Care Parking Lapse in Formal Demand Letter

Coupon-mad

That's a UKCPM template really and yours was Care Parking so it reads wrong to me. I very much doubt the signage in 'your' car park even does suggest the sum is a contractual fee as that's fairly unusual and, in fact, would be breaking the Equality Act if they were 'contractually offering' parking in disabled bays to everyone for a fee! So that template isn't right.

I would replace the words in your point #1 with the 'no GPEOL' wording from the latest ParkingEye template as it addresses the fact the HHJ Moloney decision is going to the Court of Appeal (so who is out of date now, Care Parking?!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

So that also makes point #3 not quite right either - needs to be a straightforward 'unclear signage' argument (again like you'd find in the Parking Eye version). But don't copy stuff like 'signs are unlit and can't be read in the dark' without some thought about your case! You would not believe it but no less than THREE posters in two days have just copied words about unlit signs and darkness and when I asked 'was it dark then?' they said 'ooops, no it was daylight' which I found astonishing as far as a lack of eye for detail is concerned! I hate templates myself but was forced to link some as too many people can't write letters these days which is a shame.


P.S. The bit about 'pregnancy is a life choice' was downright rude bearing in mind Next is a store which stocks lots of lovely baby clothes and items and actively seeks out customers like you! I find that insulting (as a Mum of four lovely kids myself, who used to queue up for the Next sale at 5am when pregnant!!).

P.P.S. Was the person who called/spelt the place the 'coliseum' illiterate? Why would you call a place a misspelt version of a landmark?

lozzabeth

Thanks Coupon,

The pregnancy part infuriated me - I think more than the rejection of my appeal lol.

Yep I have often wondered why the they spelt it necessary to spell it that way.

Ok I think I am being equally as thick here, however I can't find the latest ParkingEye version which mentions the Moloney case in the POPLA section of the sticky thread. Could you please point me in the right direction?

The Care Parking template isn't really relevant for me either, so although I did merge part of it in the above draft, the vast majority I cut out.

Many thanks!

Redx

its the second link of two in the first parking eye paragraph from the link she gave you , the link ending 312

lozzabeth

I can't see where the template (link ending 312) refers to the Moloney case though?

I don't think this template helps me too much as it's not so generic, I'll have to revert back to Care Parking template and try and take relevant parts from the parking eye version - an amalgamation of a few I suppose.

I'll post for a proof read towards the end of the week, but if someone could help me find wording around the Moloney case it would be greatly appreciated :-)

I parked in a disabled pay so I don't have a great deal of confidence if this went to Court and my appeal may be futile in view of this :-/

Coupon-mad

The HHJ Moloney decision IS the 'Parking Eye v Beavis' case which is mentioned in the linked example ending 312!

I would honestly use/adapt he first paragraph from it - yes it's generic but IT WINS.

ScottRBarker

Hi,

Over the weekend (12th/13th July) I recieved a CARE parking charge at a local Metrolink station (Tram Service in Greater Manchester). A free car park that has obvious restrictions such as not parking in disabled bays and not causing obstruction, but I have been charged with parking outside of tram operating hours (overnight as I'd had a drink in Manchester).

Car park is owned by Metrolink, but managed by CARE and I have £100 charge, commuted to £60 if paid in 14 days. As you enter the car park there is an 8 foot high sign with this detail on and on further inspection there are some dotted around the car park.

This appears to be new T&Cs, because I know people who have parked there before.

The signs also conflict as one states £90 (£65 if paid in 14 days) another states £100 (£60 in 14 days).

I'm thinking of appealing based on unclear/ambigious signage and unfair terms and conditions (based on no loss).

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Scott

bod1467

ScottRBarker wrote: »

Any thoughts?

I have one - please start your OWN new thread.

Dee140157

Thoughts:
Please do not hijack someone else's thread. One PCN per thread is the general rule of thumb so we don't give advice to wrong poster.
Read newbie thread and use specially written first appeal by expert.
Start new thread if you need further advice.

lozzabeth

Thanks Coupon, I didn't realise they were the same case, thanks for your help.

I will draft up a revised version and include the suggested paragraph adapted to relevance.

EwaS

ScottRBarker wrote: »

Hi,

Over the weekend (12th/13th July) I recieved a CARE parking charge at a local Metrolink station (Tram Service in Greater Manchester). A free car park that has obvious restrictions such as not parking in disabled bays and not causing obstruction, but I have been charged with parking outside of tram operating hours (overnight as I'd had a drink in Manchester).

Car park is owned by Metrolink, but managed by CARE and I have £100 charge, commuted to £60 if paid in 14 days. As you enter the car park there is an 8 foot high sign with this detail on and on further inspection there are some dotted around the car park.

This appears to be new T&Cs, because I know people who have parked there before.

The signs also conflict as one states £90 (£65 if paid in 14 days) another states £100 (£60 in 14 days).

I'm thinking of appealing based on unclear/ambigious signage and unfair terms and conditions (based on no loss).

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Scott

Hi
If you start a new thread - let me know as the exact same happened to me