Park Direct UK

Coupon-mad

_mw_ wrote: »

I'm going to fight the charge - got photos of the signs. They're definitely there, but the signs to the entrance are obscured and around the site there are yellow signs that say No Stopping or Waiting, but the signs that detail the terms and conditions are quite small. The driver obviously tried to read them, and then left once it was clear that their being there wasn't OK. Also, as there is no parking, how can a parking fine be levied?

The entrance sign (the one obscured by a bin on the left and completely overshadowed by the Gym's huge billboard advert) is NOT always there in every photo, that's the point. It's been shown not to be there sometimes, in other people's pics.

Go and look, get DATED photos. You need evidence, evidence, evidence for IAS.

_mw_

So I've received quite a lengthy response. I turns out I wasn't there for 66 seconds, as originally stated, but 74...

Dear...
Thank you for your appeal received 11/04/2017 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has also been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show that this notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in a way that breaches the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

This PCN was issued because your vehicle was found to be STOPPING/WAITING (their emboldening and capitalising) in an area where you are unauthorised to do so. There are numerous signs displayed in various locations around the site including the entrance and the sign in CLOSE PROXIMITY (their emboldening and capitalising) to your vehicle (photographic evidence provided) to ensure that all approaching motorists are fully aware of the restrictions that are in force. We would also like to refer you to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 64, which looks at what a reasonable person would consider fair. The myriad number of signs are sufficiently lit, are in an intelligible language and are prominent to draw the attention of a reasonable consumer. As such, a reasonable consumer would have acknowledged these signs. It can never be used as a defence in contract law to state that one did not see/read the terms and conditions (warning signs) once it has been established that the existence of those terms and conditions (warning signs) have been reasonably advertised. All of our warning signs have been audited and approved by the IPC who have deemed their location and content sufficient to disseminate all drivers of the restrictions in force. The signage at this location clearly connotes (their emboldening) to all motorists the level of charges that were in force and you had the option to park elsewhere if you felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. By parking on the site, it confirms that you agreed to park in accordance with the perspicuously displayed terms and conditions - including the level of the parking charge (their emboldening) if it arose.

The warning signs clearly state NO UNAUTHORISED VEHICLES (their emboldening and capitalising). The area in question is for authorised users only and we can confirm that your vehicle was not authorised to park on site. The only ways to become and authorised user would have been to obtain and display a valid parking permit, or use the gym sign-in sheet to insert your vehicle registration number (this option is only available for gym users). It is clear from your appeal and the photographic evidence that you did not have in your possession a valid permit to park, nor were you on site for the purposes of using the gym facilities. We can further confirm that there is a grace period of 1 minute allocated for this site (which your vehicle exceeded), as such a binding contract had been formed via conduct. Examples of this can be seen in the cases Arthur v Anker (1996), and Vine v Waltham Forest (2000). The facts of these cases should help you understand the fundamentals of acceptance of a binding contract in a car park environment. The acceptance of the contract is legally binding once someone enters the private property and acknowledges the various signs and notices we have on display. The 1 minute grace period was more than sufficient for you to read and understand the terms and conditions considering your vehicle was within the immediate vicinity of a warning sign. Furthermore, all of our warning signs prominently displayed a 24 hour customer service telephone number which you could have called in the event of any uncertainty when parking, and had you called the number upon your arrival you would have been advised on which steps to take in order to avoid receiving a PCN. We must remind you that it is the driver's responsibility (their emboldening) to ensure that they actively observe and adhere to the parking restrictions in force when parking on private property and we would advise that you do so in the future so as to prevent any further PCNs being issued. Regrettably, we can only cancel a PCN if it was issued incorrectly or if the contravention did not occur and are unable to do so based on the grounds of your appeal.

Unfortunately on this occasion, we are forced to uphold the PCN as it was issued correctly. We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. (etc etc etc).

First off - they have said that there was a parking attendant. Does that not mean that he/she should have approached the car to back up the warning signs?

Also, a reasonable person can arrive, read a sign that lays out in quite a lot of detail the terms and conditions, and drive away all in one minute? The evidence they provided me was 4 photos of the car just behind one of their signs. The first is time stamped 16:57:42 and the last one 16:59:06. That's 1 minute 24 seconds.

Whilst I'm not a member of that gym, I also fail to see how they can tell from the photos of the back of the car that there is no permit in there...

Anyone got any advice?

Umkomaas

1. An 'attendant' should have been moving the driver on if not entitled to be there, rather than being hell-bent on issuing a ticket.

2. In their response they confirm that the driver was not entitled to be there, therefore a trespasser and should be sued for trespass. Only problem for them is it is the landowner who has to sue for trespass - the PPC has no role in this (unless the land - unlikely - has been leased to them).

3. They say there's a 1 minute grace period - what a joke. Councils provide 10 minutes, BPA operators provide 'sufficient to enter, park, read the signs, decide if to stay or go, buy a ticket, place it on the dashboard, lock the car up) and then at the end of parking at least a further 10 minutes to leave.

4. Frankly, I think appealing to the IAS might be a waste of time. It is heavily stacked against the motorist, and, in the likely event of a win for the PPC, they have something to wave before a judge.

5. If you lose at the IAS court papers could follow.

6. If it were me, I'd respond saying you have no intention of appealing to the IAS as it is now widely evidenced that it is so heavily weighted against the motorist, you have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in its impartiality and you would not get a fair hearing. Instead, you wish this to be decided in a court of law, where you will vigorously and robustly defend any claim, and they should serve you with court papers within 14/21 days so you can have a fair and impartial hearing before a qualified judge, or otherwise you will consider the matter closed.

See what others think.

PS - for ex-clampers, they've managed to have used some mighty fine words in their letter. Someone must have rammed a dictionary into somewhere painful for them.

Half_way

REad up on the IAS, and demand that they provide you with an ADR service that fully complies with The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations Act 2015, tell them that the IAS service does not comply with this act on several counts, including the Involvement of Mr John Davies, and William Hurley who are involved with not only the private trade association the International Parking Community (IPC), but also the so called independant appeals service that the IPC use.
Due to the Involvement of Mr Willaim Hurley and John Davies in both organisations you can not and will not be bound by any decision made by the IAS.

You shold also complain to the Gym stating the above and tell them that as their agents, thhey ( they Gym) are jointly and severally liable for the actions of the parking company, and as such you expect the gym to cancel any parking charge, as you do not appreciate your valuable time being wasted and that you reserve your right to charge the gym for your time

_mw_

The thing is, they basically said that they wouldn't answer any further correspondence related to this matter - I should have included that, but it was taking ages to type it all up.

So I'm not sure what to do now then...

Umkomaas

So I'm not sure what to do now then...

So what's wrong with my bullet point #6 in post #24 (above)?

_mw_

If they're not responding to any further correspondence, will sending a letter requesting court papers even be recognised?

Half_way

Who are"they"the parking company or the gym?

Umkomaas

_mw_ wrote: »

If they're not responding to any further correspondence, will sending a letter requesting court papers even be recognised?

It might not, but if they want to try a court case further down the line (and they have 6 years to do so), they'll have to have a good reason to explain to a judge why they did not take the opportunity when offered by you.

A lot of this stuff is strategy and tactic - it's as much about keeping this away from court as getting there!

And if they are intending going to court, there's nothing you can do to stop them, so it's better sooner than later, while everything is fresh in your mind now. Try remembering all the detail in 5 years time.

Don't forget, you're not in control of any of this now, so try to position yourself where they might find you a bit hotter than they'd like to handle. Bullies thrive on weaklings.

_mw_

"They" are the parking company.