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@.

    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 14th Mar 17, 9:46 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Parking Charge Notice from Care Parking at Aldi
    • #1
    • 14th Mar 17, 9:46 PM
    Parking Charge Notice from Care Parking at Aldi 14th Mar 17 at 9:46 PM
    Hi All,

    Was just looking for a bit of guidance if at all possible.

    I have been shopping at Aldi for some time and have parked on their premises for numerous long stays, and have never received any charges whatsoever.

    I have recently been issued with a parking charge notice from a company called Care Parking, the charge being "Exceeded Maximum Stay Period", which is cited as 18 minutes over the parking allowance.

    I called Aldi to try and get the charge dropped, explaining that I was shopping on the complex, which also has numerous other retail outlets. Aldi informed me that the managing company of this car park had changed hands and been recently taken over by Care Parking. Aldi were surprised their customers had not been notified of the changeover, but noted that Care Parking were not working with them, but the landowner instead.

    Aldi recommended that I get in touch with Care Parking to explain that I was shopping in their store and not misusing the car park. I have evidence from online banking that I made purchases in both Aldi and Pound Stretcher, although the amounts spent were quite low. I would have no doubt been in other stores on the complex as well.

    I'd just like some advice on how to move forward with this,

    Many thanks,

Page 3
    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 15th Mar 17, 8:47 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Perfect, thank you!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 15th Mar 17, 8:51 PM
    • 7,293 Posts
    • 7,445 Thanks
    pappa golf
    can you confirm this was an ANPR type ticket with photos of you arriving and leaving?

    all the ANPR equipment was removed from site when PE moved out

    if anpr was used , then the equipment would have had to be re installed in ALDIs property ,

    as ALDI would not get anything apart from grief , I think its unlikely that it has been re installed
    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 15th Mar 17, 9:01 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Yes ANPR was used, they have photo/video of the car entering and leaving the retail park, at the only place you can, i.e. 90 degrees to the right of the photo above. I'm assuming that Care Parking "manage" the parking on the whole retail park and have agreed with someone that they can install the ANPR equipment? Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 11:51 PM
    • 50,050 Posts
    • 63,451 Thanks
    Yes the fault lies with the managing agents of the retail park (usually easy to find by Googling).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 23rd Apr 17, 8:09 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    POPLA Code Received!
    Hi All!

    I've been given a POPLA code and I'm just putting the finishing touches to my appeal, which I'll post here shortly.

    Just having trouble figuring out how long we have to appeal.

    We received the following Appeal Acknowledgement Letter:

    The only date on the letter is the 17th March 2017 ("Date of Acknowledgement"), however this is certainly not the date that this letter was sent, as we only received it on the 15th April 2017.

    On the reverse, it says we have 28 days to appeal from the date of this notification, yet there's no date on the notification.

    Any help would be appreciated,


    • Redx
    • By Redx 23rd Apr 17, 8:16 PM
    • 15,515 Posts
    • 19,598 Thanks
    you can ascertain the popla date from the actual 10 digit popla code itself (as detailed by CM in other threads)

    you then have 28 days from the generated date to make your popla appeal
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 17, 12:55 AM
    • 50,050 Posts
    • 63,451 Thanks
    Is the POPLA code one that came with the letter dated 17th March? If so the code will probably not work any more - try it on the POPLA appeal website first page.

    Or was it sent with a later rejection letter, what date? The code will work for 30ish days.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 26th Apr 17, 5:06 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Thanks guys, I've figured it out with your help! I have quite a while left to submit the Popla Appeal, but I'll get on with it and submit for feedback! Thanks again, you guys are awesome
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Apr 17, 5:10 PM
    • 14,548 Posts
    • 22,893 Thanks
    Thanks guys, I've figured it out with your help! I have quite a while left to submit the Popla Appeal, but I'll get on with it and submit for feedback! Thanks again, you guys are awesome
    Originally posted by hmmmmm
    That guy Coupon-mad is a gal.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 4th May 17, 9:17 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    POPLA Appeal Help!
    Okay I've drafted a POPLA appeal and was just wondering if I could get some feedback before sending it off

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    As the keeper, I have no legal training and am not represented legally, I am following the advice found on the internet and my own research to appeal this charge against Anchor Security Services Ltd T/A Care Parking.

    The basis of my appeal is:

    1. Information omitted from Notice to Keeper
    2. Lack of clear signage - no contract was formed with the driver
    3. Parking rules changed hands
    4. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    5. Grace period not considered
    6. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    7. Unreasonable/unfair Terms
    8. The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate
    9. Purchases were made on site
    10. Violation of planning consent

    1. Information omitted from Notice to Keeper

    Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    Care Parking have omitted the following information from the Notice to Keeper:

    i) What land the car was parked on

    Within the Notice to Keeper the alleged “parking breach” was at Corporation Street, which is a street in Preston that runs from the Adelphi Quarter roundabout to the A59 Ringway. There is no car park on the street itself. The land or car park that I believe Care Parking are referring to is found at Corporation Street Retail Park, Corporation Street, Preston, PR1 2UZ.

    ii) That the driver of the vehicle is liable for the parking charge

    At no point within the Notice to Keeper does it say the driver is liable for the parking charge, and it is inferred that the registered keeper has become liable to pay the charge.

    iii) No mention of a notice being given to the driver or placed on the vehicle at the time of parking

    The Notice to Keeper doesn’t state whether a notice had been issued at the time of the alleged “breach in parking”.

