MSE News: 'Don't pay unfair private parking tickets'

Flamingpeanut

@Lamilad

Second time in one day somebody's been hyper-critical.

1. People should be heard and ,actually, there are a lot of victims
2. I do not know how to start a new thread.

bargepole

Flamingpeanut wrote: »

... I do not know how to start a new thread.

You click on the big blue button labelled 'New Thread'.

Sorry if that's too confusing.

Coupon-mad

2. I do not know how to start a new thread.

I think your joining email covered the basics, but here are the forum FAQS:

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/faqs/the-mse-forum/

There is also a 'FORUM HELP' picture/link above, top left of the view I see here (I opt to see an old style view, a different colour than you see), where it says at the top of this page 'Be nice to all MoneySavers' there's a FORUM HELP link.

bargepole wrote: »

You click on the big blue button labelled 'New Thread'.

Sorry if that's too confusing.

Flamingpeanut, the blue button is on page one of this forum, where you see the thread list of all the replies from today.

You will never be able to hit 'new thread' when you are actually on a thread (as you are here, on someone's thread), hence you need to go back just one step, ONE CLICK from here.

You may have read posts from me - have you never read my signature below? Tells newbies exactly where to click.

jfs2017

I got a parking notice having parked at The Square in Chorlton Manchester - I put the wrong number plate in the machine but did not keep my ticket. Here is my appeal letter - which, to be honest, I did not spend much time on and did not think would be successful. I've also put the reply.

"As I explained to Excel Parking, I was driving my wife’s car on the day in question – I rarely drive her car. I parked in the car park for about 20 minutes, buying a ticket on arrival and displaying it. As it transpires, I must have either inserted the incorrect number plate into the machine or inserted my own number plate.
When I pointed this out to Excel in my appeal and asked them to check their records to see if this was the case, their reply contained no reference to my request. I do not see why I should pay an excess when their records must show that I purchased a ticket. (When I got the charge letter 3 weeks after parking, my wife had had her car valeted and I could not find the ticket.)
(As an aside I called the help line on the day I received the notice to explain the above and found that it is impossible to speak to anyone – you get stuck in a loop of options – the only purpose of the helpline appears to be to pay the excess charge.)

I also appeal against the decision from Excel Parking on the basis that the parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount.

Excel Parking manage the car park on behalf of The Square Shopping Centre and act as an agent for the landowner, who by his right of land ownership can only impose a payment in respect of the actual losses incurred by that party against someone who has trespassed on the premises, albeit unintentionally.

The Square Shopping Centre is not a member of the BPA thus is not bound by the BPA code of practice so the imposition of terms and conditions by Excel Parking, on behalf of The Square Shopping Centre to their own pecuniary advantage is beyond their remit.

Excel are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my parking constituted a breach of contract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since I paid and displayed and no damage was caused, there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Excel lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.
Therefore I ask that my appeal is upheld. The fact is that I bought a ticket, Excel have not proved otherwise, and that even if I did not comply fully with their ‘terms and conditions’ (by inputting the incorrect number plate) the £100 is far in excess of any possible loss that they could have incurred. For me, on the other hand, having to pay a £100 fine would cause considerable financial distress."

and the reply

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Excel Parking Services Limited has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.

Umkomaas

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Excel Parking Services Limited has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.

Who did that come from?

Excel are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my parking constituted a breach of contract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Excel has nothing to do with the BPA and POPLA has no involvement in this.

Coupon-mad

You must be talking about a POPLA appeal in 2013 (has NO relevance now, and such an appeal these days is doomed - and doesn't even go to POPLA).

Cool story tho...

isudds

A big thank you to all the information provided here, I received a Parking Eye PCN in November for a car park on Seel Street, Liverpool. The PCN was issued at 4am and using the lack of signage (and vandalised signs), poor lighting and the fact it is not clearly a privately run car park the PCN has been cancelled. As stated using the templates and information provided on inadequate signage etc. (BPA 18.2 guidelines!!)
Thanks again!!

susanhwatts

POPLA just Informed me that I lost my appeal re a parking charge even though I paid and did not overstay.  I am not willing to pay the £100 charge for a £1 parking stay.  I emigrated in January so don’t even live in the UK anymore.  I’m looking for advice on what will happen if I just ignore the outcome, or some guidance on how best to proceed.

