Parking Eye ANPR PCN - M&U Phase One, Portishead (Lidl, Travelodge, Subway).

[bellx15]

Hello everyone -

 

I'm writing this in a state of disbelief.

Just received a PCN in the post.

 

My genuine shock is down to having had no inkling at the time that there were any parking restrictions.

My colleague and I both remember checking for notices but seeing none.

 

One question I have is whether anyone here is familiar with this car park - outside Wetherspoons' 'The Possett'.

 

I clearly need a reality check on what is in fact visible on the site.

The car was recorded as entering at 8pm and leaving at midnight.

 

Thanks!

 

1 Date of the infringement 1.5.2018

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 5.5.2018

 

 

3 Date received 10.5.2018

 

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 your appeal] no

 

7 Who is the parking company? ParkingEye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] M&U Phase One, Portishead (Lidl, Travelodge, Subway).

 

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

Edited May 10, 2018 by dx100uk
format

[dx100uk]

thread title updated

 

please scan up the NTK read upload PDF only please

[bellx15]

Just to add - I've looked on Google Street View and can see no sign of any notices at any of the entrances. This is the Travelodge, Lidl park, where we were parked, not the Waitrose part.

 

 

 

I have Google links, but I'm not allowed to post them yet. Just look for the Travelodge car parking area.

 

This is a pdf of my charge notice.

Notice to Keeper..pdf

[ericsbrother]

Ok tell us about the event so why were you there and where exactly did you park and which way in you used to access the place.

 

Their pictures are so rubbish as to be worthless as evidnec of parking. The site has 2 main entances and you can also drive between the 2 car parks without exiting back into Harbour rd. Now I see signs in the car park but they are facing inwards so cant be seen from the road and I cant see any camera poles either.

 

Now their claim is for overstaying in a car park and their only evidece of thsi si these rubbish pictures and it is common for their systems not to record correctly multiple visits to the same location or sometimes the cameras cover land they have no interest in so knowing exactly where the cameras were that these phots came from will help enormously.

 

If it is local to you go down and have a look at the sigane and whetehr PE operate in both car parks or just the one and note exactly where the cameras are on their poles. That may well give you a reason to get this knocked on the head and they certainly wont be able to prove you parked anywhere and the unus is upon them to show a cause not you to deny one

Edited May 11, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[bellx15]

Thank you very much for looking into the situation for me. I really appreciate it.

 

Just for convenience, I am uploading a bird's eye view of the relevant parking areas.

 

In answer to your first question, I was with a friend and we spent the entire time in the Possett Cup. It never occurred to either of us that receipts would be needed later, so unfortunately we probably didn't keep any.

 

To be perfectly honest, I can't remember which entrance/exit we used, but probably either of the two on Harbour Road. I think the car was parked near the southern boundary of the Lidl/Travelodge/Possett Cup car park.

 

Yes, I would like to be able to pinpoint the cameras, but don't live anywhere near there, so will have to wait probably a month or so to get back there and do a reccy.

 

Your point about the two adjoining car parks seems right to me, too. Unless they have cctv watching the entire car park, which I believe some do, it would be impossible to tell where the car had been.

 

[Note: In the Car Park Association guide, it states that the camera operators are obliged to produce their photographic evidence if asked. It also states that large, readable notices should be placed near the entrance. I don't see any.]

 

I am wonderring about strategy, now. Should I just keep quiet and wait to see how far they want to take this? At what point would it be sensible to give in?

 

Alternatively, if I submit an appeal in the next few days, should I ask them to provide their evidence? Still mulling this one!

 

Thanks again!

 

For entertainment only -

 

I ust went to the ParkingEye website and entered the details of my PCN. Then I clicked on the 'evidence' tab:

 

The first picture shows the wheels turned sharply, and no occupants. Where could that have been taken??

 

The second picture shows .... ?? Poorly illuminated Car park!

