IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
IPC appeal rejected, Excel Parking. Ticket purchased with previous car's reg.
onthego
Posts: 67 Forumite
A friend accidentally entered her previous car's registration details in Excel Parking Ebbw Vale when paying for her ticket. Paid full 40p charge, parked appropriately, left within time limit.
IPC appeal on this basis has been rejected, despite her providing a photo of the ticket, and evidence of her previously owning the car whose details she mistakenly entered. She had also mentioned she has been under stress due to family illness and pointed out their CCTV should show that she paid to park, parked appropriately while displaying ticket, and left without passing the ticket on to anyone else.
IPC say she should have checked the ticket against her car reg.
I will try and find out who the landowner is and appeal to them, but have not found any posts on this site as yet detailing any successful landowner appeals about that car park.
My gut feeling is that she may have a case, as she did pay for parking and has proof that she purchased a ticket and tried to enter her registration number. But I am not a lawyer.
From this site I understand the Beavis case limits arguments for excessive charges, but I am not sure what impact it has for someone who paid but failed to accurately enter their registration details. Arguably the car park lost nothing in terms of payment for parking, but would have spent admin time querying the registration entered - is that something they can penalise the public for, or just an inevitable cost to them due to the limitations of the electronic system they choose to employ?
We would be very grateful for any informed opinions on how her case might be seen by a court (and thus the hopeful likelihood of Excel backing down rather than taking her to court) please?
Many thanks.
IPC appeal on this basis has been rejected, despite her providing a photo of the ticket, and evidence of her previously owning the car whose details she mistakenly entered. She had also mentioned she has been under stress due to family illness and pointed out their CCTV should show that she paid to park, parked appropriately while displaying ticket, and left without passing the ticket on to anyone else.
IPC say she should have checked the ticket against her car reg.
I will try and find out who the landowner is and appeal to them, but have not found any posts on this site as yet detailing any successful landowner appeals about that car park.
My gut feeling is that she may have a case, as she did pay for parking and has proof that she purchased a ticket and tried to enter her registration number. But I am not a lawyer.
From this site I understand the Beavis case limits arguments for excessive charges, but I am not sure what impact it has for someone who paid but failed to accurately enter their registration details. Arguably the car park lost nothing in terms of payment for parking, but would have spent admin time querying the registration entered - is that something they can penalise the public for, or just an inevitable cost to them due to the limitations of the electronic system they choose to employ?
We would be very grateful for any informed opinions on how her case might be seen by a court (and thus the hopeful likelihood of Excel backing down rather than taking her to court) please?
Many thanks.
0
Comments
-
A long way off, if it ever gets there. They cannot physically take everybody who doesn’t pay to court. But if Excel press on, they’re unlikely to back down, unless a top rate defence is submitted and they realise they have no chance - but much nearer the court date, not now.We would be very grateful for any informed opinions on how her case might be seen by a court (and thus hopefully of Excel backing down rather than taking her to court) please?
Even if it gets to court, help is here with a defence etc. The forum has a second-to-none record of wins against PPCs. But it would never be wise to second guess what a judge might make of any case.
You’re really now waiting to see what their next move is and deal with that when it comes, but press on with the landowner investigations/complaint.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
I think they would crash and burn if this went to court. It is a scam and more and more judges are recognising it as such.
If they did make a claim and lost, argue robustly for unreasonable behaviour costs, (CPR27.14(2)(g)), this is not a genuine breach of contract, read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimisYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
De minimus would be getting penalised for displaying the ticket on the left side of the dash, rather than on the prescribed right side (or something of that nature). Not displaying a valid ticket has practical implications for the PPC's ability and cost of enforcing the parking charge, which a court could very well consider to have a legitimate commercial justification (beyond simply lining the PPC's pockets).
I agree that this is a relatively weak case for a PPC to take all the way to court, but whether they do so or not is up to them on the day.
--Kirchenmaus0 -
Church Mouse, are you not second guessing the judge?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
I think it would be wonderful if more judges agreed with you (and me, incidentally) that private parking is currently a scam and needs to be reigned in. I disagree that this would be an example of a "de minimus" breach, for the reasons I have given.
--Kirchenmaus0 -
You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
Repeating yourself is not a good sign...
--Kirchenmaus0 -
I also entered my reg number back to front and displayed a ticket. had a letter in the post asking for £60
I appealed because i was at work as a carer and my client was distressed which panicked me when i got to the pay point.
Theyve dropped the charge to £200 -
:anyone got any advice?0
-
I would advise you to watch this
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
and complain robustly to your MP.
Other than that the usual advice is to wait for court papers, they have six years in which to bring a claim, but, given the will of Parliament, they may well be put out of business by Christmas.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards