£180 Parking Charge!

White123

Hi all,

I hope someone on here can offer some advice.

I used an Excel Car Park in July of last year, paid the charge, nipped in to a store and left. When I returned from holiday I was surprised to find a car parking fine as I knew I had paid it. Luckily I found the ticket- I had put in my old car registration (lack of sleep and screaming 10 month old will do that to you!) I wrote to Excel explained the above, provided them with the ticket and proof of my previous car ownership. Heard nothing. Then moved house (I did put my number on the letter but they haven't rang me). I then get a phone call today from Wright Hassal solicitors saying that the charge is now £180. Apparently they have wrote to me at the old address but this is the first contact I have had with them. POPLA can't help as it is outside the appeals window. I'm not sure what to do. In the past people have paid a £10 'good will' charge but the solicitors say that that is no longer an option and that they want £180 and it may incur more charges if I don't pay it. I want to stand my ground as I did pay in the first instance but the woman on the phone said that it was a void ticket as I put in the wrong reg.
Sorry for the long post but any help would be appreciated- stuff like this really worries me!
With thanks

Half_way

Whos car park was it? it almost certainly wasn't Excels own car park ( although they do have a very very small amount of P&D)
you said you nipped into a store, what store? retail park? what?

Theres not enough information to offer any meaningful advice

and why on earth did you phone them?

System

I wrote to Excel explained the above, provided them with the ticket and proof of my previous car ownership

Complain to the BPA (aos@britishparking.co.uk) that you appealed and they ignored you. BPA will come back with nonsense about not being a regulator.

Complain further to the DVLA that the BPA did not investigate and why are they give the right to audit members and then not do so. DVLA Minions will send nonsense back.

Escalate complaint to Oliver Morley at DVLA that BPA are failing to follow the standards set for an Approved Trade Association and should either sort it or be stripped of their ATA status.

May seem a hassle but if Excel decide to try court, you can honestly claim you did everything to find a route into Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) but were obstructed by the BPA/DVLA.

White123

Thanks for your response.

It was The Peel Centre Car Park in Stockport, which is owned by Excel. It was there solicotrs that rang me today (Wright Hassall) as I put my telephone number on the original letter I sent as I was moving house.
I went in to Gap - I was only in the store 10 mins but paid for an hour so I don't owe them for an over stay- just that I put in the wrong reg. Also still have a copy of the ticket.

catfunt

Excel are now an IPC operator, and have been since beginning of 2015, so only the kangaroo court would have been available to you, not POPLA.
No point in involving the BPA for the same reason.

It is not recommended to phone a PPC, or (as in your case) give them your phone number, gives them the option of hassling you with phone calls, or textually harassing you, or both....

Coupon-mad

Stop phoning and block their number NOW or they'll ring you and text you in true 'debt collector' style, pretending you have no choice but to pay. You can't complain to the BPA as Excel were IPC already by 2015.

Instead, send WH and Excel a robust letter to head this off. You should state that the PCN should have been cancelled and I would use the following two matters to argue this as a fact:

1. An Excel Spokesperson, when they were exposed for pursuing a case where they knew from the first appeal that the person HAD paid and displayed but had merely made a VRN error (not like yours but nonetheless neither situation is as rare as you might think) said this to BBC Watchdog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4jKcc6g2sd9rqR9sFZKCBjQ/private-parking

''However, we do recognise that motorists may input an incorrect digit(s) of their VR number when purchasing a P&D ticket...''

''The issue was discovered at the point we reviewed Mr Couzens appeal and we duly placed the PCN on hold pending formal cancellation. The actual cancellation paperwork was drawn up on the 23rd of May for the cancellation of Mr Couzens PCN. On the same day incorrect correspondence was sent to Mr Couzens advising him that the PCN was being investigated. This correspondence should have stated that the PCN was being cancelled.''

''It is with regret that Mr Couzens was sent a standard acknowledgement letter rather than a cancellation letter explaining the position to him. Furthermore, we are embarrassed to find that despite further correspondence received from Mr Couzens, we did not process it in the manner that it should have been.''

So, it is in the public domain that when an issue like this is identified at first appeal stage and proof supplied that the tariff was paid - notwithstanding that the initial VRN error was the driver's - the 'manner that it should have been' dealt with was that the 'correspondence should have stated that the PCN was being cancelled'. Excel have made that clear in the above case in the public domain.

The obvious conclusion is either:

- in this case they should have cancelled because that is their policy, so Excel have also made a mistake and should recognise this and now cancel the PCN

or

- Excel were economical with the truth in their statement to the BBC about how they normally deal with such VRN errors at appeal stage by cancelling them.


2. A fair comparison can be made between Excel's stated policy (that the proper process is that they will cancel a PCN when an inadvertent VRN error when making payment of a tariff came to light at appeal stage) and the public policy followed under statute by local authorities. This is undoubtedly a reasonable comparison for a consumer appellant/defendant to make and indeed the authority confirming this is a realistic consideration is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where PCNs issued by the local authority were compared and mentioned at every stage, including in the Supreme Court.

The key case applicable for such a comparison with public policy is appeal case BM 07586G (Birmingham Council v Doctor Evans) where the appellant inadvertently input his own VRN rather than that of the vehicle he was driving, but it was not disputed that he made the correct payment of a tariff. In his case, like mine, he also pointed out in an honest appeal at the time, the reasons for his mistake and showed proof of payment. The Council could check that the 'wrong' VRN did not relate to any vehicle in the car park that day (as in my case, so could Excel) so it should have been a matter for cancellation of the PCN because there was no intention to contravene any rules or deprive the Council of the parking fee.

The decision was made by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, Caroline Sheppard. She observed:

''The Council has not explained in its evidence...in what terms it is made clear to the payee [...with...] evidence of any signs warning drivers that they need to be careful in following the instructions. While the CEO cannot be criticised for issuing the PCN, in my view the Council should
have immediately cancelled this penalty charge since they had in their own system proof that Doctor Evans had paid £3.30 for parking the car.

He had no means of knowing when he left the car park that his payment had been recorded against his own car rather than Miss Price's but it was clear when he explained in his letter of 20 September what had happened.''

********************
Caroline Sheppard
Chief Adjudicator 3 August 2010




You can then end the response with something like this:


In view of the above compelling information, it is clear it was Excel's failure to cancel this PCN which has led to the case unfairly reaching this stage. It is both public statutory policy and Excel's own policy that a PCN issued under these circumstances should have been cancelled after my appeal was properly considered. Neither party should profit from administrative errors on both sides and as Excel knew from the first appeal that I had paid the tariff, there can be no commercial justification to pursue me for the same charge as they would if a driver had parked there without paying for a week.

It is also clear that the circumstances of this case demonstrate that this is the exact type of punitive and unenforceable charge that the Supreme Court would have considered a clear penalty. It falls foul of the penalty rule and without displaying intellectual dishonesty, it cannot be argued that this is a 'contractual charge for a service' because the tariff already paid for the parking offered. This is not a core price, it is a disguised penalty which breaches the UTCCRs and Consumer Rights Act. Only the tariff was the true 'price' to park and it is not disputed by your client that it was paid. There is no merit in pursuing this penalty because it would have no prospects of success in court.

White123

Coupon-Mad - thank you so much for your response and the two cases that you cited. I really do appreciate your help. i will get a letter typed this week and get it sent off to both WH and Excel.

Thanks again

Sarah

Half_way

Dont forget to copy the Peel centre in on this as well, this is a well known site for scumbag PPCs to prey upon, and it generates a fair amount of traffic on here from other people who have been tricked by Simon Renshaw-Smith and co.
I would advise anyone to go elsewhere and stay well clear of the Peel centre

Coupon-mad

I would agree - because of Excel I would urge shoppers to avoid and boycott the Peel Centre.

Half_way

By copy the peel centre management in, make yourself as much of a nuisance to them over this as possible, demand that they instruct their agents to cancel this, make sure that their staff stay busy in dealing with this, if possible go to the local press ( google peel centre parking and you will find lots of stories)
If you have time then why not don a hi-vis jacket stand at the entrance and warn motorists away?

Marktheshark

How wrong is the wrong registration ?
One Digit or someone else s car they can prove was at the car park that day ?