Park With Ease - White Moss

Thanks for all the advice. My visit to White Moss was in July this year.


I did measure parked time but thought I had added a few minutes to be safe...I do remember entering the parking time on the website and then it told me how much was owed. The only explanations I can think of for the extra 4 minutes are time to enter and leave and/or inaccuracy in time measurement (either my watch or the ANPR system). This is an interesting point, because in some car parks it can takes a long time to find a space, and a long time queueing to exit the car park (possibly after already paying at a machine). And it not very realistic (safe) for a driver to note the time when actually entering and exiting the car park. So which are the parking companies legally allowed to charge for, parked time, or entry to exit time?


I haven't given my contact address overseas, but this may have been passed on by the hire car company. The hire company told me they have already (incorrectly) passed on the address of a UK relative of mine, where I stayed during my visit in July. I have not been a UK resident for years and may well be out of the UK permanently, except for short visits, but can't be sure of this. The other thing is if they can't chase me they may just chase the hire car company which would probably result in me being charged anyway ;-)


So I'm thinking I will appeal anyway, and will also write complaint letters to Cumbria Trading Standards, landowner, LDNPA etc.

In the end I decided to appeal to IAS anyway and have just received email notice that my appeal was successful. I will post an outline of my appeal below in case it is useful to others. Some of the wording was modified from other appeals posted on this forum so thanks to those.

IAS don't give any specific reasons, just say that "Due to further information Park With Ease Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled."

Prior to receiving the IAS result, I also challenged the car hire company admin fee. After having no success with their traffic violations dept, I wrote a strongly worded complaint letter to the customer service manager highlighting the wording of the agreement I had signed (which did not cover parking charges from PPCs), and all the errors in their very inefficient administration. I got an apology letter and a refund of the admin fee.

---

Dear IAS Adjudicator

Vehicle Registration:
PCN ref:
Date of Notice to Keeper (ie.car hire company):
Notice to Hirer: none received

I was the hirer of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the above charge. I can confirm that I was an occupant of the car and that payment was made on the day of parking. The identity of the driver in this instance has not been divulged and there was more than one occupant of the car. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and ask that they are all considered.

1. "The Reason for Issue" that Park With Ease (PWE) state on their Parking Charge Invoice is "non payment of parking". However payment for parking was made on the day of parking and a receipt was provided to PWE in my appeal to them. No working payment machine was available on site at the time of parking. Payment was made on the PWE website later in the day by entering the period of parking and paying the fee requested by the PWE website (see attached receipt). Therefore PWE’s claim for a parking charge is unenforceable.

2. PWE’s response to my appeal claims that "you chose to underpay the amount
owing". PWE’s NTK claims that the period of parking was x hours x minutes. I paid the amount requested by PWE’s payment website for the actual period of parking (x hours x minutes, receipt attached). PWE has not provided any evidence that the vehicle was actually parked for any longer than has been paid for, and unless they can do so, their claim is invalid. PWE did not provide any working facility by which a consumer could measure the period of parking at White Moss. There was no working payment machine at the car park. I measured the period of parking on the day as x hours x minutes using my very accurate wristwatch, the only method available to me. The signs at White Moss car park clearly state that there is no charge for up to 10 minutes of parking. Charges thereafter were listed as £2 for the first hour plus 35p for each additional 20 minutes. Therefore my payment of £3.40 (as requested by the PWE website) clearly covered a stay of up to 2 hours 30 minutes (10 minutes without charge plus 2 hours 20 minutes charged) and so there cannot be any underpayment claimed. In addition, PWE is required to allow a reasonable grace period for people to find a parking space once they have entered the car park, and to leave the car park after exiting their parking space. In issuing this parking charge notice, PWE has failed to allow a reasonable grace period, and fails to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (section 15).

I submit that any time difference between the parking time measured by myself and that claimed by PWE may be caused by inaccuracy of the ANPR equipment. It is well known that
ANPR data is prone to various errors. The Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained properly and I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is reliant on the reliability of the ANPR system on the date in question. The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the Parking Eye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

