Parking charge after paying for residents' parking in hospital accommodation

plastics

Hi All

Gone through the flowchart, and think I might need some help.
I'm a doc, rotated to work for 4 months at a hospital and was provided 'hospital accommodation' from a private company who are in partnership with the Trust to provide rental accommodation to hospital workers. I asked about car parking for 4 months and was simply told it would cost £30 upfront for a residents' permit for the duration of the stay - note a very large spacious car park, no issues of overcrowding or anything like that, but I appreciate some kind of parking management needs to be in place as non-residents may wish to park there for free.

Arrived on the day to get my keys, pay for the parking permit- was not told that there was an expiry date printed in small on the permit, and stupidly didn't look closely, just put it in the windscreen. It happens that they give everyone the same permit that expires in mid-December every year, regardless of when you start your stay in the hospital accommodation and they expect you to go back in person to get the permit 'renewed', even though you have already paid for the 4 month duration of the parking i.e. they don't print an expiry date that equates to your duration of residence and how much you have already paid.

In January, my car along with a number of other residents' cars had the PCNs stuck on their windscreen because the permit had 'expired' - went to the accommodation office, who said they always warn residents that they need to come back to 'renew' their permits, and they had stuck posters up on the doors to advise us of this.

The PCN charge was £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days or internal appeal. I went for the latter, as I was incensed on a matter of principle as I had paid for the residents parking for the whole 4 months and was not parking 'illegally' except on the count of the 'technicality' that the permit 'was not valid' as it had an expired date.

Unsurprisingly, the internal appeal by the parking operator was rejected and I was given the choice of paying £60 or mounting an appeal to the IAS but if this failed it would revert back to £100. Again I went to appeal on a matter of principle.

I stated that I was not provided information about the 'technical expiry date' on the permit, that they should have given me a permit with an expiry date commensurate with the period of parking I had paid for (i.e. 4 months), and the landowner did not make me fully aware of the onerus terms displayed on their 'notices' in the car park. Notwithstanding this, I also said that even if there was an oversight on my part, the charge of £100 was unreasonable and acting as a penalty, given that 4 months parking only cost me £30 - the landowner did not suffer any loss as a result of the 'breach', given I had already paid for the residents parking.

Unfortunately, the IAS also dismissed the appeal on the following grounds:

- "The purpose of this appeal is for the Appellant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Parking Charge is not valid. I am unable to consider mitigation as this can only considered at the sole discretion of the Operator. I can only deal with issues of law.

- The Appellant accepts that they were displaying an expired permit. Having seen a photograph of the permit, the expiry date is clearly visible. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract by displaying a valid permit. If they fail to do so, by parking there they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.

I have also had sight of the Notice which informed residents to collect their new permits by 20/12/14. The Parking Charge was not issued until 20/1/15. I am therefore satisfied that the Appellant had ample opportunity to renew the parking permit.

In relation to the proportionality of the cha rge, the signage at the site makes clear that 'By parking on this private land you are entering into a contract'. 'If you do not display a valid permit in full view you agree to pay the parking charge stated below'.

The construction of the contract is such that loss does not need to be demonstrated or proved.'


So, I was just about to give up and pay the £100 (even though I can't believe how the English legal system can allow this to occur) and then heard about the ParkingEye vs. Beavis Court of Appeal case and then clicked onto this forum.....
....any ideas on whether I should wait for the outcome of this? Is it likely to come out soon, as I believe I have 14 days to pay the £100

plastics

I must add - my hospital shifts started before 0800am and I routinely got in after 7pm.
To 'renew the permit' in person at the accommodation office, their opening hours were 9am-5pm and closed during the lunch hour 1-2pm, making it very difficult to go back and get the permit swapped, even if I knew I needed to!

bazster

You have as long as you like to pay nothing. Who is the parking parasite?

You are now in "ignore" mode. They would be mad to sue you over something you provably paid for. Skippy the IAS assessor may choose to believe that you agreed to pay £100 for not displaying a permit but any judge with half-a-brain (which unfortunately doesn't include all of them!) would see that it's a thinly-disguised penalty.

plastics

It is VCS, I think head office based in Sheffield?
Will they really just ignore it, given that they now have the IAS backing their position (and they possibly had costs associated with putting it through that appeal system?)

bazster

They will not ignore it, they will send you an entire series of joke letters from debt collectors all of which can safely be ignored.

The only things not to ignore are a Letter Before Claim from VCS or its solicitors (a real solicitor's letter, not some debt collector pretending to be solicitors) or real county court papers.

As for the chances of that happening, VCS and its sister company requested approx 150,000 keepers' details from DVLA last year, and raised approx. 300 court claims. You do the math!

As for whether the IAS "verdict" will embolden them, well it might because they're pretty stupid, but being anonymous it would be utterly worthless in a court of law. They would have to be bonkers to try suing you over something you've clearly paid for.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Just to be clear, IAS is not a reasonable appeals system, whereas POPLA is a nearly guarenteed win if you follow process. There is a long list of bizarre decisions.

If they did sent a letter before claim or you found yourself with court documentation then it is highly unlikely that they would win as long as you follow proper process.

English Law does not allow what are essentially fraudulent claims for damages, however, these companies use the threat of court to frighten people into paying, and if they think people are soft touches they may be tempted to go to court. However, the courts do seem to be slowly learning that these contracts are a scam, so basically they use the threat of court to get people to cave, even though they know that they are unlikely to win.

bod1467

bazster wrote: »

You do the math!

When did you turn American?

plastics

Thanks all, it is quite tough to ignore without knowing whether there is a legal basis upon which i can ignore their demands....

From a purely legal standpoint, what they seem to be saying is:
- I entered a tenancy contract with the landowner/provider of the hospital accommodation
- If the accommodation officer didn't provide me with the details of the Terms and conditions/contractual obligations for parking in that car park i.e. being obliged to renew the permit at arbitrarily set date, then my 'issue' is with the landowner's representative/accommodation company, regardless of whether I paid fully for the parking or not
- i.e. even though I have paid for the parking, the VCS terms displayed on the signage in the car park states that I must display a valid permit and as I have what they deem an 'invalid permit' as the date has expired, and I didn't renew it, then I had technically entered a contract with them making me liable for their charges of £100 as displayed on their signs

Presumably from a legal standpoint, they can say I entered a contract by parking on that land, that I needed a valid permit, and it was my responsibility to ensure the permit I displayed was valid, whether I had paid the correct amount to park there or not. As I breached that contract, I therefore owe them the 'charge'.

Is there a case to suggest that they could be legally justified in claiming for this, as a breach of contract, but I would then need to recover that 'charge' from the accommodation company for not pointing out the onerous terms of that 'parking contract' that I entered in good faith?

The charge is clearly unreasonable and disproportionate, but the Beavis case suggested that it could be argued that there is 'commercial justification' for it, and this is the principle that is being tested in the Court of Appeal? Is there even a date set for getting that decision as yet, does anyone know?

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

When did you turn American?

It was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, I should've used a smiley! It's an Americanisation I actually detest!

bazster

plastics wrote: »

Thanks all, it is quite tough to ignore without knowing whether there is a legal basis upon which i can ignore their demands....

Well pay it then. There's nothing more irritating here than someone who asks for advice and then when they get it looks for a hundred ways of questioning it.

System

"whether there is a legal basis upon which i can ignore their demands...."

You'll be familiar with the concept of "duty of care".

The landlord failed in their duty by failing to make the terms clear. That landlord cannot then benefit by having their agents charge you for something they had a duty to inform you about.

In addition the basis of the VCS claim - on behalf of the landlord is spurious to say the least.