Excel - Peel Centre Stockport

w3bbo

Hoping some kind soul can help me out here.

I have received a £60 'Parking Charge Notice' through the post from excel parking. None of the machines were working upon arrival nor were they when I departed (36 minutes later!). I have photographic evidence of this. As such I was unable to buy a ticket at any of the machines on site and thus display a ticket in the car.

How should I appeal this? Via email with attached photos?

Thanks in advance.

Redx

same procedures as this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4793386 (there are dozens of examples on here)

also read the newbies thread here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

AND complain to their onsite manager from the details in that newbies thread

the aim being to get it canceled asap, or at popla

they should adhere to the BPA CoP and cancel it accordingly , if they dont , popla will

w3bbo

Brilliant. Thanks.

DebtFreeMummy

Was that on the 5th by any chance??

Coupon-mad

Why not search this forum for keyword 'Excel' and 'Peel'? There are constantly, flippin' hundreds of threads about this place, at least 3 or 4 every single week all with advice & POPLA appeal wording and useful stuff for you. Easy to find TONS of them, using 'search this forum' which is next to forum tools, again above the thread list on page one...like the Newbies thread, at the top.

DebtFreeMummy wrote: »

Was that on the 5th by any chance??

I saw your thread too, do follow each others threads to see you both through to getting this cancelled:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4869507

And do read other Peel Centre threads - not just these two. I have just written a 'POPLA appeal suggested re-draft' for someone you could both use and then just add a paragraph about the covered up signs. I won't link it as you are best reading others too and you will find it among all the other Peel Centre results with a search for 'Peel' as a keyword on this forum board.

DebtFreeMummy

I have received another letter today for the same alleged offence with a diff PCN and a diff date of issue!!

w3bbo

Update.

I appealed to Excell however they have refused my appeal on the grounds that they say there are 14 other ticketing machines at the Peel centre and that if I had phoned a number on one of the signs I would have been able to avoid this charge:mad:.

All of the ticketing machines I checked (at least 6 or 7 that were in sight) were all covered 'out of use' and as suggested earlier I have photo evidence of this.

I have been issued with a POPLA code and intend on appealing to them. I am however unsure of what to put in my appeal. I have got the below from the sticky but do not know where to put the issue regarding me not being able to obtain a ticket due to all the machines I could see being out of order. Could anyone advise please?

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on DD/MM/YYYY. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows :

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19. Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel) must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Excel have no cause of action to pursue this charge. I specified in my original appeal that I would like to see a breakdown of the costs incurred by Excel as a result of the alleged breach. Excel have failed to provide this information, stating that the charge is in line with BPA guidelines and therefore “deemed reasonable”. This reply completely fails to demonstrate that the whole charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge can “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

Excel cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Excel are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown Excel supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to my next appeal point.

2) Legal capacity to issue parking charges

Excel have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I suspect Excel are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Excel to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right, for their own profit. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” instead of the relevant contract. There would be no proof that the alleged signatory can act on behalf of the landowner or has ever seen the relevant contract. Also a letter or statement would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit dates & details of all terms in the actual contract - and so would fail to rebut my appeal point about the Operator's lack of standing & assignment of any rights.

3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs

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 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 and yet I contend the driver was a customer of Nandos which has separate (free) parking terms anyway.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.

4) Unfair terms

The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘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.’

Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”
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.”
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.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, 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.
19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - which was nothing as the driver was in Nandos which has free parking, if the driver had only been informed of that by clearer and transparent signage in the various areas of this car park. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

Furthermore, the ticketing machines were bagged up and labelled 'Machine not in use' during my visit (please see attached photo of one such machine) preventing me from purchasing a ticket. I checked the other ticket machines in the vicinity and they too were bagged up out of use thus preventing me me from purchasing a valid parking ticket. I had no means of calling Excell Parking to notify them of ticket machine faults at the Peel Centre, Stockport or to offer alternative means of payment for a parking ticket.

yours,


The registered keeper's name

Thanks in advance.

bondy_lad

scum excell at it again,they never give up do they,,they managed to bag the machines and label,,machine not in use,,,well done excell,,but why on earth mr renshaw-smith could your staff not add to label,,,,,there are other machines situated etc etc within the centre that are in perfect working order ,,,i ask you sir,,,what will the judge say about that if you dare to take this further????good luck op,spank em.

w3bbo

The thing is there were NO other ticketing machines that I could see that were not bagged up. In the reply from excel they said that there are 14 machines on site, all of the ones that I could see were ALL bagged. Admitted I didn't go around and count how many there were but those within sight were certainly bagged (5 or 6).

Any advice on how I should word the extra bit (highlighted in red) or will that suffice?

Coupon-mad

Looks OK at first glance! Your bit in red should be in a heading called 'No contract with driver - frustrated contract caused by failure of Excel to provide the means to pay and a lack of signs about what to do when no P&D machines were visibly working'

But I am concerned to see you've typed 'during MY visit'. That says who might have been driving which we avoid - have you already dropped yourself in it with your initial appeal about who was driving then? If not then clean up your wording!

And why not do a search online, as this has been covered before. I found this thread where a person got the PCN cancelled by the Peel Centre:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83362&st=20

Found loads for you to read by Googling 'Excel machines covered Peel Centre site:forums.pepipoo.com'.

w3bbo

Success!

After appealing to POPLA with the letter above I received a short, curt letter from excel parking 7 days later stating that they have cancelled the Notice with immediate effect.

What a cowboy outfit!! I strongly advise people to take the advice on these forums.

Most people would leave it there but I still feel aggrieved for the time wasted appealing both to excel and POPLA. It seems Excel are just preying on those who will simply give up and pay the fine. I have contacted the peel centre managers voicing my complaint (received no reply as yet). IS there anyone else I could complain to? Is there anyway I can apply to the courts for recompense for time wasted? Has this been attempted before? While I am not interested in the money/compensation involved (as it would be minuscule anyway) I feel they shouldn't be allowed to get away with there actions and threatening behaviour.