[dx100uk]

Please don't forget pic need to be in pdf

Upload readme

[bellx15]

So now we have a new piece of information - I've traced the location of the 'entry' photograph, and it is the front of Lidl, main entrance. And because the wheels are turned to the right that indicates that I must have taken the first turning into the parking area. Where I actually parked is still a bit of a mystery.

 

 

As far the 'exit' picture, well, what does that tell anyone?? Would they be able to associate it with a particular camera?

 

 

 

My suspicion is that the cameras are properly located, to ensure that the car is going into and coming out of their exclusive patch. If that's true, that's another possible objection biting the dust. Still, there is another car park connected at the other end (Majestic Wines, etc.).

 

 

My current feeling is that I should just sit this one out and take a pure gamble. If they take out a court action I can just pay off whatever the court tells me to, rather than going to court. Any opinions?

 

OK, apologies -

 

 

for me, the jpg images look clear. I was thinking you meant just documents.

 

Here it is in PDF, although honestly I can't see any difference.

evidence.pdf

[dx100uk]

Being able to zoom.

[bellx15]

OK, I'll remember that.

 

 

What should I do about the charge?? I've written to Wetherspoons, but nothing else so far.

[dx100uk]

Sit on your hands!!!

[bellx15]

So are you advocating that I don't appeal, and just leave things altogether to see what they do?

[ericsbrother]

I would say that until you can arm yourself with better information and evidence that you do nothing.

Let Wetherspoons do what they can and it might not need further intervention.

The time set for appealing is rather odd because if you dntn appeal in that time you can still use independent arbitration so nothing lost.

 

Also, if their cameras do cover land they dont have any authorisation to manage it doesnt make sense for you to say that you must be doomed, it is for them to get everything right, not for you to prove them wrong at every point.

 

If you would rather hand over money that they dont deserve and havent earned that is up to you, we are here to offer advice and our genral advice is based on it all being either unfair or unlawful because the parking co's are too lazy or greedy to do it right.

[bellx15]

Well yes, that is all the way I feel about it. I'm sure everyone here feels that conflict, and I was just listing the pay-up route as an option. I'm here to take advice, and now I think it is clear. I'm not going to pay up, not only on principle, but also because the signage on the site is inadequate. I'll probably submit an appeal to ParkingEye to show that I did attempt a resolution.

 

I will be going down to Bristol (and thence Portishead if necessary) next month, so I will do a thorough photographic reccy of the area then.

 

I've just received information that rather scuppers my defiant stand, I suspect:

 

Reply from Wetherspoons:

 

"Unfortunately the car park is not owned by Wetherspoon, therefore it is completely out of our control.

 

However there have been sings up about the parking since before Christmas time, and then became active in the new year.

 

There are two entrances to the car park, in front of ‘Home Bargains’ & ‘Majestic Wines’ are one side and ‘Subway’ & ‘Lidl’ the other. The camera either side picks up the registration number of the cars as they enter and exit.

 

Since then we have had a tablet installed at the end of our bar so our customers can put their registration number in and it will up the parking limit from 2 hours to 5 hours, this has been in place since mid-march in an attempt to help out our customers to the best of our ability.

 

The only thing I can suggest is sending your receipts off with an appeal, however with the tablet in place, it is highly unlikely your appeal will go through.

 

Hope this has been helpful.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

Tom Coleman

Duty Manager

The Posset Cup

Mustad Way

Portishead

BS20 7DE"

 

Unless there are still no signs at the entry points, I don't see that I have much of a defence.

[dx100uk]

Doesn't really change anything

[bellx15]

OK. Please tell me why not.

[dx100uk]

No it's for you to understand why..

So why do you think that lessens your defence?

[lookinforinfo]

There is still no reason to pay them. There are many reasons why you need not have to pay them-you have just lost one but the others are still valid. Parking Eye have to dot a lot of I's and cross a lot of T's before they can expect to be paid.

They tend not to be able to do them all so there is no need to pay them.

 

Read some of the other threads in this section to see what objections others have used to avoid paying these crooks-not just Parking Eye threads.

In addition the signage at the car park is often enough to scupper their claim which is why we asked for it.

