Parking charge notice post Beavis

[WGGrace]

My daughter recently got a parking charge notice for stopping in a car park in Uxbridge for 90 seconds. They want £100 (or £60 if she just pays up without a fight).
The parking company rejected her appeal out of hand (no surprise there), citing the recent decision in ParkingEye v Beavis. A friend who has had recent experience of this (but not the same car park) says that Beavis does not apply here because this is a car park where you have to pay - and the one in Beavis was free. He cites a case called ParkingEye v Cargius.
I have had a look at this and superficially this looks to be correct. However Iam not a lawyer. Any help or views appreciated.
There are other arguments I could run but if Beavis does not apply, that would appear to be the end of it. However, by way of example, the parking company here have also put up signs saying that they will clamp offenders. I thought this was illegal. Would a photo of one of their signs help her case).

[mystery1]

Re: Parking charge notice post Beavis

It is illegal for private companies to clamp.

90 seconds ? That would breach the grace periods of the code of practice. For a BPA company this means a win at popla. For an IPC member it means they'll probably reject a secondary appeal.

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...land-and-Wales

Can you sanitise the ticket and post it ?

M1

[WGGrace]

Re: Parking charge notice post Beavis

If I have understood you correctly you appear to be saying that the BPA and IPC operate to completely different sets of rules - where, on the same set of facts, one appeal is accepted and one rejected. Is it simply a case that all IPC appeals get rejected, regardless?
This lot are a company called Park Direct; they appear to be a member of IPC. Just had a quick look at their Code of Practice. This requires a grace period - defined as "a sufficient amount of time" to read signs etc and then make "an informed decision" about whether to stay or go. This is admittedly pretty subjective but both the BPA and Hillingdon Council say their grace period is ten minutes. Given the length of the parking notice verbiage, size of type etc you would certainly need a couple of minutes to read and digest before driving away.
Just following up on my main question - do you have any experience or knowledge of how ParkingEye v Cargius (the case that says Beavis does not apply in paid car parks) plays out in practice with these appeals or in recent county court cases?
My daughter still has the PCN. I am proceeding on the basis that it meets the needs of whatever it has to comply with.
Any help or input much appreciated.

[ostell]

Re: Parking charge notice post Beavis

Lots of companies fail to meet the requirements of POFA. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted As it was an ANPR detection then pargraph 9 could be your friend. The PCN should have everything that is required. for example required period of parking is not the time between the cameras as the driver was still driving at that time.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking charge notice post Beavis

Just following up on my main question - do you have any experience or knowledge of how ParkingEye v Cargius (the case that says Beavis does not apply in paid car parks) plays out in practice with these appeals or in recent county court cases?

It hasn't been refuted as such but has been ignored at the secondary appeals stage, although not 1 assessor has specifically said it is incorrect or over ruled by the supreme court verdict.

M1