The full appeal transcript is below

Operator Name

Premier Park - EW

Operator Case Summary

The Appellants vehicle entered the site at 16:55 and exited at 19:08. A total stay of 2 hours and 12 minutes. We are unable to trace a paid parking session for the Appellant’s vehicle. Please see ‘Other Evidence’. The Appellant states “I paid the correct fee and did not overstay. It was raining and very dark when I arrived, no light in the area at all. The car park is between buildings, like an alleyway. I felt very vulnerable there. Nevertheless I found the pay machine. The instructions were impossible to read because it was unlit, had no shelter from the rain and I didn’t have my reading glasses. I knew it was £1 for 3 hours to park there because I had phoned the skating rink for details of the facilities and child skating times. They impressed upon me the need to pay for parking as upset customers often complain at receiving large fines. I have never used this particular machine before but it looked very similar to ones I am familiar with. Using light from my phone I inserted a pound then entered my reg number. I checked I had input the correct reg by referring to a photo of my reg plate kept on my phone. I clearly saw my registration displayed on the pay machine. I did not expect or look for a ticket because other machines I have used don’t produce tickets. I accept I made an operating error by not pressing the green button to trigger a ticket, as subsequently explained in Premier Park’s appeal refusal. Nevertheless, I truly endeavoured to park correctly and honestly paid the £1 required to park there. The £1 was not returned by the machine so Premier Park undoubtedly have my money. They are not out of pocket. If the machine had returned my £1 I’d have realised the transaction had not completed correctly and would have persevered. In my appeal I asked PP to check their takings from the machine, as it must have more money than tickets issued - my £1. They did not respond to this point. My 10 year old great niece, Lacey, witnessed me pay. We left well within the three hours paid for. PPs own photo of my reg plate shows how very dark the area is. The operation deliberately sets users up to fail, ie unlit, tiny instructions. But they have my payment!” The signage on site states the terms and conditions of parking. The Appellant has not denied seeing the said signage. We cannot be held liable for the Appellant failing to see, or ignoring the signage. The signage clearly states “Enter your full registration number- Press validate- Insert coins- Press Validate- Take Receipt”. How to pay: Payment with coins is made by entering your full registration number, press the green tick button, insert the coins for the amount of time the vehicle will be parked, press the green tick to confirm the amount of time paid for is correct, and then take receipt. The Appellant has admitted that they did not receive a receipt from the machine, therefore, they did not confirm their transaction. In these circumstances the machine will wait for a period of time, to allow the motorists sufficient time to confirm the transaction, then, if this is not done, it resets and any coins entered are returned. We note the Appellant states that their payment was not returned, however, they have also admitted that did not “expect or look for” a receipt, therefore, indicating that they walked away from the machine, before the payment was rejected. We cannot be held liable for this. The screen would have been showing the same information, we cannot be held liable for the Appellant’s user error. We have enclosed evidence from our back-office system which shows that other motorists weer able to read, and understand the signage, including the machine instructions, on the date of the contravention, including during the period in which the Appellant;s vehicle entered the site. Therefore, proving that the signae was visible and that the machines were working correctly. If the Appellant was unable to successfully use any of the payment machines, they could have used the pay by phone service, Parkonomy. Alternatively, they could have contacted Premier Park, our telephone number is detailed on the signage. We have confirm, we have no record of receiving any contact regarding the Appellant’s vehicle registration, on the date of the contravention, or from any other motorists advising of any issues with the machines. We have provided motorists with ample methods to make payments for their parking sessions, this includes 3 payment machines situated on site and the pay by phone service, Parkonomy. These services were all available for the Appellant to use on the date of the contravention. We cannot be held liable for the Appellant’s failure to utilise the available payment methods to ensure they had complied with the advertised terms and conditions of parking. The Appellant has appealed on the grounds of mitigating circumstances. As per POPLA FAQ’s If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but cannot enforce it. In the Annual report of 2018, the lead adjudicator for POPLA advised that although some decisions are tough because the motorist has presented mitigating circumstances, it is unlikely that this will provide grounds for POPLA to allow the appeal. When entering onto a managed private car park, a motorist might enter into a contract by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, the driver should have reviewed the terms and conditions before deciding to park. 13 Grace periods – according to the British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract. 13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. 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. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The Appellant’s vehicle remained on site with no payment made for the parking session, therefore a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the driver did not. We request that this appeal be refused.

POPLA assessment and decision

14/02/2020

Verification Code

6663619369

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to whole period of parking not paid for.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that she paid the correct fee and did not overstay. She states the area was unlit and it was dark and rainy. She states the terms on the payment machine were tiny and were not lit, and she had forgotten her reading glasses. She states she knew how much to pay as she had contacted the skating rink prior to the visit. She states she used the light from her phone to enter her full and correct vehicle registration and it appeared correctly on the screen. She adds that she did not expect a ticket and has now realised she did not press the green button to confirm her purchase. The appellant states she did not receive her money back and has asked the operator to check their takings as they will see a payment was made, but they have not responded to this point. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “Please pay for your stay. Parking tariffs apply at all times. Up to 3 hours £1.00…If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 16:55, and exiting at 19:08, totalling a stay of 2 hours 12 minutes. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay to park. The appellant explains that she paid the correct fee and did not overstay. She states the area was unlit and it was dark and rainy. She states the terms on the payment machine were tiny and were not lit, and she had forgotten her reading glasses. She states she knew how much to pay as she had contacted the skating rink prior to the visit. She states she used the light from her phone to enter her full and correct vehicle registration and it appeared correctly on the screen. She adds that she did not expect a ticket and has now realised she did not press the green button to confirm her purchase. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and understand that it was dark upon arrival. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signage during the hours of darkness which shows the area is lit by lighting on site and the signage is made from retroreflective material. I understand that it was dark where the payment machine was and the appellant used a torch to enter her details. It is clear that she made a simple error by failing to confirm at the end of payment, if she had, she would have received a parking ticket to display in her vehicle or keep for her records, most operators still issue this when paying for parking on site. It is evident due to the images of the vehicles entry and exit, that the appellant did not visit the car park in daylight hours. In relation to the contrast and illumination of signage, Appendix B of the British Parking Association Code of Practice explains that, “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when the parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting in the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual”. Whilst I appreciate the appellants comments, I find that signage was sufficiently lit at the time of the breach. Perhaps the fact that she had forgotten her glasses was a factor in failing to read the full terms of parking at the payment machine. The appellant states she did not receive her money back and has asked the operator to check their takings as they will see a payment was made, but they have not responded to this point. I accept the further comments made and appreciate she did not receive her money back, but POPLA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN, as no parking time was purchased, despite the appellants best efforts, I must conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly. I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site. It has provided images of the signage on site which is clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions due to whole period of parking not paid for. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal in the motorist comments, as these were raised after the initial appeal, I cannot take them into account.

D_P_Dance

You have posted this in the wrong thread, please start a new thread. 

pogofish

Why did you hijack this inaccurate/out of date "information" thread Susan?  

It needs to be left for dead down the boards!