Euro Parking Services at it again!

NomiKaay

Hi Everyone,

Hopefully someone will be able to help me with this.

I recently received a Parking Charge Notice for parking in a bay which, to anyone with an ounce of brain, will seem fine parking. But the Patrol Officer woke up on the wrong side of the bed on the day so issued me with a PCN. I appealed the PCN on their website using the online facility, but they sent me a rejection letter.

The appeal letter I sent was based on 2 arguments:

• The alleged contravention did not occur

Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. The Patrol Officer alleges that the vehicle was ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’. I can assure you, as evident from the pictures below, that the vehicle was indeed parked within the markings. Please see attached photos of the vehicle from various angles, as proof of my claim.

• Absence of ‘No Parking’ Markings

The signage around the parking site clearly indicate the terms & conditions of ‘No Parking’ locations as being marked with Red/Yellow lines or hatched markings – none of which were present in the bay I parked.

I am now preparing to contest this on IAS website. Please review the pictures below and let me know whether I am in the wrong or what is the best route/wording to contest this PCN.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Regards

Nak

Apologies for the below links - the forum wont allow me to post links or pictures directly.

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/88VLlOJ.jpg

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/rTNRl3d.jpg

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/uFwPz9C.jpg

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/OFzS8rf.jpg

Umkomaas

https://i.imgur.com/88VLlOJ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/rTNRl3d.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uFwPz9C.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OFzS8rf.jpg

Umkomaas

Are these your photos? Were they taken at the time? How do they correlate with the PPC's photos?

Looking at the state of that car park, do you still have your wheels? :rotfl:

Loadsofchildren123

Are they saying that because there wasn't a white line on the other side of the space it wasn't a marked bay? Ridiculous.


IAS is a kangaroo court that is likely to reject your appeal - they then argue in proceedings that you failed an appeal (but you counter that by saying that it's a skewed process because it's owned and run by the same people who own and run the solicitors who act for the PPC, so there's a clear conflict of interest). Some people randomly win IAS appeals (apparently they are randomly selected just to make up numbers so IPC can claim that some appeals are granted). You may be one of the lucky ones.


If and when they write you a Letter Before Claim, you can ask and carry on asking for them to spell out the contravention because, as you say, there doesn't seem to be one. I think any judge would agree that this would appear to any reasonable person to be a "marked bay". However, not all judges have common sense.

fisherjim

To be perfectly honest I would have considered that a parking space, as would most drivers I would think, that's just a usual scam tactic these total Muppets get up to.

If they didn't want you to park there for what ever reason they should hatch it, or put a sign on the wall behind to stop you.

Perhaps they need 24hr access to allow fly tipping to take place!!!

Guys_Dad

Do the photos supplied by the PPC match the ones you posted? Were the ones you posted actually taken when you returned to the car?

If so, this has got to be a court winner, although I would take a couple of pictures of the hatched areas just for comparison.

Pity you didn't have a passenger that lives in Inverness who you would call as a witness. The costs when you win would be brilliant.

Loadsofchildren123

Did the signs contain a disclaimer for the state of the car park? Or does the original Banksie artwork need protecting?

The_Deep

I would guess that TMOTCO would say that was a bay.

If they want to play hardball, use reasonability as a defence and lodge a counterclaim for unreasonable behaviour.

In my opinion a white line on the right is unnecessary as nothing can be parked to the right and it is not signed as a no parking area.

NomiKaay

Umkomaas wrote: »

Are these your photos? Were they taken at the time? How do they correlate with the PPC's photos?

Yes, these are my photos. They're exactly, more or less, the same as the ones I found as their 'evidence'.

Looking at the state of that car park, do you still have your wheels? :rotfl:

Do the photos supplied by the PPC match the ones you posted? Were the ones you posted actually taken when you returned to the car?

Yes, these are my photos. They're exactly, more or less, the same as the ones I found as their 'evidence'.

If so, this has got to be a court winner, although I would take a couple of pictures of the hatched areas just for comparison.

Good idea.

Pity you didn't have a passenger that lives in Inverness who you would call as a witness. The costs when you win would be brilliant.

This is their response to my appeal.

Thank you for your appeal received on 30/03/2017 regarding the Parking Charge Notice referred to above. We have reviewed
your appeal and in doing so, we took into account the representations that you made in support of your appeal as well as
evidence which was submitted by the parking attendant. We reached the decision that in this instance, the Parking Charge
was issued correctly for the following reason
The terms and conditions of use of the car park are clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed around the car park,
these include vehicles must park within marked bays and and not park in such a way as to cause obstruction to others.
According to our records your vehicle was incorrectly parked, we have no option but to reject this appeal. The signs are
prominently displayed in and around the site and are obvious to any person who enters the site. It is incumbent upon motorists
to read them. If they choose to ignore them then they submit to the terms nonetheless.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice 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. Please now make payment
of £60 to reach us by 18/04/2017 or £100 to reach us by 02/05/2017. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement
rate passes it will not be offered again. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent
Appeals Service (IAS). If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS). The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of
this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard
Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection. In order to appeal, you will need your
parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. However, if you choose this
option your Parking Charge will automatically increase to £100. Please visit for full details.
Payments can be made by cheque or postal order made payable to Euro Parking Services Ltd. Please ensure you write your
Parking Charge Notice number clearly on the reverse. Please do not send cash through the post. Payment can be made using
a debit or credit card.

Loadsofchildren123

Speechless
Can you get a google earth bird's eye view of the carpark, it might be useful showing marked bays and hatched areas. Any reasonable person would say where you parked was a "marked bay". The sign doesn't define "marked bays" as ones that have to have a white line either side. It's clearly a parking space. I'm developing a nervous twitch over this, it's so stupid.


Defend, defend, defend.

Fruitcake

The sign says, a marked bay or space. That is a marked space. It might only be marked on one side, but it is most definitely marked, and is most definitely a (car sized) space.

It defines hatched areas as a place where you can't park. The space where you parked was not hatched.

The wording on the signs is not saved by the Beavis case as the font is too tiny and the £100 charge is not prominently displayed, and is actually in smaller print that the £60.

The premium rate 'phone number is now prohibited.