The Parking Prankster has learned that ParkingEye have set times and grace periods so that disabled, elderly and other slow moving people are trapped into paying parking charges at The Range, Barrow-in-Furness. Moreover, their callous appeals process deliberately fails to respect that some members of society are not as able as others.
Luckily for the motorist, POPLA does take this into account, as the following verdict shows.
11 December 2013
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at The Range in Barrow-in-Furness, on 5 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted].
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that parking is only permitted during store hours.
It is the Appellant’s case that he parked in order to use one of the shops located on site. Having got out of his vehicle and approached the store, he found that it was closed and so returned to his vehicle and left the site. The Appellant submits that, as he is 82, this took him longer than usual.
The Operator has produced evidence that the Appellant remained in the car park for 11 minutes.
What constitutes being parked is a question of fact which will depend on the circumstances of each case and an appropriate grace period must be granted in order to give drivers opportunity to read the terms of parking and decide whether or not to park. In this case the signs produced by the Operator are not sufficient to indicate to motorists before entering the car park that parking is not permitted outside certain hours, as I am not minded to accept that the text is large enough to be read from a moving vehicle. In this case, the car park does seem to be fairly large, and certain spaces are a long distance from the shops and the nearest sign. Given the Appellant’s age, and the length of his stay, only 11 minutes, I am minded on this occasion
to accept his evidence that he left the car park as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware that he could not park.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Well done Mr Adamson, and one happy pensioner is thanking you today.
As ParkingEye were fully aware that the motorist was a pensioner, The Prankster considers that their appeals team needs retraining.
The Parking Prankster