Printfriendly

Tuesday 9 February 2016

ParkingEye charge pensioners for being stuck in a queue

This article in the Mirror details how ParkingEye hit two pensioners for over half the basic standard weekly pension (£115.95).  The pensioners were charged £85 for being stuck in a queue trying to leave St Peter's Retail Park in Mansfield. The park allows 45 minutes free parking and the pensioners were 15 minutes over the time because the car park was gridlocked. The traffic lights changed 4 times before they were able to exit.

The British Parking association code of practice requires a minimum 10 minute grace period for leaving a car park, and an unspecified grace period on arrival to park, find the signage and read it. The Prankster considers that a 5 minute grace period to do this is not unreasonable, especially considering the motorist was in his 70s. ParkingEye will therefore have been in  breach of the code of practice for issuing this charge.

The couple panicked and paid at the reduced rate of £50 because the letter arrived only a few days before the discount expired and the full amount became payable.

ParkingEye's signage and cameras are currently installed illegally at the park, and they were ordered to apply for planning permission on 26 January 2016.

The park has been blighted by ParkingEye for a long time. In 2012, Councillors passed the following resolution.
Resolution

1. This Council condemns the practices of Parking Eye Ltd at St Peter’s Retail Park particularly in their use of CCTV number plate recognition as they discriminate against disable users of the retail park, impose extortionate charges upon shoppers using the park and have failed, through inadequate signage, to properly advise users of the retail park as to the terms and conditions of parking.
2. This Council through its Managing Director shall write to Parking Eye Ltd requiring that:
Parking Eye Ltd abandons the number plate recognition system being used to monitor times when shoppers enter and leave the car park and revert to a pay and display ticketing system or adopt a pay on exit scheme
Parking Eye Ltd grants an amnesty to all those who have been sent penalty charge notices demanding the payment of unlawful and unjustified fines since taking over the management of the car park
Parking Eye Ltd refunds the fines they have collected to date since taking over the management of the car park
That the company sets up an appeals system run by a third party so that appeals against future alleged breaches of the parking regulations are dealt with fairly.
3. That the Managing Director shall write to the owners and managing agents of the retail park informing them that they expect Parking Eye Ltd to meet the Council’s requirements as set out above to make the car park user friendly to encourage, not discourage people to visit the retail park.
Proposed by :- Councillor M Lee
Seconded by:- Councillor J Bosnjak
Supported by:- Councillor S Ward

Sadly this does not seem to have been followed through.

The Prankster has not asked Lord Neuberger to comment, but if did, he would probably have said all the couple needed was a watch. And a bulldozer.

ParkingEye recommended to the Supreme Court that people who do not like being charged by them avoid their car parks. The Prankster thinks this is sound advice, but sadly for Mr and Mrs Burditt this will have come too late.


If you think that pensioners should not be treated in this way for matters outside their control, and that £85 is far too high a charge compared to the standard pension, then consider signing Barry Beavis's petition, asking the government to regulate private parking.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

39 comments:

  1. A post on pepipoo today (9th Feb) reported success at POPLA on the basis that signage at an ANPR controlled car park was inadequate because it did not state that the parking time started from the time of entry into the car park. It was a new winning pointbat POPLA but one which would apply to most ANPR car parks. Presumably, it can also be argued that unless the signage also makes clear that sufficient time must be allowed, within the free time allowance to leave the car park as well, any perceived contract could be nul and void.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cant see it. Got any more details?

      Delete
    2. I posted it and thank the prankster for all his tips on finally getting PE off my back, as to the court case that referred it to POPLA I'm not sure what happens with that, wasted a day visiting court

      Delete
    3. I was after pepipoo link,can you help?

      Delete
    4. It's this thread, decision at post #66 and reproduced below by woodchip35,

      http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=101390&st=60

      Delete
    5. Thank you as I note that some ASDA signs do not state that the clock is ticking as you enter and leave!!!

      Delete
  2. http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-news/suspected-heart-attack-patient-hit-with-100-parking-fine-for-overstaying-while-undergoing-emergency-tests-1-7723118

    ReplyDelete
  3. DecisionSuccessful
    Assessor NameLxxx Bxxxx
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant parked for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is inadequate. He states that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. Further, the appellant states that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is a breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008. The appellant has questioned the accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology and what that data is used for.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    Within his grounds for appeal, the appellant has raised ANPR usage. The appellant has quoted section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice that states motorists must be ‘informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’. As such, I must consider whether the signage at the location is sufficient to inform motorists that ANPR technology is being used and what it is used for. Further, within Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it is stated: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. Within its response, the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the location. Having considered this, while I note that it advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. As it does not advise motorists that the parking time begins immediately upon entry, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to meet the minimum standards set out within Sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore, I can only conclude that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and so while I note the appellants other grounds for appeal, these do not require further consideration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is queued for a blog all of its own. PE referred to POPLA by the courts

      Delete
    2. This is the first 'new' POPLA I have seen and is better than I was expecting. I particularly like how the assessor has applied the BPA code how the BPA should be applying it.

