**WON** ParkingEye

[patelmas01]

Re: ParkingEye

it's got to be worth a try :nod: xx

Thanks guys. I've now submitted it.

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye

Message from M1 saying "to try".

Presumably to do with the above.

Nice and subtle. I was trying not to let others see i had sneaked on so they didn't think i was ignoring them

M1

[Nibbler]

Re: ParkingEye

You probably need to be less subtle when asking for more subtlety.

[patelmas01]

Re: ParkingEye

Nice and subtle. I was trying not to let others see i had sneaked on so they didn't think i was ignoring them

M1

Success Guys,

I won my POPLA appeal, the decision came in today and reads as follows:

"Assessor summary of operator casethe operator states that by either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, the Parking Charge is now payable.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not submitted the charge to be a genuine pre estimate of loss. The charge being a penalty is unenforceable, the Parking Charge of £100 is disproportionately high and the charge is unfair. The appellant states that the motorist assumes the risk of having to pay the Parking Charge if they overstay by even one minute and this is amplified because the car park is governed by ANPR cameras and the max stay starts when they enter and exit the site and not when they enter and leave a parking bay. The appellant states that the operator does not own nor have any interest or assignment of the title of the land in question. The appellant states that the signage does not meet minimum standards as set out by the BPA code of practice and it was dark and the signs were not illuminated and were not seen and there was not adequate signage on entering and throughout the car park. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012, the airport grounds are covered by byelaws and not relevant land and the keeper is not invited to pay.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator uses ANPR cameras to monitor the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site in question at 00:09 on the date in question, before leaving 11 minutes later at 00:20. This site is a paid car park, as detailed on the signage present. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions in force at the site. These state; “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week”. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions in force at the site, by parking their vehicle. The appellant states that it was dark and the signs were not illuminated and were not seen and there was not adequate signage on entering and throughout the car park. It is evident, due to the time present on the ANPR images of the appellant entering and exiting the car park, that the appellant did not enter or exit the car park in daylight hours. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver of the appellant’s vehicle did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with the operator in showing that a contravention of the terms and conditions took place. The operator has failed to provide evidence of the signage present at the site in darkness, I therefore cannot evidence that the appellant was able to see or read the signage present at the site in question during the time they spent at the site. Therefore, overall I am not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, but as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have disregarded them. Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed."

So thanks for all your help. I'm over the moon!

Best