Parking Eye - PCN - 7 minutes - Appeal rejected

[K8T]

The driver entered the car park, no signs to say full. Huge queue inside, sat on the ramp for a few minutes, decided to leave, had to wait for queue to go and then other passenger had to get out to ask people still entering to go back, to enable them to reverse to make the turn back up the exit ramp. Exit timed, 7 minutes.

Driver appealed to Parking Eye, rejected and have now appealed to POPLA. Parking Eye have sent the usual response - Driver failed to pay for parking, there was clear signage etc. etc.

The driver's defence is no signs outside to indicate full, so had to enter, the signs outside said 'see inside for terms and conditions', so they couldn't see that entering meant they had to pay. Due to the layout and the amount of people trying to get in and out, it was impossible to exit at sooner than the 7 minutes.

Is there anything else they can add please, any legal speak. They were g oing to mention the Hotchins case, where he was 30 minutes trying to park too, as this was mentioned on the POPLA appeal.

Grateful for anything. Thank you.

Edited to add that the offence was on the 2nd November and the first PCN was dated 4th December, so over 14 days, but the driver didn't know about this ruling then - should have come here sooner! So not sure this defence still applies as they have responded and appealed.

[des8]

Have you looked at the Operators Code of practice re consideration period (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/wri...ofPractice.pdf)
Annex B might assist.

Was the driver identified when appealing to PE ?

[K8T]

Have you looked at the Operators Code of practice re consideration period (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/wri...ofPractice.pdf)
Annex B might assist.

Was the driver identified when appealing to PE ?

Thank you for replying.

Yes unfortunately the driver was identified.

I intend quoting the Code of Practice 15.1 - Consideration period, which for this car park is 5 minutes.

The factors also that that should be taken into account are that due to the amount of cars queuing - it was impossible initially to move off the ramp, this had an impact on the time, and also the layout. Their photo of the car inside the car park, clearly shows that coming off the ramp and turning left to go back up the ramp, is impossible without some sort of reverse action, or forward action and turn around to come back to the exit and go right, so this would be the impact of the layout of the land.

There were no signs outside to say the car park was full, so the driver had to enter the car park to find all the cars waiting and trying to exit.

[des8]

Current Code of Practice Consideration period is Para 5.1 (15.1 typographical error?)

[K8T]

Current Code of Practice Consideration period is Para 5.1 (15.1 typographical error?)

Yes! Typo.

5.1 and then I'm going to refer to the 5.1a) - 5.1d), as whilst I was over by two minutes, there were queues inside and I couldn't really do anything.

Also, they stated that entering the car park meant I was in a contract with them and the signage was clear, although the only signage outside was to say that the terms and conditions are in the car park, so I couldn't avoid entering and thus entering the car park to find that it was full and I couldn't park. Not sure this is worth mentioning or not, or if it is just the 2 minute overstay they are concerned with.

[atticus]

Has anyone tried an argument that they failed to perform their contractual obligation to provide a parking space?

[K8T]

Has anyone tried an argument that they failed to perform their contractual obligation to provide a parking space?

I have searched a lot and not come across this. I think the only thing to can go on, is the fact that their five minutes minimum consideration time, is not enough in the circumstances and quote a) - e) of 5.1 which has things like layout, other vehicles etc. Two minutes over, bearing in mind you have to move in the car park to turn or reverse, as it is impossible to drive in, turn left and come out, as the entrance and exit are immediately next to each other making it impossible to do that manoeuvere, let alone if vehicles are behind and in front of you.

I have alluded to the fact there is no contract, because there was no space, but that is not what their challenge is, it's about the fact once you enter you enter into a contract to either park, pay or leave within the five minutes.

What is interesting, is that they say there is clear signage to say that if you enter in the car park and park or wait, you agree to pay the fee, but there isn't in fact that outside, it just says 'see inside for terms and conditions', so you have to go in to make that decision and as there is no sign outside to say the car park is full, you don't have an option to go in and come out, if it is chaos in there. That sign is also over the exit too, not the entrance, so again, not helpful, especially as it is a one way road, that approaches the car park with the entrance first on the right, so you don't effectively see the sign above the exit next to it!

[des8]

Also, they stated that entering the car park meant I was in a contract with them

In that case why is there a consideration period?

And if the judge accepts that statement you could use Atticus' argument and possibly claim for your losses (mileage charge?)

[K8T]

In that case why is there a consideration period?

And if the judge accepts that statement you could use Atticus' argument and possibly claim for your losses (mileage charge?)

I had to look that up!! Although do know the play. Strangely, they didn't mention anything about a consideration period, just 'we operate a grace period on all sites, which give the motorist time to enter a car park, park and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this period'...etc. etc. However in my case, the Grace period wouldn't apply, as I didn't park. If it did, then I would have 10 minutes (the time amount quoted in the Code) and I was only there for 7 - it doesn't make sense.

To be honest, I think it was a generic response to those who haven't paid for parking and not someone who didn't park, because they also said that 'you also stated that you do not believe that the parking charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable'. and they quote Parking Eye and Beavis. However, I didn't state this, and anyway, the Beavis case wouldn't apply, because Beavis had parked, I hadn't.

Personally, I don't think anyone looked at the amount of time, other than a ticket hadn't been obtained. Possibly even computer generated.

I've sent it off now, so lets see what POPLA come up with. Thankfully I can prove that it was a particularly busy day, due to a number of events and the large car park opposite being closed. They have also had a copy of parking ticket for parking in a car park nearby 20 minutes later.

[des8]

Rarely are appeal letters responded to by the parking companies in any meaningful way.
They all have a template letter which is their go to response.
It is not in their interest to accept appeals, as that does not generate any income

Obviously PE do not intend to comply with the Operator's Code of Practice, so you might like to complain to BPA, stressing the noncompliance, and the incorrect reference to a grace period instead of a consideration period
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/con...aint%20outcome.