Parking Eye - Holiday Inn

[tony3x]

I have gone and got myself a PCN from PE via ANPR.

 

Had a meeting in the hotel and did not realise that it is now a pay car park. I was running a bit late so did not pay a lot of attention to the signs but will be back over the weekend to get the photos.

 

I have contacted the hotel who said that they would look into it as we spent over the minimum spend to get the parking for free however it was the people I met that paid.

 

If the hotel are not willing/able to help what is my next move.

[armadillo71]

Date of event and date you received the NTK please.

 

Then we need to see the signage.

 

Then you appeal to PE as the RK, it gets rejected, you appeal to POPLA, correctly worded, and you win.

 

Of course Holiday Inn should cancel it first...

[tony3x]

date of event - 11/02/16

PCN issued - 19/02/16

Received - 23/02/16 so within limits

 

Will get signage over the weekend.

[ericsbrother]

what is your relationship with the people you met? If they tell Holiday Inn that they are not happy then things will move along very quickly. These hotel chains forget about the damage they do to their goodwill with the conference sector when they employ these parking co's. a reminder of whose choice it is to use their facilities will help them refocus.

[Polyplastic]

At a Holiday Inn in Stoke ParkingEye did not have advertisement consent for its signs nor planning permission for its cameras. ParkingEye does not bother to secure such consents elsewhere in the country so perhaps it has not done so at your Holiday Inn. Check with the local planning authority. If there are no consent then in your appeal to ParkignEye which will be rejected, at POPLA include this

 

The case of Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Talal El Makdessi; Parking Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, at paragraph 96, draws our attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Limited. At paragraph 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” Paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice, sets out how and in what circumstances a term may be enforced. It reads “All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.” Broadly, the Code of Practice obliges ParkingEye to comply with the law in creating and enforcing its contract with a motorist and in communicating the terms of that contract. It failed in a number of respects:-

I have attached to this appeal a copy of a letter from the local planning authority which confirms that the car park signs do not have the necessary advertisement consent, nor do the ANPR cameras have planning permission. This is clearly a breach of paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice. If there is any liability on the Appellant then, in considering paragraph 2.2 above, it is submitted that a term is not fair if the requirements of the Code of Practice are ignored and a crime has to be committed to create that term and/or the contract between motorist and the parking enforcement company.

 

By virtue of Regulation 3 of the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) a commercial practice is unfair if it contravenes two requirements. The first strand being the requirements of professional diligence and the second that a failure of professional diligence materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to a “product”. (For “product” refer to the next paragraph). By virtue of Regulation 5 of the 2008 Regulations a breach of Regulation 3 is an offence. The Office of Fair Trading guidance on the 2008 Regulations at paragraph 10.1 indicates that “Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the 2008 Regulations set out the general prohibition on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, also known as the general duty not to trade unfairly. This prohibition allows enforcers to take action against unfair commercial practices, including those that do not fall into the more specific prohibitions of misleading and aggressive practices, or into the very specific banned practices. This means it acts as a safety net. It is designed to ‘future-proof’ the protections in the CPRs, by setting standards against which all existing and new practices can be judged”. Paragraph 10.4 of the OFT Guidance indicates that professional diligence should evidence “(a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity”. The Appellant submits that the first strand of Regulation 3 applies as a result of the criminal conduct involved in parking enforcement. The second strand begs the question “Would a consumer be likely to make a different decision about payment of damages if he were told that a crime had to be committed to bring about the demand for that payment?” It is averred that a car park operator failing to secure, or that its client had secured, the relevant advertisement consent in accordance with the law, before managing the car park, and thus a crime was being committed, was acting in contravention of Regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. In doing so ParkingEye fell below the standards of a reasonably competent professional, having regard to the standards normally expected in its profession with particular regard to the Code of Practice. Further that by failing to advise the Appellant of the criminal conduct in relation to its parking enforcement, when demanding damages for an alleged breach of contract, it is averred that ParkingEye was also acting with a lack of professional diligence.

 

On the 1st October 2014, the 2014 Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations came into effect which extended the definition of “product” in the 2008 Regulations and which now includes the settlement, (rather than the demand) after the 1st October 2014, of actual or purported liabilities and which ParkingEye is seeking to recover from the Appellant by way of alleged damages. (see Regulation 2(9) of the 2014 Regulations). So, taking a decision to settle damages falls within Regulation 3 of the CPRs. It is submitted that it is incumbent upon ParkingEye to show that it is acting with professional diligence.

