Park With Ease Lake District

spacecube

Hi, I parked at a private car park in the Lake District with an out of order machine, and therefore I didn't make a payment for parking on the day.

I was very surprised to have Park with ease issue a Notice To Keeper which came 3-4 weeks later

I appealed to them, and said in my appeal that 'We would have paid, if the machine was working'. They have said in reply that I could have paid online, but with the machine not
working I wasn't to know this. I have been a bit naive it seems for a few reasons, as lots of the advice on this website talks about not admitting I was the driver, and now I have admitted this.
They say I should appeal to the IOS.

I've been trying to read through the various info in the newbies section. There is a lot of information and I find it quite hard to digest and understand what is relevant and what is not.

It may be easier & simpler for me to just pay the £25 rising to £50, but on principle I think I should fight it. I don't know if it's unlawful what they are doing but certainly unpleasant business.

If anyone could help point me in the right direction with what I can do next I would be grateful. Thankyou.

hoohoo

There are plenty of complaints about this car park, (White Moss?) and the IAS do not uphold appeals.

I would write offering a without prejudice offer of the outstanding parking charge, plus a reasonable admin fee of £5 as full and final settlement if accepted within 14 days.

State that any other charge is denied and that you will rely on ParkingEye v Beavis which is binding case law so they have no reasonable chance of success.

State you would be willing to attempt alternative dispute resolution to resolve the issue and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman. State you will not consider the IAS as they have been exposed as a kangaroo court and therefore have no credibility.


They won't like you using their own 'silver bullet' against them, but it is the IPCs fault for passing the audit of their signs where their £50 charge is hidden in tiny print in the signage

Coupon-mad

Go with hoohoo's expert advice. Seconded.

pappa_golf

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/independent-parking-committee-operator.html


ding dong , rang a bell


gather up those press cuttings , and use em , in any futile court attempt

spacecube

Thanks for the advice, it's actually Silverthwaite Car Park near Skelwith Bridge, not far away though.

I will certainly write to them, I appreciate I do owe the original fee. I do feel I should be charging them the admin fee for my efforts, but I guess you live and learn. Thanks again

pappa_golf

did you have a phone signal in such a way out spot? , was there a LOCAL number contact on their signage ?


IPC , so forget it , just keep their garbage filed for later

The_Slithy_Tove

hoohoo wrote: »

There are plenty of complaints about this car park, (White Moss?) and the IAS do not uphold appeals.

This is not White Moss, but Silverthwaite. However, both are "managed" by Lowther Estates, who then get ParkWithEase to "manage" the collection of payments. It's strange how the Lowther Estate managed car parks seem to get a number of threads here (mainly White Moss), yet those belonging to the Lake District National Park, who also use ParkWithEase to collect payments, get few if no comments here. (LDNP used to use PE, and there were loads of complaints then.) I suspect the contracts that ParkWithEase have with Lowther and the LDNP vary considerably in the latitude granted to ParkWithEase concerning how far they can take underpayments/no payments.

The_Deep

I would write offering a without prejudice offer of the outstanding parking charge, plus a reasonable admin fee of £5 as full and final settlement if accepted within 14 days.

I would not give them a penny more than that to which they are entitled. It is not your fault their machine was not working. I am surprised that CM
supports HooHoo's suggestion.

As or paying on line, what does that mean?

spacecube

Just looking at Beavis case, I'm a bit sceptical about how using a case that has been won by a parking company would support my argument.


With regards to what happened that day. There is quite a lot of signage which I didn't read. The screen where payments are made had a blue background and in white letters said 'This machine is out of order'

I did not check any of the other signage and assumed that as they were communicating that the machine was out of order, they would not be able to charge any fees for the parking.

hoohoo

spacecube wrote: »

Just looking at Beavis case, I'm a bit sceptical about how using a case that has been won by a parking company would support my argument.

Because in the Beavis case the £85 was in huge letters, while in your case the £50 is in tiny letters. The judgment relies on the charge being 'in your face', so when it is not, it is a penalty/unfair charge

The_Slithy_Tove

spacecube wrote: »

Just looking at Beavis case, I'm a bit sceptical about how using a case that has been won by a parking company would support my argument.

Additionally:

46. The terms of use of the car park need, therefore, to provide a disincentive to drivers which will make them tend to comply with the two hour limit. That is afforded by the parking charge of £85. It would not be afforded by a system of imposing a rate per hour according to the time overstayed, unless that rate were also substantial, and well above what might be regarded as a market rate for the elapsed time, even if the market rate were in some way adjusted to take account of the benefit to the driver of the first two hours being free.

Pay per hour car parks set themselves entirely outside the Beavis judgement by virtue of this paragraph.