    Consequently, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the strict requirements of POFA2012 Schedule 4 and no keeper liability exists.

    2. Lack of clear signage - no contract was formed with the driver

    The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.

    The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:

    2 (c) - the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;

    Care Parking have failed to provide a geographical address.

    2(k) - where applicable, the trader’s complaint handling policy;

    Care Parking have failed to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.

    2 (o) - where under regulation 28, 36 or 37 there is no right to cancel or the right to cancel may be lost, the information that the consumer will not benefit from a right to cancel, or the circumstances under which the consumer loses the right to cancel;

    Care Parking have not met the requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.

    2 (r) - the existence of relevant codes of conduct, as defined in regulation 5(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and how copies of them can be obtained, where applicable;

    There is no information outlining Care Parking’s code of conduct. This does not appear on the signage.

    2 (x) - where applicable, the possibility of having recourse to an out-of-court complaint and redress mechanism, to which the trader is subject, and the methods for having access to it.

    The signage does not offer access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism

    Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that the driver cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.

    Furthermore, citing the regulations at 13 (2) “In so far as the information is provided on a durable medium, it must be legible.”, together with Appendix B (18.1) of the BPA Code of Practice stating that, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”, I strongly refute that the signage used by Care Parking makes it easy for patrons to recognise that terms and conditions apply to the car park.

    Upon entrance, patrons are welcomed with the sign found in figure 1.1, which expressly states “Parking for Customers Only”. Aside from “Private Land”, there are no other legible warnings, terms or conditions. Upon entrance to the car park, one must negotiate a right turn, followed by a sharp u-turn, remaining observant for the mass of pedestrians walking into town via Corporation Street or visiting the Retail Park itself, especially in this case at peak time on a Sunday afternoon.

    Appendix B (18.1) of the BPA Code of Practice states, “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”. Once again, I contest that Care Parking make patrons aware of any terms at the entrance to the Corporation Street Retail Car Park, or at least terms that can be visibly seen whilst negotiating entrance.

    Terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

    Parking in the centre of the Corporation Street Retail Park, the parking signs were not visible from a distance and the words were unreadable, especially to those not looking for a parking notice. Taking the first instruction upon entrance, “Parking for Customers Only”, I’m hesitant to believe why any patron using the car park to visit the retail park as a customer, would stop to read an illegible sign in the distance given the initial notice that was served upon entrance. Please see figures 1.2 and 1.3, and bear in mind Appendix B (18.3) of the BPA Code of Practice, “Signs must be conspicuous and legible”. I challenge the readability of the signage used by Care Parking in this context, and again counter that any contract was formed by omission of any legible Notice. The driver did not see any signs; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract was agreed between the parties.

    If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge (the £100) before parking - because the font is too small or the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. Also, a keeper appellant cannot be bound by inadequate notice of the charge either (POFA Schedule 4 requires 'adequate notice' of the sum of the parking charge, not just vague illegible small print, however near the car).

    The well-known and oft used 'Red Hand Rule' in the binding case of J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] applies, where Denning LJ stated: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''. In Mendelson v Normand and Thornton v Shoe Lane which were both about parking, this was also clearly stated by Denning LJ:

    “The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue…was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.”

    i.e. even if a document or notice is ostensibly under the nose of a consumer, the onerous term (e.g. £100 charge) needs to be VERY explicit and prominent. Not hidden among small, same colour print on a sign, regardless of whether that sign is in the vicinity of the car. This was reiterated by Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] where he held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way''. Small, same colour print on an illegible, unremarkable and pale sign is not enough and is not on a par with the very clear signs 'with the charge in large lettering' as was explored and vital to the decision in Parking Eye v Beavis.

    Furthermore, these signs are nothing like those offering a licence to Mr Beavis (ParkingEye Vs Beavis), allowing him to park under 'clear' terms. With reference to the following cases District Judge Glen opted to hear all three cases in a single hearing:

    B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (£914.67 claimed)
    B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (£1559.82)
    B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (£1067.15)

    These cases were dismissed and DJ Glen started by referring to the Beavis transcript, at paras. 94, and 189/190, which made it clear that it was agreed by all parties that there was a contract between PE and Beavis. He said that analysis didn’t apply in this case, as the notice was absolutely prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking. The landowners may have a claim in trespass, but that wasn’t under consideration here, as with this case.

    3. Parking rules changed hands

    Care Parking had only just taken over the alleged ‘management’ of Corporation Street Retail Park, the driver had visited this car park on numerous occasions in the months previous to the contested charge, and given appeal point 2 of this document, was unaware that terms and conditions had changed.

