Excel Parking Charge Notice

Guys_Dad

Obviously we can steer you to a good generic appeal, but what reason for not paying? Poor signs? Forgot?


Good appeal here. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62472201&postcount=32

thegasmancometh

Thanks just been looking at some appeals.
Sorry I didnt elaborate I was picking my wife and daughter up and my little girl had leaked out of her nappy so we quickly changed her on the back seat before strapping her in and leaving again.
Unfortunately though we clearly weren't as quick as we should have been!
I didnt even think to get a ticket as I didnt intend to stay, so frustrating.
Thanks

Guys_Dad

One final point, and please be honest, was your stay less than 15 minutes?

If about that, then do have a look at page 2 of the recent thread by ITGuy90. He has some excellent Excel signs at the Peel centre where they give 15 minutes grace. What's good at the Peel, should be good for your appeal (ouch!)

thegasmancometh

No it was 31 minutes according to their ANPR Cameras!
yes I have been reading his post about KFC
Thanks

thegasmancometh

Ok I have read a lot of the POPLA Appeals and they refer to 'free parking' in relation to lack of consideration and therfore contract. just so i am clear about what i am writing is the free parking referencing the first 15 minutes?
Thanks

thegasmancometh

Hows this? Please Advise!!! I have not included about free parking as it is a pay and display car park and also reduced the content about signage as Peel Centre have recently had new signs.
Was I right to do this??

Thanks in advance



Dear POPLA,
APPEAL RE: PARKING CHARGE NOTICE XL******** at PEEL CENTRE CAR PARK, STOCKPORT ON **/**/2013 VEHICLE REG: **** ***
The keeper received and invoice from Excel Parking on **/06/2013 That they overstayed in a car park by 31 minutes. They immediately appealed to Excel Parking and the appeal was rejected on the grounds because they did not provide sufficient evidence to show that they did not break the terms and conditions of on the signage.

The points the keeper would like to make are –

The driver is not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeds the appropriate amount. Excel is requiring payment from the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The keeper says they have not met all the conditions imposed by this Act and so there is no obligation or liability on them at all. In addition they have failed to show that this standard fixed charge in that car park is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, have not formed any fair contract with the driver to justify the amount demanded and have not complied with all aspects of the BPA Code of Practice.

NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME OR SUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION
A registered keeper like myself cannot make an informed decision based on a couple of photos of a car driving in and out of the entrance area of a car park at different times and no clear explanation of the alleged contravention.

The Operator is relying simply on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving. These pictures show no evidence at all of actual parking time or where the car was after driving in, whether it stayed in the car park or left and then returned within the recorded timescale.
The postal 'ticket' fails to clarify the issue and so it is a nullity, since it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The wording from the Notice to Keeper quoted fails to specify precisely which term of the alleged contract was allegedly breached; the Notice therefore fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Clause 9(2)(c) and no keeper liability can arise.

ANPR REQUIREMENTS- PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
Excel Parking have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part21 (ANPR). I need POPLA to consider whether the Operator has shown documented evidence of contemporaneous manual checks of the cameras, clocks and related machinery in that particular car park. These maintenance checks are a requirement of section 21 of the Code.

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
Excel Parking does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.
Excel Parking has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

Excel Parking must provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists). Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Excel Parking the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly states that drivers must be given a grace period (i) when they enter the car park, to queue for a space, park and then read the (high up on a pole) sign to decide whether they wish to remain and (ii) at the end of the visit to load the shopping bags, return the trolley and then queue to leave the car park at the end of the parking.

UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS The signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice Appendix B, and that entrance signage is not readable bythe driver of a moving vehicle as he enters the land cannot bind that driver into a contract.

I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park and any consequences for breach.

Excel Parking needs to prove that I actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by me to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. This is not a fair ‘contract’ nor a contract at all.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Were a contract to exist (which is denied) there has been no loss to Excel Parking or the owners/managers of the retail park arising from the alleged overstay; accordingly the charge sought is an unenforceable contractual penalty.
Should Excel Parking choose instead to claim that the charge is an agreed contractual charge (contrary to the wording in their notice) this fails on the grounds that (i) it is clearly punitive and intended as a deterrent, in that it only (allegedly) became payable upon the breach of other terms in the alleged contract (ii) no means of payment was available at the time the charge allegedly fell due and (iii) no VAT invoice was issued. Accordingly it is clearly a penalty and therefore unenforceable.

So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Operators cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.



I submit this purported charge is not legal and Excel Parking should cease harassing me forth with.


Should you require further information, please let me know.

bondy_lad

op,when you parked there,it was the old signs that were in situ,i checked this out on friday,with both argos and the employee of the scum known as excel,who both informed me it was 4 to 5 weeks ago that the signage was changed,,squashed on a line on the old signs was the words,,,this is a pay and display car park,,no way could you read this either on the signs upon entering the peel centre and the ones attached to poles inside,you would had to have the strongest magnifying glass in the world to read it,,also even though it pains me to say this the new signs are extremely clear,,other than the fact alot of stockfordians who have visited the peel centre for years always knew that if you parked there after 6pm it was free, now its not,,absolutely no where in the new signage does it state this in any way shape or form,consequently the scum known as excell are still making a killing there on unsuspecting motorists,,good luck.

Guys_Dad

If Bondy is right, and I wouldn't disagree with his information, and if you parked under the old signage, then you need to amend your appeal saying that since you parked, all of the signs have been changed. The previous signs were not compliant and you assume that is why they were changed. (If they were ok, why were they changed).

You put the PPC to strict proof to state when and why they were changed and to produce photos of the old entry signs.

Do make sure that you have photos of the new signs in case they try it on and send in photos of the current ones.

Any point using Google Earth to get a view of the old ones to include with the appeal?

thegasmancometh

Brill idea about google earth, I have just been on Street view and taken some screen shots although to me they look the same but to be fair I havent been past peel centre for a week or 2 but the pictures are dated Sept/Oct 2012 so should definitely be the old ones surely?
so am I best keeping the rest of the appeal the same and change the signage bit to this:
UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS The signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, and that entrance signage is not readable bythe driver of a moving vehicle as he enters the land cannot bind that driver into a contract.

Excel have very recently changed the signs at this site. The previous signs were not compliant and I assume that is why they were changed. (If they were ok, why were they changed). I believe the signs and any core parking terms Excel are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence of the old signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they were at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car could see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance.

Prior to the new signs going in I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park and any consequences for breach, as was found in the same car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

Excel needs to prove that I actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by me to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. This is not a fair ‘contract’ nor a contract at all.

So in addition, because the signs failed to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

Excel did not provide signage of sufficient written text size or at a suitable height to be read from the vehicle at the entrance or at any location on the premises. They may claim that generic signage was displayed around the car park on poles but this did not meet the requirements for consideration when forming the alleged contract and probably why the signs have recently been changed.

interestedinaresponse

I have returned back off holiday to find i have recieved a 'PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' from the good old famous peel centre. I believe they have recently changed a few things that i was unaware of. i.e. you can no longer park after 6pm for free as this now costs you which i was unaware of. I was picking my friend up from work and it was after 7pm. She was suppost to finish then but had to stay another half hour so the time of entering the car park to leaving was 31minutes. The car was occupied at all times of being in the carpark and I was unaware you had to buy a ticket for this. Surely this is wrong and I don't have to pay a ridiculous amount of £60 for collecting somebody from work. Can somebody suggest what I do as I have read that many different things about this scam company my head is pickled, thankyou