      Delete
    3. Just wait until the next revision of the COP when this section is suddenly removed.

      Delete
    4. They could soon end up with a blank sheet of paper! Then PPCs can legitimately ignore anything it contains!

      Delete
    5. I've had a sneak peek at the upcoming version 7,

      18.3 SIGNAGE: There should be clear, easy to read signage throughout the parking area, but not too much as it could make the area unsightly and cluttered. Also, selfish drivers might steal the signs for scrap. Selfish drivers are not to be trusted you know.

      21.1 ANPR cameras are very good at catching selfish drivers and we're always praising this wonderful technology. Selfish drivers should know that this technology is being used and if they fail to see the cameras on the way in then quite frankly they shouldn't be driving and should become selfish pedestrians. They should also know what the data captured by the ANPR cameras is used for. You can send them a PCN, that'll let them know what it's used for (and how selfish they are).

      Delete
    6. “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

      PE response

      “car park monitored by ANPR systems”

      Now, maybe you me and the Prankster use 'ANPR' in our everyday language, but the average man/woman on the street wouldn't have a clue what the abbreviations stand for. How on earth can an abbreviation be described as 'legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for putting this up. very useful

      Delete
  4. One wonders if Bevis had used this argument he may of been successful? There were other killer points raised in the POPLA appeal that I think would of also proved fatal to PE claim, but were not needed...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe so..............or maybe not. I am pretty certain that Barry's case would have succeeded at POPLA as is. All the principles used had enjoyed previous success. Barry was a little green back then and followed outdated forum advice which was to ignore, culminating in a court appearance. I am equally certain that he would have been successful had the case been heard by another Judge, again previous court successes with the arguments used.

      Conversely, a whole raft of other points could have been used in the Beavis case and every Judge from Moloney to Neuberger might have still ruled for Parking(sh)Eye(sters). We are where we are but we can still move forward in demonstrating how the Beavis Judgement does not generally apply. There are many counter arguments already formulated and doubtless many more to come.

      Delete
  5. Has enforcement on private land been changed or is it still the same as before? I mean has enforcement companies being more succesful now in bringing a cleim in their own name or is it still the land owner that has to bring the claim, what has changed please?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This all depends on the exact wording of the contracts both with the landowner and motorist. However in practice the operators are allowed to get away with taking the p*** and not providing any evidence

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you say evidence do you mean that the operator is withholding the wording within the contract between operator and land owner? Do you have the exact wording between operator and motorist which i presume is the T&C on the signage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Indeed, it is the operator and landowner contract which is important.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And they are refusing to disclose this contract even to the judge?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have been reading the cases regarding parkingeye and see that they have been dismissed, these cases are from 2015 are there any cases where they have won in 2016

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ParkingEye have both won and lost cases in 2016

      Delete
  11. Yes. Some judges dismiss cases because of this. Other judges do not care

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do you have a winning case i can read please as it seems one judge dismisses and another allows, there must been some part of the contract or wording that they changed for a judge to allow parkingeye to win.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is no magic formula. The small claims process is a lottery, and everything depends on the whim of the judge you get on the day. ParkingEye always hide the contract from the judge because it is fatal to their case. Some judges allow this. Others do not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So basically 1 judge dismisses on the ground that the land owner brings the case and 1 judge allows but the circumstances are the same for the land owner and operator?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Exactly - there is no consistency in the small claims court.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hasn't that 1 judge created a precedent and that all cases must now demand the landowner must bring the case? Is there a precedent?

    ReplyDelete
  17. There are no precedents in the small claims court - only higher courts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes sorry i got a little mixed up there between small claims and the higher courts.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is there a case where parkingeye have won please or any other operator

    ReplyDelete
  20. ParkingEye have 5-10 cases a day in court so simply by the law of averages there will be several where they won.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do you have a case where they have won or point me in the right direction please.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They won one at Chippenham last year. I don't have the claim number. What do you actually need to know for?

    ReplyDelete