    4. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

    As Corporation Street Retail Park has free parking, there can be no loss to Care Parking, and therefore no loss flowing from the parking event.

    Care Parking cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver’s alleged breach.

    There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not full. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. Care Parking would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

    Given that Care Parking charge the same (i.e. nothing) for a 30 minute stay as they would for 2 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

    Care Parking cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a ‘fishing licence’ to catch motorists and some arrangements where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks.

    This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v ParkingEye' judgment.

    The charge is for an alleged (but denied) breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that this non-landowning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages. However, no such GPEOL or justification can apply here.

    Unlike in Beavis, it is confidently argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and Care Parking have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff and there was no unpaid parking time in any case.

    The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. Care Parking cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned ‘commercial justification’ statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

    The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word “MUST”:

    “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.”

    5. Grace period not considered

    It should also be noted that an infraction of 18 minutes’ falls under grace period rules and given the amount of traffic at the Corporation Street Retail Park, entry and exit times will be considered, citing section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice:

    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    I would refer you to the chief adjudicator, Henry Greenslade's annual report for 2015 page 19 in which he states "As regards time to leave a car park, it must be borne in mind that there can be a delay in a vehicle physically getting out of a car park due to heavy traffic. This is not such an uncommon event as might be imagined."

    Additionally, there are no clear terms and conditions that outline robust, reliable and consistent grace period rules for the Corporation Street Car Park.
    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 4th May 17, 9:17 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    6. Lack of standing/authority from landowner

    Care Parking has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

    BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Care Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Care Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Care Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require Care Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for Parking Eye merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

    7. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms

    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:

    “18.1.3 Objections are less likely…if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.”

    An unlit sign of terms placed too high to read, is far from ‘transparent’.

    Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)

    “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”

    Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that:

    “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”.

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that:

    “A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I also wish to reference the Aziz test (as my case is different to that of Beavis v ParkingEye) in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.

    And as for whether average consumers 'would have agreed' to pay £100 had there been negotiations in advance, the answer here is obviously no. There would have been no justification or negotiation that could have possibly have persuaded an average consumer to pay £100 to this parking firm. Their charge relies upon unseen terms, not clear contracts, and should not be upheld.

    8. The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate

    Care Parking’s ANPR records show no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out of the car park, which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that day. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of ‘parking time’ as the moment of arrival in moving traffic, nor the exit photo as evidence of ‘parking time’.

    This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used,

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    The only information offered on the signage at Corporation Street Retail Park states “Car Park Monitored by ANPR Systems” (figure 1.4), a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice. I say that Care Parking have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
    In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that Care Parking present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos 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 founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Care Parking to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common “time synchronisation system”, there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so “live” is not really “live”. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR “evidence” from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Care Parking to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.

    9. Purchases were made on site

    The driver visited Aldi, Poundstretcher and Poundworld at Corporation Street Retail Park, making purchases at both Aldi and Poundstretcher on the day in question. I can provide evidence of this upon request.

    10. Violation of planning consent

    Furthermore, planning permission for the Corporation Street site was granted on the basis that the landowner provides parking to patrons for 3 hours, with the facility to leave the site and use local amenities. This planning permission was granted in 1999 when the land was bought from Dutton Forshaw and no further amendments have been asked for or granted by Preston City Council.

    Your company is trying to extract money from people parking longer than 2 hours, when Preston Council only approved planning permission on the strict understanding that patrons would be allowed up to three hours parking. Unilaterally reducing the parking period would therefore be a breach of the planning conditions both initially and currently in force. I’m sure this will be of interest to local media, the council and Trading Standards.


    I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on illegible signs to form a contract in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put Care Parking to strict proof to justify their charge, under the circumstances described.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

    Yours faithfully,
    Last edited by hmmmmm; 08-05-2017 at 2:33 PM.
    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 4th May 17, 9:19 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Apologies for the length, and also, we use "Guys" to address men and women, I think it's a northern thing with american influences! But sorry if any offence was caused! Any feedback would be greatly appreciated on the appeal. Many thanks again!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th May 17, 9:22 PM
    • 50,050 Posts
    • 63,451 Thanks
    I would not include those photos, they assist the PPC as they are readable and show they are on a lighting pole which the PPC might just say has a light that comes on half an hour later, etc.

    To make this vital point jump out at POPLA, add to the heading:

    10. Violation of planning consent - 3 hours free parking is required to be offered
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hmmmmm
    • By hmmmmm 5th May 17, 12:22 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    What about just omitting the last one? To me 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 show that a) the car park is for customers and there are no legible associated terms, and b) its impossible to read the signs from where the car was parked. But obviously I'll take your advice if you're sure??

    And yes, I will make the amendment to point 10. Thank you!

    Other than that is it okay to send Coupon-mad?
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

4,258Posts Today

6,744Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion!

  • Luciana is on the advisory board of @mmhpi (we have MPs from most parties)

  • Follow Martin