3. PWE’s response to my appeal also claims that "you chose to enter an incorrect registration". It appears that a genuine mistake was made in entering a 1 instead of an L. However the PWE sign at White Moss does not mention any contractual requirement to enter a correct vehicle registration number (VRN). Nowhere on the signs does any obligation to pay a parking charge arise as a result of any error in the VRN entered. Solely and specifically the sign says the £50 charge arises for 'failure to pay'. Therefore no further contract beyond paying the fee was created nor accepted. Any driver who did pay (even with a possible error in a VRN) is not made liable for a further charge at all, by the wording on the sign. In this case, payment of the relevant tariff was made on the day, and if payment was made associated with an incorrect VRN the operator will be able to see an unmatched payment on their system. The operator has professional obligations to check for this type of error before issuing parking charges. The Operator has failed to mitigate their loss and the obligation for this lies with a claimant. It is a fact that payment for parking was made on the day of parking. The Operator's records show all payments made as well as all VRNs recorded. To mitigate loss and act with professional diligence to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (section 3 & section 13) PWE were obliged to take steps to avoid charging a motorist who did pay, such as completing a daily check of the list of any unmatched payments to establish which vehicle they must relate to. I contend that there is an unmatched payment on their system as evidenced by the attached receipt for payment of parking. Either PWE have failed to do the required checks, or they were aware of this and are illegally trying to make extra profit by proceeding to claim parking charges. In either case, PWE have requested keeper details from DVLA without reasonable cause, and a complaint will be made to DVLA about this. It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated.
4. PWE’s payment system should not be enabled to accept anything except the correct matching VRN of a car which has entered the car park. Failure to set this basic minimum check within the system, is a further failure to mitigate loss.
5. PWE
does not comply with the IPC code of practice, with regard to schedule 1 – Signage.
- The signage at White Moss does not identify PWE as ‘the creditor’. The signage states that
by parking at the site, the driver is agreeing to contractual terms, but does not explain clearly who that contract is with.
- The text in the contractual agreement section of the signage is small and difficult for any driver to read.
- The signage at White Moss fails to state that PWE is a member of the IPC.

6. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not comply with the POFA 2012 or the IPC code of practice, which state that the NTK must be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking. The NTK was dated 5 August and received by the keeper 11 August 2015. In order to comply, the NTK would need to have been received by 26 July 2015.

7. No notice to hirer has been received within the time specified by the POFA 2012 and the IPC Code of Practice. Therefore the operator has not complied with POFA 2012 in this regard, and has no right to recover any charges from the hirer.
8. In order for me to consider this as a "contractual charge", then the operator’s letter is in effect an invoice for a service received. In that event, the operator must supply an invoice that complies with Government legislation as laid out here: link to relevant site (sorry not able to post links)

In particular, I draw your attention to the requirements for a simplified invoice of this amount which clearly states that the operator must provide their VAT registration number, full business address and the rate at which VAT is being charged or a statement that the service for which payment is sought is VAT exempt. This is in addition to the requirements for all invoices, again covered in the link provided above. No invoice has been received by the hirer and without a compliant invoice, I am unable to consider the matter further.

9. PWE doesn’t comply with Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
As in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999: ''5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.'' Also the OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms Guidance’: Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens ‘'18.1.3 ...transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.’’
A genuine contractual fee would have a payment mechanism related to the true cost of the supply of a parking space, not charge the same punitive amount whether the car stayed for 1 minute or 24 hours. So if there had been an overstay of 4 minutes (and I deny any overstay
in this case), the charge would be equivalent to the usual parking charge for that time, which on 12 July was £0-35 p per additional 20 minutes.

10. The £50 charge demanded does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. PWE have not provided to me, or the vehicle keeper, any supporting documents to justify £50 as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that a 'parking
charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It shouldn’t be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty.

The signs say 'failure to pay' and create no contractual tariff as a sum in the nature of a parking fee at a figure of £50, nor even £25. Indeed the 'all day maximum' charge is stated specifically as £7. There was no omission to make payment, so there is no contractual fee due and the £50 charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I contend that there was no lost income to PWE in this case, as parking was paid for. Even if there had been an overstay, the car park was not full and there were other parking spaces left, therefore there was no lost income. I contend that the amount charged is more than any actual loss and it therefore becomes an unenforceable penalty.

11.
I require that PWE produce their full contract with the landowner, as PWE are not the landowners and they have not provided any evidence that they have legal standing to pursue this charge. I put PWE to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services is merely a commercial matter between the landowner and PWE and does not create any contractual relationship with motorists who use the car park.

To show compliance with the IPC code of practice, I require PWE to produce the full current landowner contract - not an inadmissible 'witness statement' saying such a contract exists. It has been widely reported that some parking companies have provided photocopied ‘witness statements’ instead of the relevant contract. These ‘witness statements’ from parking operators have been exposed in the public domain as sometimes having had the date added after ‘witness signature’ by another person, adding a random date to suit a court or IAS case. Therefore these witness statements are not relevant to a specific event and the details are not reliable enough to confirm compliance of the contract as defined in the IPC code of practice and would fail to meet the level of certainty required for a IAS or court decision. If PWE produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant current contract, or, indeed is even a current employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this is disregarded. Should the assessor in this case wish to consider such as witness statement as evidence, then I require that the Chief Adjudicator investigate this issue and consider carefully the serious irregularities known about these documents.

Finally, a third party agent cannot legally pursue such a charge, as was found in Parking Eye v Sharma: Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between Parking Eye and motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Please note that I am not resident in the UK, and any communication regarding this matter must be sent to my address as given above.

---