Jump to content


mr deeds

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 379 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

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:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

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

So you think, leave it just wait and don't respond in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...