Parkingeye ANPR PCN - overstay by 38 mins - BOOTHS - CARNFORTH

[wrecked]

Hi CAG

 

Parkingeye (PE) issued a Parking Charge Notice for an overstayed by 38 mins at a Booths car park.

went in to do some shopping and got delayed as met with the wife of a very dear friend (My friend recently passed away)

 

ended up having coffee together at Booths and I guess had a lot to talk about as I have just had a triple heart bypass.

My friend passed away after his first heart attack. I survived mine.!! 

 

I had a run-in with PE some years ago.

I replied to that PCN stipulating that I never entered into any contractual agreement with them.

When they wrote back I replied that I had stated my case and as far as I am concerned the matter is finished.

Then I ignored their follow-up letters.

 

I have been reading posts on the CAG to help me deal with this current issue

- my question is should I follow the same tact?

 

In the meantime, I have copied and pasted the CAG form as below:

 

1 Date of the infringement 15/03/2022

 

2 Date on the NTK 19/03/2022 (it is within 14 days from the date of the event)

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF-  .......unfortunately my scanner is not working  right now but its a PE standard PCN

 

3 Date received 26/03/2022
 

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] N - but based on my research through CAG I was going to write to PE and declare that  I do not acknowledge any contract or any debt but that if they can give me a detailed account of any losses which any alleged transgression might have caused, I am prepared - without any admission - to consider whether I might be prepared to pay that sum. (This is extracted from BankFodders's post of  April 23 2012. )  and see what they say.
 

Have you had a response?  N
 

7 Who is the parking company? PARKINGEYE

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] BOOTHS  - CARNFORTH
 

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

INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE (POPLA)
 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. -   IAS but THEY SAY THEY ARE APPROVED OPERATOR OF BPA

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it -  I RECEIVED A REMINDER DATED 28/03/2022 WHICH I RECEIVED ON 31/03/2022

 

I am so sorry but my printer/scanner is not working - I will try and do this ASAP - but I want to send this reply to them 

 

No doubt, they will reply next week and then I will post on CAG 

 

All the best/Wrecked.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You can take a photo using your camera and upload it from there so no need for a scanner. Before you write to them I take it that you are the keeper and these days PE's PCNs are not PoFA compliant. That means that the liability for any alleged debt cannot be transferred to the keeper.

[dx100uk]

do NOT appeal

 

dx

 

[wrecked]

Hi  

 

Lookinforinfo - the registered keeper has to contact PE I guess.

 

DX - are you saying I should not write to PE - so should the registered keeper write this letter or are you saying they should not write to PE  - sorry for my ignorance - please clarify

 

thank you

[honeybee13]

We hardly ever advise appealing, it can cause you further grief without solving anything. As dx says (and part of the forum sticky that seems to be missing from your copy and paste also says that) nobody should appeal.

 

Read some other parking threads if you can so you understand how PPCs work and you should be reassured.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

You will notice your last post has been edited.. stop stating on an open forum pe could be reading who was driving!  

 

You do not ever appeal now since pofa 2012

[wrecked]

Hi HB and DX 

 

thank you.

Noted.

 

[FTMDave]

It's pointless writing to PE.  Bankfodder's advice from 2012 is out of date now.

 

But you might get some luck with Booths, as you both shopped and had the coffee there.  As you bumped into your friend there I'm guessing it's local to you.  Go in, demand to speak to the manager, and point out the reason for overstaying is because you were spending even more money in Booths (using the cafè after doing your shopping).  Obviously take proof of purchase.

 

If that gets nowhere you can escalate to CEO level, but it must be worth a try.

 

[wrecked]

Hi HB, DX and Dave

 

thank you for your comments 

I will follow your advice and go see the manager of Booths and then the CEO.

If thats not productive, I guess I will wait until Notice to Keeper and then deal with it then.

 

can you suggest anything else?

 

Thank you

Wrecked.

 

[wrecked]

Hi HB, Dx and Dave,

 

I have now been able to take pictures of the PCN's using my phone and convert to  .PDF, 

but I cannot make one document as size too big for upload.

I can only upload one page at a time. So here is the PCN. 

Shall I upload the other two pages - the second document is a reminder and the third doc

is the back page which is the same for both ?

 

I am sorry I am pretty useless at this.

 

thank you

Wrecked.

