Parking Eye ANPR PCN - double dipping!!

[kregrs]

Having received a charge from Parking Eye, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, do I have to notify them of who the driver was? And if I don't, what can they do?

[renegadeimp]

never notify them of the driver if it was you.

 

Can you give some background please. PE get most things right on a PCN but always slip up on something without fail.

[lookinforinfo]

No you don't have to identify the driver nor should you -even if you were the driver.

It makes it more difficult for parking companies do get money out of you under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

 

Do not reply to that notice until you have posted it here to check its validity.

 

When one of the Moderators see you thread they will ask if you could complete a questionnaire to give you the best chance to avoid paying their inflated invoices.

 

To save you waiting the form is included here-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[ericsbrother]

knowing all about the site of the event is also very important,

we see people getting tickets when the only signage is hidden behind a tree or wheelie bin

so even though they usually get the NTK right there are loads of other things to consider.

[kregrs]

I'm in a similar situation,

same car park,

entered to drop someone off then re-entered 30 mins later to pick them up.

 

Had the first notice and appealed,

have now had a final notice BUT no response to the appeal!

 

So assuming appeal disallowed,

as final notice states no option to appeal.

[ericsbrother]

you are not in a simlar situation so start you own post.

[kregrs]

With an attitude like that, I don't think I'll bother! No need to be rude and abrupt.

[honeybee13]

Hello kregrs.

 

All EB was saying was that in line with site rules people should start their own threads rather than tagging onto someone else's.

 

It would be a shame for you if you pass up the advice of EB and other good advisers.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

post moved to your existing thread

please answer post 4 link

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?481154-Parking-Eye-charge-question

[ericsbrother]

your situation is very different so the advice you will get will be very different.

 

It may be the same location but yours is a case of "double dipping"

 

so read up on that and then tell us

 

the date and times,

what paperwork you received and when,

what you have done in response etc.

 

Again this will be different to the person whose thread you posted on.

Your postings so far do not give us enough to offer anything other than a generic you can fight this one,

the devil is always in the detail.

 

For example where were you in between the 2 visits?

 

Show you were filling up for fuel for example and they could be paying you money for breach of the DPA

[kregrs]

Re the NCP pcn, I'll post some details etc later.

 

The Parking Eye PCN that this thread originally related to was appealed via POPLA, and has been rejected.

 

It too was double dip,

I was on holiday near Newquay with my family and in laws,

last day of the holiday I dropped everyone in Newquay via Aldi car park then went back to the holiday site,

didn't buy anything in the time between dropping them off and picking them up,

just had some peace and quiet in the caravan.

 

In the appeal I'd asked Parking Eye to provide proof the vehicle had been on site for the time they claim,

a point that was ignored by POPLA.

At no point was the driver identified.

 

This is their response to my appeal -

 

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NameEmily Chriscoli

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the driver exceeded the maximum stay permitted on site.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that on the date in question,

the vehicle entered the car park to drop some passengers off and exited.

The vehicle returned later that day to collect the passenger.

 

The appellant suspects that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras have failed to detect the vehicle’s first exit and second entrance.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

 

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties,

I am not satisfied that the driver of the vehicle has been identified.

 

The operator is therefore pursuing the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance.

For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) must be adhered to.

 

The operator has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent.

As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified,

the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with Section 9 of PoFA 2012.

 

Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator,

I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper has complied with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the operator can transfer the liability for the unpaid parking charge to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 

When it comes to parking on private land,

a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle.

 

The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park.

The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site.

 

The signs state

1 ½ hour max stay.

Aldi customers only.

For use only whilst shopping in store.

Parking limited to 1 ½ hours (no return within 4 hours).

Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £70.

 

The car park in question is monitored by ANPR cameras.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 11:50 and exiting the site at 15:07.

The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of three hours and seven minutes,

therefore exceeding the maximum stay permitted of one hour and 30 minutes.

 

I note the appellant’s comments that the driver entered and exited this particular car park twice on the date in question.

As a result, the appellant is questioning the accuracy and reliability of the ANPR cameras.

 

In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves,

the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate.

 

Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate.

Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise,

we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking.

 

On this occasion,

the appellant has failed to provide POPLA with any evidence to substantiate his claims that the vehicle did not remain in the car park for the length of time suggested by the ANPR cameras.

 

I am therefore working on the basis that they were in working order on the date of the contravention.

Additionally, the signage states that motorists must not return to the site within four hours of exiting.

 

According to the appellant’s version of events,

the driver returned to the car park in less than four hours to collect some passengers

and as such, breached a further condition of the parking contract.

 

For clarity, the driver was more than welcome to park on site on the date in question.

However,

they were expected to adhere to the maximum stay on site when doing so.

 

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park,

they have understood the terms and conditions of parking.

 

By remaining parked on site,

the driver accepted the terms and conditions.

 

On this occasion,

by exceeding the maximum stay permitted,

the driver has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site.

I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.

[ericsbrother]

as you can see, POPLA first of all believ that the cameras are infallibls and secondly that contract law regarding PARKING is somehow applicable to people who pass and repass, a completely allowable action.

As for saying the motorist is responsible for reading the signs well how about the signs being garbage and irrelevant. Also if the car was used by 2 different people who has agreed to the contract, the drivers who have each obeyed the conditions or a piece of metal?

[kregrs]

old and new threads merged for history too

 

Regarding the Parking Eye PCN, following the disallowed POPLA appeal I haven't heard from Parking Eye since! Is it safe to assume they won't persue it further?

[dx100uk]

scan and keep everything for 6yrs

[ericsbrother]

They know that POPLA isnt a court so are unlikely to take it further. They have at court on such matters and after that they pulled a couple more claims at the last moment when it was obvious the defendant wasnt going to collapse and pay up.