Parking Eye ANPR PCN - overstay? - Appealed - Quay hotel, Poole **CANCELLED BY PE**

[tru.playaz]

Hi, thanks in advance. A friend parked in a car park managed by parking Eye. They arrived and was recorded by camera entering at a certain time and leaving after 2 hours and 17 minutes.

 

They have evidence They paid for 2 hours over the phone payment line by means of a bank statement and recorded phone call. 

 

This is a parking charge notice and only states the entry time and exit time along with the duration on site. There is no acknowledgement of any payment made or overstay mentioned. 

 

The date of the notice is 53 days after the event if this makes a difference and there is no mention  of any laws. 

 

My queries are there is likely to be 2 issues here but both seem to be in their favour. 

 

The 1st being the time it took between entering the site and the time the ticket was purchased was 13 minutes. This was recorded on their phone call recorder. 

Broken down this took 4.5 minutes to park, walk to the machine gather all the information walk back and call the payment line. The next 8.5 minutes was the time it took on the phone to set up a new account and make the payment to parking Eye. They record all their calls and do have this saved. 

 

All in all it took 13 minutes to pay for the ticket, and was out of their hands the length of time the procedure parking Eye has set up.

 

The second issue I see is the fact they left 5 minutes after the ticket had expired. Realistically with grace periods I don't see this holding up.

 

Clearly the automated system has not taking any human factors into account. 

 

They unfortunately have already lodged the appeal to that effect. On the basis as a consumer they have done everything they could but have been forced into this situation due to unfair practices. 

 

They paid for 2 hours but was recorded onsite for 2hrs 17mins, of which 13 of these were parking and paying. I see 5 minutes of that as being grace on arrival followed by another 5 minutes on exit. 

 

Any advice would be appreciated. 

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

also.

pay particular note to the time limits for their NTK regarding an ANPR capture and a windscreen ticket.

 

dx

 

[tru.playaz]

1 Date of the infringement 1.8.22

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 23.9.22
 

[scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide]

please do not put JPG Picture files into your post

 

3 Date received 27.9.22
 

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

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes
 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] yes
 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up no
 

7 Who is the parking company? Parking eye

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] poole Quay hotel
 

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

Popla

 

 

Uploads to follow

[tru.playaz]

pe1.pdf

[honeybee13]

Thank you for the information so far. Could you also post up the appeal to PE please?

 

HB

[tru.playaz]

Not too sure if they have a copy, they have wrote to then explaining it took that long to buy a ticket and that they should be entitled to 10 minutes grace at the end of the parking time. 

[honeybee13]

Do you think they outed the driver?

 

HB

[tru.playaz]

Not too sure it's a tricky one with the wording they used. I will upload shortly

[FTMDave]

Parking Eye are usually very "good" at respecting the law and sending their invoices out also to establish keeper liability.  In fact I think this is the first time I've seen them not do so.  Your friend is incredibly lucky!  They have not got the invoice to the motorist within 14 days.  They don't know who the driver is and they can't transfer liability to the keeper.  Nothing they can do.  Unless ...

 

... your friend has gone and told them who the driver was.  We need to know if they did this.

[lookinforinfo]

Do you know when the appeal was sent and have PE responded?

[tru.playaz]

Appeal was sent on the 27.9.22 here is the appeal,

 

I entered the car park at 13:34:32 as per your camera evidence.

 

I called the automated payment line twice at 13:39 - 4 minutes and 28 seconds after entering the car park.

 

This was After finding a space, walking to the payment machine, reading the payment procedure, making a note of the payment location and payment contact number, walking back to the van and getting my payment card.

 

I spent 7 minutes 7 seconds registering and 1 minute 23 seconds paying, as per x2 attachments of screenshots from my phone call logs and call recorder app as evidence of number called, date called and call duration. I also have the calls recorded.

 

I paid for parking for x2 hours at 13:47 this was £3.20 with card number ending 0750 - upto 15:47 as per recorded phone call and attached call logs.

 

I have attached a copy of the payment as it appears on my statement.

 

I left the car park at 15:52:05 as per your evidence. As per my 10 minute grace period I should be entitled to leave the car park by 15:57, which I did.

 

I feel I have done everything I possibly could in a reasonable amount of time to pay for my parking and leave on time. I do not feel i should be penalised and will defend the ticket.

 

 I will not enter into anymore correspondence unless it is in a court of law in front of a judge.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you.  So PE know that the keeper and driver are the same person.

PE should accept the situation and cancel the PCN. Given the evidence in the appeal, there is no chance that PE should win in Court but if they not cancel the PCN the keeper may have to go through months [at least] of spurious threats from debt collectors etc.

 

 

[tru.playaz]

Ok thanks for the reply, what sort of action should they expect? Is there a way to counter sue them to stop it ?

[dx100uk]

Sit on hands now until/unless PE ever send a letter of claim 

 

All other letters Inc those from powerless debt collector s can be simply ignored.

 

And no don't go down the road of fighting back. Worthless letter tennis 

 

Dx

[FTMDave]

If someone has never been in this position before they are going to make mistakes.  That's inevitable.  No shame in that.

 

However, a lesson for all concerned.  PE didn't know who the driver was.  To establish keeper liability the PPC has to get the invoice to the motorist within 14 days according to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.  PE failed to do so.  Your friend was high & dry.  But all that legal protection was thrown away when they wrote "I called the automated payment line twice at 13:39".

 

Your friend presumably thought that any ethical, competent company seriously interested in sensible management of a car park would cancel the invoice.  They should be after payment dodgers or motorists who park inconsiderately, not motorists who paid as soon as they possibly could.  Sadly none of that description applies to PE. 

 

Your reasoning regarding grace periods however is spot on.  Under the government Code of Practice there is a 5-minute consideration period at the start and a 10-minute grace period at the end.  Amazingly the fleecers' own trade association's CoP says the same.  but these are minimums.  Lots of factors could increase the period.  Such as the fleecers' own systems adding 8.5 minutes.  Well done your friend on recording the call.

[darrenham]

I'm a newbie to all of this.  But have they confirmed they were the driver?  Only that they entered the car park, and they made the payment?  Or is that the sticking point?

 

Sorry, just keen to learn.

[dx100uk]

well it doesn't specifically say 'I was the driver' or 'i was driving the car.'

 

in this particular instance, if that is exactly what was sent in the appeal. the repeated reference to 'i' merely indicates that 'i' did those things, they could equally have been a passenger in their car. the PPC does not know.

[FTMDave]

Well they do say "my parking" and state they paid so it could be argued they were the one to enter a contract with the PPC.

 

It's just a bad idea to write in this way and is tempting fate.  Much better to have written in the third person "the driver".  Even better not to have appealed at all.

 

BTW, what did PE write in response to the appeal?  I doubt your friend will like it.

Edited September 29, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[tru.playaz]

They are still awaiting the response, I will update as soon as possible. They have made it clear they will fight it in court if needs be

[tru.playaz]

Having not heard anything, they looked onto the parking Eye appeal portal and now says amount owed 0.00. Not too sure if they will write or of that's it done with. 

[FTMDave]

Wait for the next communication from Parking Eye.

[tru.playaz]

Good news. They received a letter cancelling the ticket. So all good. Thanks for all the help. 

[lookinforinfo]

Wow that is good news. PE must be on happy pills though I suspect it was more to do with the fact that it was their system of setting up an account that was to blame and so were not willing to risk going to Court.

 

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!