Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 4th Dec 16, 4:49 PM
    • 90Posts
    • 22Thanks
    Parking Charge, IPC Member, inadequate signage
    • #1
    • 4th Dec 16, 4:49 PM
    Parking Charge, IPC Member, inadequate signage 4th Dec 16 at 4:49 PM
    Hi all,

    I have read through the stickied threads and I am very grateful for the wealth of useful information posted there.

    I wanted to get some advice on a situation where in my opinion the ticket is completely unjustified as a result of inadequate signage.

    The driver parked on a road on a business park and subsequently got a "parking charge notice" from District Enforcement on the windscreen. District Enforcement are a member of the IPC and I am aware from reading here that this is a questionable setup.

    The car was parked normally at the side of the road, with no markings or yellow lines, not near a junction and not causing an obstruction. A little after the cars are parked there are automatic barriers which lead into a car park.

    The justification for the ticket is apparently a sign at the start of the road. This sign is not is not visible as you drive in – I invite you to view the following photo:!Ao45qLpxXG3_gdFdYgBEOD5G2Cj8eA
    The sign is strapped with cable ties to the lamppost on the left at the start of the road. As you can see, it is not visible. It is at 90 degrees to the road and the only way you would see it is if you were walking on the road. There are no such signs in the part of the road where the cars are actually parked (which you can see in the distance). I do have lots of other photos of the area too.

    Here is a close-up photo of the sign:!Ao45qLpxXG3_gdFbxTwDcICLGJJS1A

    The reason given on the ticket is "Parking in the no parking area".

    I don't know if this is a new arrangement but I think it is worth mentioning that every single car around the one I refer to here also had these “Parking Charge Notices” which further suggests that the signage is completely inadequate.

    I am inclined to appeal as I did read on another well-known parking-related forum that one of the few times the IAS have found in favour of the driver is in cases of inadequate signage.

    If anyone has any thoughts or queries I would welcome them. I'm happy to provide more details if requested.

Page 6
    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 28th Nov 17, 9:35 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Thank you very much Coupon-mad. I am drafting this up now. Should I CC this email to Gallstones? I saw mention in other threads that this sort of correspondence should include them at this stage.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 28th Nov 17, 9:41 PM
    • 5,711 Posts
    • 4,426 Thanks
    I thought you were going to send that five days ago??
    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 28th Nov 17, 9:44 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Unfortunately real life got in the way KeithP. I hope it might still be worth doing.
    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 28th Nov 17, 9:58 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Perhaps what might be best is if I call the court again tomorrow to see if they have received anything yet (I still haven't certainly). If not I will proceed with the email. If they have, I will just raise it on the day.
    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 29th Nov 17, 12:37 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Right, I've called the court and the case has been discontinued so I almost certainly won't have to attend (my case was still listed for hearing but they suggested that it just hasn't been updated so I'll check again later in the week).

    I want to apply for costs and generally complain about their behaviour throughout - how am I best doing this now the situation has changed, in the same manner as suggested earlier by Coupon-mad?

    I will also follow up with the DVLA from my earlier complaint about DE's dishonesty and the IPC / Gladstones setup in general.

    Thanks so much for everyone's help
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Nov 17, 12:47 PM
    • 1,722 Posts
    • 1,941 Thanks
    Costs - youd have to ask for th hearing to be converted to a costs hearing, but unless you can convince the court that costs for unreasonable behaviour can be awarded, you currently dont HAVE any costs that can be claimed.

    Complaint - MP would be best bet.
    • behindtheeye
    • By behindtheeye 29th Nov 17, 7:13 PM
    • 90 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    It's extremely frustrating that I have spent hours and hours preparing this and they can just drop the case a few days before the hearing with seemingly little chance of me claiming any costs. They should not be allowed to get away with this behaviour.

    I will write to the court and complain and try to claim costs, even if it's a pointless exercise I will feel better for doing it. I will also definitely think about contacting my MP.

    Once again, I am really grateful for all the help I received on here. Many thanks!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Nov 17, 10:51 AM
    • 1,722 Posts
    • 1,941 Thanks
    MP is the best bet at reforming the whole industry. as you will know from this forum, there is a private members bill to try to sort this whole sorry mess out. Channel your anger that way - that the govt refuses to legislate on this issue, having been lied to by the BPA in allowing Keeper liability in the first place (they claimed court cases would go DOWN, they went UP massively) and allowing access to Keeper data by parastitical, crooked companies.

    That is also the point of small claims track - that costs are minimised to stop you being afraid to take part in the process and just always settle. Unfdorutnatley PPCs have worked out they can make a profit by using courts a sa debt collection system, folding only when they know theyre likely to lose a defended hearing. The court will not care about your complaint. They will see this as the normal function. You will not get a restraint order as your case will either be seen as a one off, or else if they do look at the totality of claims, will see that the PPC likely "wins" most of them - as LIP are often awful at following the fairly straightforward deadlines on forms, so they get a default judgement.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 1st Dec 17, 6:17 AM
    • 2,069 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    there is a private members bill to try to sort this whole sorry mess out.
    Sorry to be negative about this, the Bill is unlikely to do this and may just be a way to protect the DVLA's income stream from the GRDP which would restrict the DVLA in giving out data more than 1 year old.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,828Posts Today

7,118Users online

Martin's Twitter