 

Don't worry about the month's delay, you will get a number of letters from PE and their unregulated debt collectors demanding more money than they have asked for initially-all totally unlawful of course.

 

Then when you have ignored all those they start on the begging letters reducing the amount.

It's quite fun watching all the mail coming in knowing that they re wasting their time and money when you have absolutely no intention of paying them whatever they offer.

[bellx15]

Because it tell me that the entire parking area is under the control of ParkingEye. It doesn't matter where I park. They still have me. If they have signs at the entrances, I'm stuffed.

 

Thank you! I was hoping for some more informative communication such as this!

 

Do you know what percentage of PE victims go to court, or any related statistics?

[dx100uk]

there never was any doubt voiced that PE are not contracted for the whole car parks.

 

very few go anywhere if you go read up on like threads and understand how things work properly before you respond to them.

 

are their signs correct?

do they have planning permission for them and their cameras?

do they have a signed current contract with the land OWNER?

[bellx15]

Actually, I think there was significant doubt. Given that there there are two or three apparently discrete parking areas, it mattered whether they needed to determine which one{s) I used. It appears now that they don't.

 

are their signs correct? I'm still hanging on by my fingernails to this one.

do they have planning permission for them and their cameras? How likely that they do not?

do they have a signed current contract with the land OWNER? Ditto.

[honeybee13]

Hi. As far as I can see, you haven't read any other Parking Eye threads, so you haven't seen just how bad they are at preparing court cases or following the rules yet.

 

Have a look in the Private Parking successes thread for Parking Eye threads with wins and see what other people have done.

 

HB

[bellx15]

Hi HB -

 

thanks. I've had a lot of reading to do (!), but yes, I'll do what you suggest.

[lookinforinfo]

Actually, I think there was significant doubt. Given that there there are two or three apparently discrete parking areas, it mattered whether they needed to determine which one{s) I used. It appears now that they don't.

 

are their signs correct? I'm still hanging on by my fingernails to this one.

do they have planning permission for them and their cameras? How likely that they do not?

do they have a signed current contract with the land OWNER? Ditto.

 

Their signs are frequently contradict each other thus unable to form a contract with the driver.

 

They quite often cannot be bothered to get Council planning permission [ it takes too long for them?] thus rendering their notices illegal [not unlawful-there is a big difference] and so negates any contract PE claim they have with all motorists at that site.

 

Sometimes they have no contract with the land owner at all while at others they are limited in what they can do [eg take motorists to Court]

 

They issue thousands of tickets per month yet take a fraction of those who don't pay to Court. You have to realise that they are crooks. They know they often don't have the correct permissions in place yet still fire off demands for money to motorists who PE know are not liable for the amounts claimed . Then they further harass the motorists by using unregulated debt collectors who claim even more money than stated on the notices in the car parks-totally unlawful.

 

They take motorists to Court and lose their case because there is something wrong with their signage or permissions for example. Do they correct those errors-very rarely. Do they continue to harass other motorists in the same boat as the motorist who won their case-every time.

 

They are a complete disgrace. Why don't they put matters right? Why should they when they make sufficient money from those who pay up. It takes time and money to rewrite signs with no guarantee that they have enough knowledge to make the new signs legally water tight. And permissions might not be granted so why ask when you can make money anyway.

 

The only good news about that is that it enables those caught by PE to be able to completely ignore them and not pay them a penny safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to take you to Court and if they do , not only do you win against them but they also pay you for having the sheer effrontery of taking you to Court in the first place.

 

I hope I explained it better this time.

[bellx15]

Yes, that's excellent - thanks!

 

One point that occurred to me is that they have a positive reason not to get the signs right. If they had adequate signage they would catch fewer drivers. There is method in their incompetence.

[ericsbrother]

of course. This is a massive complaint about the entire system. they deliberately make it difficult to comply otherwise they wouldnt earn a bean. Likewise their willingness to take the matter to court has forrced changes in Civil Procedures and will be the cause of more changes regarding sung people at the wrong address and so forth, a very popular tactic of the parking co's that isnt used by the rest of the world