Jump to content
mr deeds

Parking Eye ANPR PCN - overstay - 4hrs 10mins when its 4hrs free parking - Morrisons Aldershot

Recommended Posts

1 Date of the infringement 24/7/18

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 27/7/18

 

3 Date received 31/7/18

 

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

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] No

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up n/a

 

7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Morrisons Aldershot

 

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

 

Mrs deeds went to the cinema with some friends, the cinema is in a complex with Morrisons, and various restaurants, so she parked in the car park. Mrs deeds and friends arrived early, went for food and drinks and then watched the film, spending 4 hours & 10 minutes in the car park (all the time using the retailers who are part of the complex.

 

The PCN states there is a maximum parking time of 4 hours, which given the film lasted 1 hour and 54 minutes doesn't leave a massive amount of time for food and drinks before/after.

 

Do we have any possible chance of contesting this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is a stated minimum 10 mins grace period on these speculative invoices

 

Excellent advice, I've just checked on the BPA Code of Practice and you are correct its states

 

"13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes."

 

and

 

"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. If the location is one where

parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes."

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ParkingLie will try to argue that your vehicle was in the car park for 4 hrs 10 min and 59.9 seconds and there's only a 10 minute grace period.

 

However, also of note in that scenario is that it is not a "time in the car park" limit but a "Parking" limit. So, unless they can show that 'Scotty' had a hand in beaming your vehicle in to a car parking space or some other major scientific discovery that you've made and managed to keep rather quiet, there must be a certain amount of time upon both entry and exit that the vehicle is not "parked" at all.

 

So, whilst they'll huff and puff and threaten and cajole, I wish them all the luck in the world in getting that past a Judge... They're gonna need it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point is it is a MINIMUM of 10 mins so if they are saying you were there an extra 10 mins 59 seconds then still covered by grace period and any case de minimis.

 

More troubling is that PE claim to have a 17 point checklist to ensure that only eligible garbage is ever issued. They fail miserably on that quality control front as you will see if you look up the term "double dipping"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on this and advice on how I should respond please?

 

I appealed the PCN as follows;

 

Whilst I was not the driver of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle was a customer at Morrisons, Prezzo and Cineworld. They went shopping, had a drink with friends and then watched the 17:20 showing of the film Mamma Mia. They were unaware of there being a 4 hour limit on parking, but given they were customers of three of the outlets the car park serves it would seem the length of stay was appropriate.

 

Further under clause 13.2 and 13.4 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Control and enforcement of parking on private land and unregulated public car parks Version 7 - January 2018 (of which you are a member) it states;

 

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

 

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. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

 

Clearly you are not following your own code of practice by allowing the minimum grace period, therefore I dispute the validity of the PCN issued, herein known as the speculative invoice.

 

I reserve the right at a later date to provide further evidence as may be required and specifically do not agree to the tick box clause on the next page which states "

I confirm I have attached all supporting information available to me, and understand that I will be unable to provide any additional evidence at a later date, unless specifically requested by ParkingEye" which is neither enforceable or legally binding but has to be ticked to submit this appeal.

 

Below is their response;

 

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information.

 

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking

charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal

address of the driver.

 

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

 

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, ParkingEye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.ParkingEye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

 

many thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So predictably they ignore their breach of their own terms that you pointed out and just repeat the unenforceable threat.

 

You have given them the reason and they are considering it, I suggest that their next response is sorry to have bothered you, but I doubt it.

 

You are under no obligation to tell them who the driver was and you never were or will be, unless you choose to do so.

 

The charge is as unenforceable for you as the RK as it is for the driver, so they are just trying to scare you into paying, hold tight for now.

 

They'll probably just send it on to the next threatogram stage but it won't go near court if they have any idea what they're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 17 replies
    • I am new here but very glad to find my way here and would welcome any input.
       
      i purchased a brand new campervan conversion from Hillside Leisure (175 miles from our home) on July 26th for £31,000 and, within 48 hours, during a storm, the alarm began to sound incessantly. We could not get it to stop, even after trying everything listed in the manual. We phoned Hillside on Saturday July 28th around 2.00pm. The young man who answered the phone said he would seek the advice of their technician and call us back, which he did. The technician told us that they, Hillside, couldn’t help, but that we should take the van to Nissan (the van is a Nissan) as the fault would lie with one of their components.
       
      • 42 replies
×
×
  • Create New...