 

 

PE PCN.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting your PCN. However there is either a page missing or the back of the page has not been included. Whichever it is that's missing could you please post it up as that will decide whether the PCN is PoFA complaint.

[wrecked]

Hi Lookingforinfo,

 

Yes I could  not reduce the size and so I was unable to make one document for forwarding to you.

I can only upload one page at a time.

I am sorry I am really useless at this.

 

But here is Page2 of the PCN. 

It says that they complied with PoFA  

 

thank you

Wrecked.

 

P-3.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for posting it up. 

Yes they do think that the poor dears. I put it down to underpaying their staff: employing third rate solicitors and not using proof readers.

 

There is a new Code of Practice that clarifies the Law on what constitutes the period of parking when issuing PCNs. parking Eye use ANPR cameras at the entrances and exits of their car parks. Obviously the period grom driving into the car park, finding a place to park and then leaving that parking spot are not periods of parking as confirmed in the Act

 

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

And that was always supposed to be the situation but gradually over time it has become the norm to accept the entering and leaving as the period of parking since the parking crooks work on the basis of minimum spend to gain maximum benefit. In other words why waste money on getting the parking period right when we can just use the ANPR camera. 

 

So as the keeper cannot now be  liable for the alleged debt, it is important not to reveal who was driving. Given that virtually all cars can be driven by other people as long as the have their own insurance if not named on the keeper's policy, it makes life very difficult for the crooks to find out who the driver was. And they need that person in order to get a conviction.

 

So by appealing it is possible to reveal the driver. For instance "when my wife entered the car park"or "when I parked the car" are pointing out to the crooks who was driving. So it is rather frustrating when the Act grants so much protection when the PCN fails the acid test, that someone blows that protection by revealing the driver.

 

I cannot tell you how many cases fail in Court when the PCN is not compliant and the driver has not been revealed. The crooks always claim that they assume the keeper to be the driver but Judges do not accept that assumption. They need more proof and it is hard to get.

[FTMDave]

Any joy from Booths?

[wrecked]

Hi Dave 

 

No Not yet. Will send a chaser today, but will report back here soon as

we get a reply

 

Thank you 

Wrecked.

[FTMDave]

If the local branch are giving you the runaround, get on to the CEO  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-76484

 

Lay it on thick about being a genuine customer who stayed "too long" ... to spend extra money in Booths!  Attach any proof of payment.

 

Also mention the circumstances, as you did to us in your first post.

 

There are no guarantees, but it must be worth a try.  Good luck!

[lookinforinfo]

You could try this email

 

[email protected]

 

E Booth is the Executive Chairman.

Write to him as the keeper and do not use the word "I" when explaining the circumstances. Use the driver  met some one they knew and stayed over long because of the circumstances you explained. 

 

Once you have done that explain that the new Protection of Freedoms Act confirms that Parking Eye are issuing all Booths customers with PCNs that are not compliant and so many motorists are being charged for which they were never liable and which had they known, would never have paid.

 

This situation will become common knowledge in the near future and your Company could be dragged into the argument over Parking Eye not complying with the Act which would be a pity since you would expect such a large company to be well aware of its legal responsibilities.

 

The reason that all their PCNs are not compliant is because instead of recording the parking period of the car they allege has breached their terms, they use the ANPR cameras which only record the entrance and exit times of each vehicle. This contradicts the Act since obviously a vehicle is not parked when they enter the car park. It can take several minutes to find a space and hen actually drive into the space and stop. Only then from a legal point of view is the vehicle parked. Likewise the car should be timed as not parking when they move out of the parking space, not when they leave the car park which could be quite later at busy times.

 

This has always been the case but the new Act clarifies the position for companies such as Parking Eye have so far ignored them as it obviously affects their ability to make money at the expense of your customers.

 

Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 

You could try this email

 

[email protected]

 

E Booth is the Executive Chairman.

Write to him as the keeper and do not use the word "I" when explaining the circumstances. Use the driver  met some one they knew and stayed over long because of the circumstances you explained. 

 

Once you have done that explain that the new Protection of Freedoms Act confirms that Parking Eye are issuing all Booths customers with PCNs that are not compliant and so many motorists are being charged for which they were never liable and which had they known, would never have paid.

 

This situation will become common knowledge in the near future and your Company could be dragged into the argument over Parking Eye not complying with the Act which would be a pity since you would expect such a large company to be well aware of its legal responsibilities.

