Author Topic: ParkingEye PCN - Overstay within grace period - Milton Country Park, Cambridge  (Read 593 times)

0 Members and 90 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi,

Received a PCN from Parkingeye. I am registered keeper, driver not me.
ANPR shows 2hours 14 minutes between entrance (14:48:31) and exit (17:02:34).
Driver (not me) paid for 2 hours parking at 14:56 (timestamp from Google Wallet). One machine was broken + queue.
Am I correct in thinking first appeal should be based off the exit time being within minimum 10 minutes consideration period under BPA Code of Practice? 14:56 + 2h10m = 17:06.

Thank you!


Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


The grace period is probably 10 minutes, therefore the paid parking plus grace period is 4 minutes short of the duration of parking. Consideration period is separate, it's time to consider the contract, paying for parking is considered to accept the contract terms so the consideration period is not relevant in this case.

My mistake, I should've written grace period not consideration.

Does paid parking period start from time of entrance or time of payment?

Time of entry, otherwise what's to stop a motorist paying just before they leave? That said there's often debate about what constitutes parking, does looking for a space count as parking? Either way the camera operated car parks will start the clock when you enter and finish when you leave.

On the day it took a while to park and get a ticket.
The receipt prints a time, which reasonably could be expected as the time the parking period starts from (below).
Driver was also accompanied by 2 kids 2 and under and so took a while to get into the car and going.

I've appealed as today was last day with discounted penalty.

If the appeal is rejected by ParkingEye, what's the likelihood of POPLA accepting the parking time + grace period / extended period with kids argument?

https://imgur.com/a/VMNb3FW

No idea what you may have blabbed in your appeal to try and keep the "mugs discount" but if you have revealed the drivers identity, you may have wasted the best opportunity to get this cancelled. Did you reveal the drivers identity, inadvertently or otherwise?

The land in question, Milton Country Park, 'may' be land under statutory control (Byelaws) and therefore not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. It is not fully clear and you would have to do a little bit of digging to clarify.

A 2002/2003 document titled "Fishing at Milton Country Park: Information for Anglers" states:​

"All Country Park byelaws must be adhered to."

Additionally, minutes from a 2005 Milton Country Park Advisory Group meeting indicate discussions about enforcing dog-related byelaws:​

"AGREED that advice be sought from the new Head of Legal Services when in post on his views of prosecuting offenders of the dog byelaws in the Park." ​

These references imply the existence of byelaws governing activities within the park. However, the current status and specifics of these byelaws are not detailed in the available sources.​

Implications for Parking Enforcement:

If byelaws are in effect at Milton Country Park, the land would be considered under statutory control. This designation affects the applicability of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) regarding parking enforcement. Specifically, PoFA's provisions for holding vehicle keepers liable for unpaid parking charges on "relevant land" would not apply if the land is governed by statutory byelaws.​

I recommend that you try and ascertain the current applicability of byelaws and if there are any currently enacted byelaws on parking enforcement.

Contact the Park Management: Get in touch with Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust, the charity managing Milton Country Park, for information on any existing byelaws. They can be contacted via email at mcp@cambridgesportlakes.org.uk or by phone at 01223 420060.

Consult the Local Authority. South Cambridgeshire District Council is worthwhile to inquire about any byelaws enacted for the park.​ Clarifying the existence and scope of byelaws will provide a definitive insight into the statutory status of Milton Country Park and inform the appropriate approach to parking enforcement under current legislation.​
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Contact the Park Management: Get in touch with Cambridge Sport Lakes Trust, the charity managing Milton Country Park, for information on any existing byelaws. They can be contacted via email at mcp@cambridgesportlakes.org.uk or by phone at 01223 420060.
When doing so, I wouldn't mention that you have received a PCN.

Thanks for the advice.
I haven't identified the driver.
I've emailed the country park. Will follow up with further emails to the council as suggested.

Thanks again.

Hmm too late....

Hmm too late....
What did you say?

The reason I suggested avoiding mention of a PCN is that if it is obvious that you're asking about byelaws in order to get out of paying a parking charge (when they are the ones who have brought in said parking company), they may be less likely to provide you the information you are looking for.

Didn't mention bye laws. Complained and asked if they can rescind it given the time stamp from the receipt + grace period.

From the council:

I hope the following will answer your query:

  • As far as we are aware of, these bylaws are still in effect
  • A copy of the byelaws is attached.
  • We do not hold any information or plan regarding the land/boundaries for Milton Country Park and there was nothing with the byelaws.

https://imgur.com/a/Uqs4xMJ

The documents confirm that Milton Country Park is land under statutory control, specifically regulated by byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968. These byelaws were:

• Made by South Cambridgeshire District Council;
• Confirmed by the Secretary of State on 5 April 1994;
• Came into operation on 2 May 1994.

Key Implications:

• The bylaws prohibit or regulate the use of vehicles within the park, subject to exceptions such as spaces set aside by the Council (see section 6).
• Any parking enforcement regime operated within Milton Country Park must be consistent with these statutory byelaws.

As a result, Milton Country Park is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning:

• The Keeper of a vehicle cannot be held liable for any parking charge under PoFA.
• Only the driver at the time of the alleged incident could potentially be pursued, subject to other defences.

So, has there been any correspondence with ParkingEye by the Keeper where they have blabbed that they were also the driver? In other words, does parkingEye know that the recipient of the NtK was also the driver?

If not, then you can send the following as your initial appeal. It will likely be rejected but they will give you a POPLA code and then you can send a copy of the bylaws with your POPLA appeal.

Send the following appeal to ParkingEye:

Quote
APPEAL FROM THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Re: Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Date of Notice: [Insert Date]

Dear ParkingEye,

I am appealing the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the Registered Keeper. Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) states that the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). This is categorically incorrect and a serious misrepresentation.

The location in question—Milton Country Park—is not “relevant land” under PoFA. The land is subject to statutory byelaws made under Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, confirmed by the Secretary of State and brought into force on 2 May 1994. These byelaws remain in effect and are enforceable.

Accordingly:

• Your NtK cannot lawfully transfer liability to the Registered Keeper, as PoFA Schedule 4 does not apply to land under statutory control.

By asserting otherwise, you are in clear breach of Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which explicitly states:

“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”

As such, this constitutes a breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA. The data accessed from the DVLA may only be used in accordance with the law and the Code of Practice. Since you are not entitled to pursue the Keeper, and the NtK misrepresents liability, your use of my personal data is unlawful.

I therefore require:

• immediate cancellation of this PCN;
• Written confirmation that my data will be erased from your systems under your obligations in data protection law;
• If you refuse to cancel, a POPLA code so the matter may be escalated.

If I do not receive confirmation of cancellation, I will escalate the matter to the DVLA and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and lodge a formal complaint with the British Parking Association for breach of the PPSCoP.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
[Address or email, if required]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

As an aside, kudos to S. Cambs. council for a remarkably quick FOI response.

Hello, I've just received the same. My wife took our boys there during Easter, She paid £3.75 for 30mins  to 2hrs, spent some time meeting her friend, lost track of time and left. She was 30mins over and now we have a bill of £100.00 plus £10.00 admin charge from our lease company. She said there was no option to extend  your payment either? Meaning she'd have to pay an additional £6.00

Is the letter above applicable, if I was the registered owner and I wasn't there?