is the industry norm any IPC member has to use that as a minimum and they dont so always another stick to beat them with.

Yours is a BPA member so you should be writing to complain.

Again as PE is the biggest contributor they arent going to get sanctioned for breach of the deal they signed up to

but it will be another bit of evidence that shows all is not well in perfidious albion

@ brassnecked , I have been in touch with my MP and will consider BBC watchdog too

@ ericsbrother DVLA did not provide any further information other than what I posted above - as per your advise will write BPA

I had sent 2 separate emails to the DVLA - the response above is from my email to "subject access requests" and the one below is the response received from my email sent via their "complaints form" on their website - just looks like a standard response after comparing the two.

"Thank you for your e-mail dated 17/09/17 about ParkingEye Ltd.

Regulation 27 of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it. This Regulation provides a legal gateway to a secure electronic link. It should be noted that an electronic link is a means of requesting and receiving information; it is not direct access into DVLA’s vehicle register.

The electronic service is a system to system service. (An interface between the service provider system and the DVLA system) The information is transferred back via a secure file transfer (SFTP) capability. The only information provided to DVLA is the vehicle registration number, the date of event and any relevant reference numbers. There is no requirement to submit any evidence with their enquiry however this must be made available upon DVLA audit request.

The release of information to private car parking companies is considered to be a reasonable cause. Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. This does not infringe the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that personal data held on the vehicle register can be used in this way.

While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent.

There are robust safeguards in place to help ensure that motorists are treated fairly when any parking charge is pursued. Vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA)..

The company in question, ParkingEye Ltd, is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN.

To coincide with the introduction of keeper liability the BPA has established an independent appeals service as mentioned in ParkingEye Ltd correspondence to you which was attached to your complaint. The appeals service is an independent body whose decisions are binding on the members of the BPA. The introduction of this service is expected to help drive up standards in the parking industry, so that it delivers parking arrangements that are fair and equitable to motorists and landowners alike. This service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). I have provided a link

I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure leaflet for your reference."

I would be writing to their complants team to moan about the fact you asked for information on who and when and got this cut and paste response about something different

whilst you are at it as you can show that PE had no reasonable cause to access your details, why are they allowing unfettered access to personal data.

As the DVLA have processes in place to audit this, when was this last done and how many requests for data were looked at.

You might need a FOI request for this last bit but that can be on the same letter,

the law makes it unnecessary to write a separate letter and event he wording of the request can be vague and they still have to comply.

@ Ericsbrother , thanks for your latest post , will follow up with the DVLA.

As discussed last week I have attached a copy of the signage/machine at the aire street car park.

any advise on what I should include in my appeal to POPLA will be appreciated.

Also BTW I got a reply from my MP's office, who said I should appeal to POPLA and they would be happy to also write me a supporting letter.

aire sreet car park leeds - signage.pdf

cant really read the small writing.

@ dx100uk there are 2 additional images on page 2 of the document. You should able to zoom in . I tried to attach as JPG files, which is very clear when you zoom in , however I get an error message when I try to upload the JPG. Thanks

of which you cant read the small text at the bottom of the sign,........................

that's the contract

the most important bit!!

OK, Thanks , will type up and send in my reply what it say. Thanks