 

The reason that all their PCNs are not compliant is because instead of recording the parking period of the car they allege has breached their terms, they use the ANPR cameras which only record the entrance and exit times of each vehicle. This contradicts the Act since obviously a vehicle is not parked when they enter the car park. It can take several minutes to find a space and hen actually drive into the space and stop. Only then from a legal point of view is the vehicle parked. Likewise the car should be timed as not parking when they move out of the parking space, not when they leave the car park which could be quite later at busy times.

 

This has always been the case but the new Act clarifies the position for companies such as Parking Eye have so far ignored them as it obviously affects their ability to make money at the expense of your customers.

 

You could try this email

 

[email protected]

 

E Booth is the Executive Chairman.

Write to him as the keeper and do not use the word "I" when explaining the circumstances. Use the driver  met some one they knew and stayed over long because of the circumstances you explained. 

 

Once you have done that explain that the new Protection of Freedoms Act confirms that Parking Eye are issuing all Booths customers with PCNs that are not compliant and so many motorists are being charged for which they were never liable and which had they known, would never have paid.

 

This situation will become common knowledge in the near future and your Company could be dragged into the argument over Parking Eye not complying with the Act which would be a pity since you would expect such a large company to be well aware of its legal responsibilities.

 

The reason that all their PCNs are not compliant is because instead of recording the parking period of the car they allege has breached their terms, they use the ANPR cameras which only record the entrance and exit times of each vehicle. This contradicts the Act since obviously a vehicle is not parked when they enter the car park. It can take several minutes to find a space and hen actually drive into the space and stop. Only then from a legal point of view is the vehicle parked. Likewise the car should be timed as not parking when they move out of the parking space, not when they leave the car park which could be quite later at busy times.

 

This has always been the case but the new Act clarifies the position for companies such as Parking Eye have so far ignored them as it obviously affects their ability to make money at the expense of your customers.

 

Private Parking Code of Practice  2021

 

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

This is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land.

 

This confirms the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 s7 [2]

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

 

As the Act states must, then as the period of parking on Parking Eye's PCNs is wrong, then their PCNs are not compliant and any alleged debt cannot be transferred to the keeper, which is myself. There will be many  other motorists who use your car park who are  the keeper but not the driver of the vehicle who would not be liable for any breach in any of your car parks where Parking Eye operate for you.

 

In addition the new Act expects that operators are expected to bring into force the new regulations as soon as possible when they can and only things like  the printing of new PCNs that do not look like the ones issued by local councils and new contracts with land owners are expected to be held up till the end of the year.

 

I am sorry that this letter is now overlong but it is not easy to explain in a short time how Parking Eye have been issuing non compliant PCNs virtually from the beginning and it is only since the new Act data was released that I realised that their PCNs were incorrect and as keeper I am not liable for this charge.

 

I would be grateful therefore if you could kindly arrange to have my PCN cancelled. First the driver has mitigating circumstances for the delay which not only was being spent in your premises but under the new Act mitigation is to be introduced to make parking fairer for motorists . As well as the PCNs being non compliant the new Act also includes a five minute consideration period as well as a ten minute grace period so including cutting down the actual time the driver spent in the car park may not have breached the terms.

 

Something along those lines should  give you a chance of getting the ticket cancelled. Perhaps some of the others on here may add or subtract pieces and you can also weigh in with your own suggestions. Once you've done it perhaps you could post it up so that we are sure you have got hte message across.

 

Sorry it's late for me tonight so I will have to check it tomorrow. 

[lookinforinfo]

I'm just reading through it again and I can see it needs an alteration.

 

In he third paragraph I said "not complying with the Act which would be a pity since you would expect such a large company to be well aware of its legal responsibilities."

On rereading it could mean that the large company was Booths not PE. So if you do use any of what I said as a template it would be better to substitute Parking Eye for such a large company.

 

 

[wrecked]

Hi Dave and LFI

 

Thank you very very much indeed for your contributions.

 

The master plan is to send both - an email to the CEO and hand deliver the letter to the branch manager.

will get it done today. I will report back.

 

I am really sorry for my silence, but i have been in hibernation due to a stinking cold.

Thought it was covid but fortunately I tested negative !!

 

Thank you again

W.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Good master plan