Not having their car park overrun by people parking there and not using the hotel. and yes, I find it hard to believe it would be a problem there but apparently it was.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Northampton supercharger - BE WARNED !!
- Thread starter H.Dickinson
- Start date
> I am going to pay as am going through clearance for a new job and don't want to risk any issues
Fight the scoundrels….no relevance to clearance. At least cause them some costs dealing with you. Appeal as per Money Saving Expert guide.
That signage pole can read a little ambiguously in one light. Does that top one permit/exempt EVs? (And what’s with the Tesla logo being associated with this shady practice?)
Fight the scoundrels….no relevance to clearance. At least cause them some costs dealing with you. Appeal as per Money Saving Expert guide.
That signage pole can read a little ambiguously in one light. Does that top one permit/exempt EVs? (And what’s with the Tesla logo being associated with this shady practice?)
Last edited:
Rustybkts
Member
My guess is that these parking vulture companies have a sales person/team who actively promote their practices and sign up businesses with a percentage of the profits as a carrot.
Getting a chain of hotels is added value as they will all sign up.
I hope that in time these legalised thugs charging a weeks food bill for a few minutes overstay/not logging in or in the OP's case legitimate parking will be curtailed and so called penalties reduced but I'm hardly going to hold my breath.
What I really object to is the contradictory / multiple signage.
Normal Tesla notices at the site state max time allowed is 30 mins. In my case I stuck to that very closely. I didn't search for another sign with a more demanding time constraint or telling me that the Tesla time limit was subject to me signing in within 10 mins!
As an owner with free charging, I believe Tesla has already undertaken to give me unimpeded access to their chargers, so the whole idea of imposing limits as though I don't have the right to be there is crazy.
I see it that Tesla has given me right of access to free charging and presumably paid the hotel or other landlord for the privilege of locating the chargers on their property. The hotel is completely double dipping if they then effectively re-monetise the same resource by entering the deal with Parking Eye. At the very least, they should have excluded Tesla cars from being fined while using the chargers.
Normal Tesla notices at the site state max time allowed is 30 mins. In my case I stuck to that very closely. I didn't search for another sign with a more demanding time constraint or telling me that the Tesla time limit was subject to me signing in within 10 mins!
As an owner with free charging, I believe Tesla has already undertaken to give me unimpeded access to their chargers, so the whole idea of imposing limits as though I don't have the right to be there is crazy.
I see it that Tesla has given me right of access to free charging and presumably paid the hotel or other landlord for the privilege of locating the chargers on their property. The hotel is completely double dipping if they then effectively re-monetise the same resource by entering the deal with Parking Eye. At the very least, they should have excluded Tesla cars from being fined while using the chargers.
I received a PCN for using this site. Had no idea that I had to input car reg at the hotel. It was only my second time charging the car at a supercharger.
Anyway I appealed to POPLA and was actually successful!
This was the assessment :
The appellant’s case is that they were charging their Tesla this day. They advise they did not see any signs or ignore any terms this day. They state the terms were not obvious [that they needed to register inside the hotel] and that this was their first use of the charger on this site. The appellant states the bays were marked for charging and not use of the hotel. They point out they had to pay Tesla for the electricity they used. The appellant has provided evidence of charging in support of their grounds.
It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the PCN was issued because the appellant did not input their vehicle registration mark (VRM) when using the charging bays this day. The signs advise that: “Motorists using TESLA chargers must enter…registration into the terminal at reception”. I also note the operator has provided the appellant’s evidence of their use of the charger within their case file. At a car park such as this, parking validation is linked to the vehicles seen to be on site by provision of a full and correct VRM at reception. I cannot consider the operator was incorrect to issue this PCN in the first instance because the appellant has confirmed they did not know about, or complete, this action on the day in question. However, when a motorist provides evidence that they did use the site legitimately the operator must follow the guidance set out by the British Parking Association’s Code (BPA) of practice, specifically section 17. Paragraph 17.4 of the BPA code states: “The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas” and goes on to explain the difference between “Minor Keying Errors” and “Major Keying Errors”. In relation to Major Keying Errors paragraph 17.4 advises that “In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist … were a legitimate user of the car park... It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges …therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified...” The operator’s evidence confirms that an offer of £20 was not made to the appellant and I must consider the operator has not demonstrated they have complied with the obligations set out in section 17 of the BPA code. As such, I am not satisfied they have pursued this PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds and comments in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.
