Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

[Parky1]

We received a PCN for a recent visit to Fistral Beach on 08/04/17 last. It was a hot sunny day, the car park was found to be full having passed the entry cameras, and driving down to the car park's lowest level. We persevered and eventually found a space. However, due to inconsiderate other motorists and no 'first come first served' queuing system, it took some 24 minutes, going round and round, before we eventually found a parking space. We bought a 3 hour parking ticket for £5 at 14:19 expiring at 17:19. We left at 17:11 We received a PCN dated 13/04/17 which we appealed ; this was rejected, stating that 180 minutes were purchased, versus a visit lasting 195 minutes. We have been offered a POPLA code, but wonder, without any legal knowledge, whether to reluctantly just pay the £60 or risk a potential £100 penalty later. We have no legal experience and would appreciate any advice. Thanks in advance.

[ostell]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Would this case give you heart?

And here's the case itself.

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Thanks for your reply ostell. This does provide some hope. Not sure how to put together a POPLA appeal that would meet legal scrutiny, were it to progress though. Any top tips would be greatly appreciated.

[ostell]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

You include that case in your POPLA appeal and all the other items. Search around for POPLA appeals and use those as the base. You case is that you paid for the parking and the time between the cameras is not parking.

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Many thanks for the guidance. I know nothing's guaranteed in these situations, but in your opinion, does the case you kindly provided set a good precedent and would you choose to appeal or settle the PCN if you were in my shoes?

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Hi. I appealed to POPLA but did not win. What are the options available now? Thanks in advance.

[ostell]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Put in what POPLA said in rejecting.

You can now just ignore and see if they take it further.

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

POPLA assessment and decision

28/06/2017
Verification Code

XXXXXXXXXX
Decision
SuccessfulUnsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’scase is that the appellant did not purchase sufficient parking allocation.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’scase is that they purchased a valid ticket to allow them to park for threehours. The appellant states that as it was the Easter holiday’s the car parkwas very full and it took them 24 minutes for a space to become available. Theappellant explains that there was not an automated queuing system was in placeand other drivers took advantage of any available spaces. The appellant doesnot believe that that the time between the times they entered and the time theleft can be considered as parking and a grace period should be given in thesecircumstances. The appellant states that they left eight minutes before theexpiration time on their ticket. The appellant has referred to a court caseinvolving Altrincham Count Court and a motorist, where a judge ruled in favourof the motorist.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
Theoperator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), as the appellant did notpurchase sufficient parking allocation. The appellant’s case is that theypurchased a valid ticket to allow them to park for three hours. The appellantstates that as it was the Easter holiday’s the car park was very full and ittook them 24 minutes for a space to become available. The appellant explainsthat there was not an automated queuing system was in place and other driverstook advantage of any available spaces. The appellant does not believe thatthat the time between the times they entered and the time the left can beconsidered as parking and a grace period should be given in thesecircumstances. The appellant states that they left eight minutes before theexpiration time on their ticket. The appellant has referred to a court caseinvolving Altrincham Count Court and a motorist, where a judge ruled in favourof the motorist. The operator has provided photographic evidence of theappellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:55 and exiting at 17:11. Fromthis I am satisfied the appellant had remained at the site for a total time ofthree hours and 16 minutes. The operator has provided a number of photographsdocumenting the signage at the car park in question. The signage clearlyadvertises the tariffs and corresponding costs involved. The signage states“Don’t worry if you have overstayed. In order to avoid a charge, pleasepurchase the additional time required from the payment machines, before leaving.”In relation to grace periods when leaving the car park, Section 13.2 of theBritish Parking Association Code of Practice states, “You should allow thedriver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stayor go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allowthem a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcementaction.” If the motorist remains in the car park for a period longer than is“reasonable” for the purposes of Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, wewould consider this as parking also. Upon review of the evidence, it is clearthat the car park is relatively small. As such, I do not consider 24 minutes tobe a reasonable period of time. The BPA Code of Practice states within section19:“If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff feeor by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land,they may be liable for parking charges.” When parking on private land it is theresponsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions ofparking set out in the signage at the site. After reviewing the evidence, I amsatisfied that the appellant did not purchase sufficient parking allocation. Assuch, I can conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Hi. I have received many letters from the debt collecting agency Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (DRP) since the PCN was issued in April 17 last. Now, I have a letter from Gladstones Solicitors, more or less repeating the same theme, that they think I am liable to pay the now £160

What should I do now ; I've ignored DRP throughout, but should I now reply to the solicitor's letter, stating I dispute the original PCN and all related charges and for them and their clients to stop sending me letters. I would be prepared to go to court if necessary, were the case to proceed.

Perhaps you have experience of the stages involved and when to best interject?

[ostell]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

Look at the letter. Is there a reference number that begins with 3 and where does it direct you to pay.

[Parky1]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

The reference number begins with a 4. Payment is directed to Debt Recovery Plus Ltd exclusively and not Gladstones Solicitors.

[charitynjw]

Re: Smart Parking PCN Fistral Beach, Newquay

DRP are debt collectors, so just file & ignore.