Is appealing this PCN likely to succeed?

mattg498

Good afternoon,

I've read through and mostly understand the newbies thread at the top of this forum but would really appreciate an opinion on this. I received a PCN in a car park where parking is limited to 30 minutes, no return within 1 hour. I parked, obtained a form I needed to complete, went home, completed the form and returned to the car park, where I parked again and dropped off the form. Unfortunately my return was within an hour (50 minutes actually) of leaving the car park previously and I now find myself in receipt of an 'invoice' for £60 if paid within 14 days, £100 if not.

Whilst I have no qualms about appealing this, my concern is that it could fail on the basis that, having been in the car park once already, I could reasonably be expected therefore to have read the terms and conditions and be fully aware of those prior to my second visit.

What do the experts think, please?

Many thanks.

Redx

doesnt really matter as no loss was incurred, all you have done is break some drummed up petty rules designed to entrap the motorist on a free to park car park

not a gpeol , no contract and non-compliant signage are still appeal points, so the circumstances rarely matter

in this case £100 is a penalty and not a gpeol so is a punishment, where the punishment does not fit the "crime"

read this too, it may help https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

so if they cannot prove their case, as accuser, who are you to argue, so let popla decide if they refuse your template appeal

Coupon-mad

mattg498 wrote: »

Whilst I have no qualms about appealing this, my concern is that it could fail on the basis that, having been in the car park once already, I could reasonably be expected therefore to have read the terms and conditions and be fully aware of those prior to my second visit.

What do the experts think, please?

Well what Lord Denning found was this (and POPLA do like a bit of relevant case law so include all of the below cases & arguments in your appeal):

'The court was asked whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in but was obvious when paying for parking at the end, and where the plaintiff had parked often before. As was held by Lord Denning in Mendelssohn -v- Normand Ltd; CA 1970: ‘He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.’



And use the words that the 'new version' of the first appeal template in the NEWBIES thread now says about signage:

Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): '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.'



Good old Lord Denning!

mattg498

Thanks to you both for your views. Having drafted the 1st appeal letter to the PPC, I also stopped by on my way home from work to speak to the manager of the premises and explained what had happened and asked if they were prepared to intervene on my behalf. They took details of times etc. from the ANPR pictures on the PCN and said that they would review their CCTV and, as long as they could see that I was using their premises,, would take it up with the PPC with a view to getting the PCN cancelled. So, hopefully, I should see the end of this within the next day or so. Fingers crossed.

Dee140157

Do send the appeal though if you do not hear in writing I sufficient time that the PCN is cancelled. So don't wait too long.

mattg498

Received a phone call from the manager of the premises advising that they have e-mailed the PPC and the PCN will be waived. I've drafted a letter to the PPC asking for written confirmation of this by return, which I will send today. Hopefully that's the end of this.

mattg498

Just to update any followers of this thread, I've today received a letter from Premier Park Ltd, Exeter in response to intervention by staff at Tavistock Post Office and Spar shop. I didn't want to reveal details in my previous posts in case they may have prejudiced my case in any way.

"We write to acknowledge your recent letter appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to your vehicle at Abbey Chambers, Tavistock.
Please be advised that on this occasion your appeal has been upheld and the above PCN has been cancelled."

So thanks to all for the sound advice and excellent forum. Hopefully I won't find myself in receipt of any more of these hideous extortion notices in the future but I know where to come if I do.

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

Great - thanks for the update and quite right too. I have added a link to your thread here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249

'Successful Complaints about PPCs' is a 'sticky thread' so people should see it in future and be able to read about your success.