Anyway I appealed to POPLA and was actually successful!
This was the assessment :
The appellant’s case is that they were charging their Tesla this day. They advise they did not see any signs or ignore any terms this day. They state the terms were not obvious [that they needed to register inside the hotel] and that this was their first use of the charger on this site. The appellant states the bays were marked for charging and not use of the hotel. They point out they had to pay Tesla for the electricity they used. The appellant has provided evidence of charging in support of their grounds.
It is the parking operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that it has issued a PCN correctly. In this case the PCN was issued because the appellant did not input their vehicle registration mark (VRM) when using the charging bays this day. The signs advise that: “Motorists using TESLA chargers must enter…registration into the terminal at reception”. I also note the operator has provided the appellant’s evidence of their use of the charger within their case file. At a car park such as this, parking validation is linked to the vehicles seen to be on site by provision of a full and correct VRM at reception. I cannot consider the operator was incorrect to issue this PCN in the first instance because the appellant has confirmed they did not know about, or complete, this action on the day in question. However, when a motorist provides evidence that they did use the site legitimately the operator must follow the guidance set out by the British Parking Association’s Code (BPA) of practice, specifically section 17. Paragraph 17.4 of the BPA code states: “The Code recognises that keying errors can be grouped into 2 main areas” and goes on to explain the difference between “Minor Keying Errors” and “Major Keying Errors”. In relation to Major Keying Errors paragraph 17.4 advises that “In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist … were a legitimate user of the car park... It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges …therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified...” The operator’s evidence confirms that an offer of £20 was not made to the appellant and I must consider the operator has not demonstrated they have complied with the obligations set out in section 17 of the BPA code. As such, I am not satisfied they have pursued this PCN correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. Whilst I note the appellant has raised other grounds and comments in this case, as I have allowed the appeal for the reasons above, I will not be considering them.
Rustybkts
Member
Well done. I also appealed once for a minor overstay at a car park monitored by these vampires (nothing to do with charging) and won.
What really gets my back up is the huge penalty they charge you (its not a fine). If it was around £20 I would probably never go to appeal.
These parking regulations need to be seriously overhauled, especially with the steep increase in EV sales.
Lidl is a case in point. They do not stop cars using their car park when closed but are installing Rapids in most of them so how are we to put the car reg number into a terminal locked behind doors?
What really gets my back up is the huge penalty they charge you (its not a fine). If it was around £20 I would probably never go to appeal.
These parking regulations need to be seriously overhauled, especially with the steep increase in EV sales.
Lidl is a case in point. They do not stop cars using their car park when closed but are installing Rapids in most of them so how are we to put the car reg number into a terminal locked behind doors?
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Sadly there are a number of Supercharger sites were car reg has to be recorded at reception, or similar.
These are noted on SatNav ... but you have to check, it doesn't alert you on arrival.
Click on the PIN for the Supercharger site and the INFO will include the information. But if you are driving along when you select the PIN you most likely won't have read it ...
... so perhaps it needs new behaviour to deliberately do this on arrival, to check if anything has been recently changed too.
Stopped at the new Enfield Supercharger in Ireland last week. There was a sign there saying "Get a receipt from the toll for free re-entry within 3 hours" ... bit late, by then, to have got the receipt when I had come through the toll booth!!
These are noted on SatNav ... but you have to check, it doesn't alert you on arrival.
Click on the PIN for the Supercharger site and the INFO will include the information. But if you are driving along when you select the PIN you most likely won't have read it ...
... so perhaps it needs new behaviour to deliberately do this on arrival, to check if anything has been recently changed too.
Stopped at the new Enfield Supercharger in Ireland last week. There was a sign there saying "Get a receipt from the toll for free re-entry within 3 hours" ... bit late, by then, to have got the receipt when I had come through the toll booth!!
Similar threads
- Article
