Parking eye fine

[mumtoateenger75]

H has anyone had experiences with parking eye
I have received a fine and I don't believe it's justified
But is it worth fighting

Rossetti is right. Judges often don't get it right.
The BPA compulsory code of practice, which the Beavis judgment said was akin to statute, provides for a 10 minute grace period for precisely this reason.

You should have won that case but perhaps you didn't argue the code of practice point.

Judges usually get it right.

Magistrates are another matter.

As I have already pointed out, the grace period in the current BPA Code is 5 minutes, NOT 10 minutes.

prh not in parking cases they don't.
You are incorrect about the grace period. Perhaps you are looking at an old version of the code. Here is the relevant part of the current code.

The whole point of the grace period is to give you time to find a space, manoeuvre into it, check any signage, get your change, find a machine and possibly queue at it before you can pay. Same thing at the end of a period of parking. Sometimes it takes a few minutes to get to the exit. This is the whole point of the grace period, to avoid penalising someone who has in all likelihood not exceeded the time they've paid for.

We drove into one of their car parks to meet someone, drove straight out again and repeated that 3 times- on the third time they’d arrived and they got into the car, then we drove out again. We didn’t actually park in a space at all. We were fined £100.

The law is pretty straightforward so I'm surprised if judges get it wrong. There are very few circumstances in which a parking company should lose.

You are correct that I was looking at an old version of the BPA Code. I disagree with your characterisation of the Supreme Court judgement. They did not say it was akin to statute but they did point out that an operator which failed to comply wouldn't be able to get records from the DVLA, making it effectively compulsory. However, note that the relevant clause of the BPA Code in the OP's case (13.4 - this is the clause that applies when the driver overstays, whereas the clauses you have reproduced are about the grace period when the driver arrives, which is not relevant to the OP) says that the grace period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. The fact that the clause uses "should" (twice!) rather than "must" means this particular requirement is optional. The operator does not have to allow a grace period when the driver overstays. Even if they do, the grace period can be shorter than 10 minutes.

I got a bloody ccj

Beavis says that in the absence of regulations made by the Secretary of State pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act then the code of practice should be treated as such regulation. Many people have successfully argued that this is the case, including me.

.

I avoid parking in the big parking eye shopping centre car park near me as I've heard they're bastards.

My strategy with private parking tickets is to ignore the debt colkector letters but pay up if I get a 'notice before claim' from the original parking co.

Apparently they have to send this before they can take you to court. It's a sort of final warning. Most parking cos only take a fraction to court, they make enough money from those who pay up earlier in the process.

The law is pretty straightforward so I'm surprised if judges get it wrong.

People get lots of things are straightforwards wrong all the time. Pure statistics alone includes judges, Prime Ministers, and voters ....

There are very few circumstances in which a parking company should lose.

But I suspect a lot of those very few cases arise when said parking company is doing things on the cheap and doesn't follow the straightforward procedures involved.