ParkingEye vs Mrs Janice Rowan. C4FC524M Banbury 21/06/2016
Facts of the case
The defendant was timed at 2 hours 10 minutes 48 seconds from entrance to exit at Peartree Services, Oxford, which included time spent at the petrol station. The actual time parked would have therefore been well within the British Parking Association grace periods, including the grace period at arrival and the mandatory 10 minute grace period on exit.
Judgment
The judgment found that the signage at Peartree services Oxford was not reasonable or transparent. The numerous signs stating "two hours free parking" would lead the reasonable person to assume it was time spent parking in the car park and that did not include time spent in the petrol station or associated services as ParkingEye were claiming.
Nobody from parking eye attended apart from a legal person externally employed.
Judgment was swift and contained criticism of the claimant's largely irrelevant automated bundle.
Prankster Note
The Prankster considers that cases like this should never make court. They bring the parking charges industry into disrepute, clog up the court system and cause stress and inconvenience to motorists. The time spent was well within the limits mandated by the code of practice and should have been picked up by ParkingEye's infamous '19 point checking system'. The ANPR cameras are clearly sited in the wrong place if they include time spent in the petrol station. Lastly ParkingEye's legal team should have picked this up once the defence was filed and should have dropped the claim at that point.
Happy Parking
Putting the fun back into parking
Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims
Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences
Wouldn't it be interesting if Parking Eye were directed to describe exactly what their 19 point checking system actually consisted of?
ReplyDeleteWell they failed the 19 point check twice as I am due to defend another ticket soon, date still to be set but defence filed and Parkingeye have indicated they want to proceed. Be interesting if they drop the second case in light of the judgement as their defence is identical, automated and completely irrelevant to the defence submitted.
ReplyDeleteIf the 2 hours stay is for actually parking (i.e. the time one is stopped in the parking space) then the ANPR timers will not indicate that time 'parked' EVER. Since there is always the time getting to and from the parking space included in the time registered by the cameras. This is apart from any 'grace'period of time.
ReplyDeleteThe time registered by the cameras also includes transmission time of the pictures taken by the camera to the server ( where the time is actually recorded). These times of transmission are not necessarily the same for both pictures - that will depend on how busy the network is at the time of transmission etc.
If any contract is made between the parking company and the motorist the parking company cannot have it both ways. The contract either starts when the motorist is first parked - and sees the terms and conditions OR when the camera takes the picture on entry. Since the parking company relies on the time registered by the cameras, one can only conclude that they believe the contract starts when the picture is taken.
Only those terms and conditions known to the motorist when the contract is made form part of the contract - this is fundamental to contract law. Therefore, if the picture taken, indicates the start time of the contract the signage must by that time have communicated the details of the contract to the motorist. It is then incumbent on the Parking Company to prove this tranfer of information, not only could happen, but did happen.
Getting to & from the parking space is a component of the grace period not in addition to it. The grace period is meant to cover extra time legitimately spent on normal activities associated with parking e.g. purchasing a ticket or reading the T&Cs or getting change
DeleteTheir entry signs make no declaration of the entry time being the start period for timing the stay. What we have is a compromised contract when a driver who may arrive on site to find no empty spaces has to wait for a good length of time before one becomes available. During that time he has no knowledge of him being timed as he wouldn't have seen a sign at that point.
ReplyDeleteTheir entry signs make no declaration of the entry time being the start period for timing the stay. What we have is a compromised contract when a driver who may arrive on site to find no empty spaces has to wait for a good length of time before one becomes available. During that time he has no knowledge of him being timed as he wouldn't have seen a sign at that point.
ReplyDeleteVery little thought or human intervention is put into PE court claim as it's basically an automated process. Anyone at PE with half a brain on reading the particulars of this case would have realised that it was impossible for them to win on the question of the grace period as defined in the BPA Ltd Code of Practice which was held as effectively binding by the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeletePresumably given the volume of cases it's more cost effective for PE to just plough ahead with the unthinking automated process because 9 times out of 10 the motorist either coughs up or ignores or is ignorant of the case & PE get a default judgement.
I'm glad a judge has had the good sense to see through this falsification.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Trading Standards look unwilling to take PE on over this and rely on the courts to do what they should be doing.
Most defendants just give up before court as they don't have the where with all to deal with the complex paperwork involved and legal help is too expensive.
Where appropriate this judgement should be used on POPLA appeals to get the message across, parking time is not stay time.
I wonder if the Head Honcho of Capita ever reads this and other forums to see how Capita's £57.5million 'investment' in P/E is performing?
ReplyDeleteDue Diligence? Whats that?
crapita do not care about "Due Diligence" , only the money they make .
Deletefor every one case that gets to court , 1000 pay up!
The BPA state no time or even a minimum time for a grace period in their code. The Beavis case was before legislation changed when authorities were made to observe a minimum grace period of 10 minutes. parking eye made no statement as to their actual grace period for Peartree in fact they blanked over it in their documents submitted to court. 48 seconds to negotiate two zebra crossings drive around or use a petrol station and read all their signage.
ReplyDeleteClause 13.4 - This Clause will be extended to say ‘If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes’.
ReplyDeletehttp://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/bpa-update-code-of-practice.html
The BOA Ltd CoP defines a grace period either at the beginning (to read T&Cs & decide to leave if you don't agree) OR 10 minutes at the end (but only when parking is permitted). There are not two grace periods that can be combined.
ReplyDeleteNot as I read it.
Delete13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the speci c grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
2hrs 10 mins and 48seconds
Deletecar park = defined land where cars park , however PE have sighted their exit camera on the motorway access rd , NOT the car park exit , mandatory 10 mins grace + time to drive from car park and pass ANPR camera would cover the overstay