 

Regulation 5(3)(b) of theCPRs indicates that it is a misleading action where there is any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with. ParkingEye had, in the Code, undertaken to comply with the law and clearly failed.

 

POPLA is obliged to notify the BPA of any failure of a parking company to comply with the Code of Practice

 

 

Polyplastic

[tony3x]

Thanks,

I assume that I can ring the local authority to find out about the consents and planning permission.

 

Erics - I get on with the people I met very well. It was a business meeting that took less than an hour. They were not residents.

 

I am still waiting for Holiday Inn to get back to me.

 

do I have to appeal before the deadline for the reduced 'charge' which is the 4th March

[ericsbrother]

If Holiday Inn wont cancel then get the other party you were meeting to tell Holiday Inn they are after a refund for this harassment. If Holiday Innthink it is going to cost them money they will do something, B2B contracts are different to consumer ones and your friends may well decide if they want to accept the parking conditions separately from the stupid signs and form their own contract based on what they paid to be there. PE wont have a leg to stand on then.

[Polyplastic]

Thanks,

I assume that I can ring the local authority to find out about the consents and planning permission.

 

Erics - I get on with the people I met very well. It was a business meeting that took less than an hour. They were not residents.

 

I am still waiting for Holiday Inn to get back to me.

 

do I have to appeal before the deadline for the reduced 'charge' which is the 4th March

 

You have to get your appeal into ParkingEye within the time limit set in their Parking Charge notice. Fail to do so and you can't appeal to POPLA. Fail to do so and in court the Judge will not look too favourably on your not having followed that process.

 

The Planners would firstly need to satisfy themselves that advertisement consent and planning permission is required. If the car park signs are on enclosed land and cannot be seen from the Highway they may not need advertisement consent. If the ANPR are on freestanding poles they should need planning permission. If they are attached to a building they will not need such permission.

[tony3x]

If Holiday Inn wont cancel then get the other party you were meeting to tell Holiday Inn they are after a refund for this harassment. If Holiday Innthink it is going to cost them money they will do something, B2B contracts are different to consumer ones and your friends may well decide if they want to accept the parking conditions separately from the stupid signs and form their own contract based on what they paid to be there. PE wont have a leg to stand on then.

 

There was no room hire or cost to have our meeting so not sure I can use this method. The hotel is often used for this type of meeting because of the location, on top of a motorway and other major roads.

 

The hotel have said that they put the charge in place to stop people parking there while that went shopping - the nearest major shopping centre is about 10 miles away.

[tony3x]

Good News - The Holiday Inn have just emailed me to say that the ticket has been cancelled.

[ericsbrother]

well done, always good news when common sense prevails. Well done to them for accepting it was within their powers to sort the matter out rather than passing the buck.

[Polyplastic]

Good News - The Holiday Inn have just emailed me to say that the ticket has been cancelled.

 

Blimey good guys exist!!!!

 

Still worth asking the planners if PakingEye has consent for its signs. Probably don't so it will put them to some trouble and expense getting advertising consent

 

Polyplastic

[tony3x]

I was thinking that Poly. I went to take my photos and there is a sign that can be seen from the road, the cameras are also on a stand alone pole. I checked the local authority website to see if plans had been submitted for the cameras and there was nothing showing.

 

Any idea what department I would contact re advertising consent?

[Polyplastic]

I was thinking that Poly. I went to take my photos and there is a sign that can be seen from the road, the cameras are also on a stand alone pole. I checked the local authority website to see if plans had been submitted for the cameras and there was nothing showing.

 

Any idea what department I would contact re advertising consent?

 

Planning Department. Where is this car park?

 

Polyplastic

[tony3x]

Car park is the Holiday Inn, Brentwood, Essex

[Polyplastic]

Car park is the Holiday Inn, Brentwood, Essex

 

Try [email protected]

[tony3x]

Letter now received from PE to confirm that the charge has been cancelled. Best keep it though, just in case!!

 

Now to think about an email to the planning dept about the planning consent for the camera pole.

[renegadeimp]

Go for it. The more trouble you can cause for these parasites the better. Just be aware who their parent company is and the ties they have with central government and indeed local government

[tony3x]

Who is the parent company?

[renegadeimp]

Capita