We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Notorious Peel Centre Advice
robrob86
Posts: 1 Newbie
Hello everyone, I've read the newbies thread and while it is informative I'd still like to seek some advice regarding my individual case. I'll summarize as well as I can.
My parents, my daughter and I went for food at the peel centre in stockport which is controlled by Excel parking. My mum paid for parking but mistakenly put the reg in for her car instead of the reg for mine, an honest mistake, she is 72 after all bless her. I inevitably didn't realize and a week or two later I got the PCN in the mail off excel. I appealed, citing human error for the basis of the appeal. They rejected the appeal. I proceeded by asking for a POPLA code, even ringing POPLA to see if I definitely should receive a code, they told me that Excel are no longer registered as part of that particular sector and that I should appeal to the IAS. I did this and the operator (excel) promptly replied with their evidence for the basis of their PCN. I've now been given the option of a further appeal or to refer the case for arbitration. It's at this point that I feel i'm out of my depth and could do with some advice. I'll upload both my appeal and excel's response.
My Appeal: On the 16/11/2017 I visited the Peel Centre in Stockport with my parents and my daughter. My mum offered to pay for parking and she duly went to the parking machine and paid for 3 hours parking time.
On the 8/12/2017 I received a PCN from excel parking through the post. I could not understand why I had received the PCN at first, fortunately I found the original parking ticket that had been purchased at the Peel Centre. After close inspection of the ticket I realised that my Mum had entered the registration number of her own vehicle 'SD14R**' and not of mine.
Based on this information I decided to appeal the PCN based on the grounds that no financial loss was incurred as we had paid for parking and still had sufficient time left on our ticket at the time of us leaving. I continued by explaining that the PCN was issued as a result of sheer human error on my Mum's part and not because of an unwillingness to pay for parking. I even offered to provide details of my Mum's car as proof but this was ignored.
On the 21/12/2017 Excel Parking replied to my appeal and chose not to accept it, citing that I had not paid attention to their terms and conditions when parking on their land. In this case I feel that Excel have chosen to ignore the mitigating circumstances of sheer human error.
I cannot understand how being threatened with a charge of £60 or £100 is a fair and proportionate fine, especially as we were willing to pay.
The amount suggested does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it represent any material damage to the Peel Centre or Excel. The fact that the charge is non-itemised and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no more than a disguised penalty which has been issued in the form of a misleading, un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximising revenue for Excel.
Excel have claimed that we have breached their terms and conditions by not entering the registration number for the relevant vehicle. I would argue the case that entering a vehicle registration, despite it mistakenly being an incorrect one, would in itself show an awareness and compliance for the rules and terms and conditions. To suggest that an individual, in this case my 72 year old Mum, would deliberately enter an incorrect number is completely absurd as there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
In summary, I refuse to pay the fine issued by Excel and I shall vigorously defend any court action by Excel, including full use of any court appeal system if it becomes required.
If the IAS fail to find in my favour then I respectfully request a full breakdown and explanation as to why my appeal has been rejected. I also request details to be provided on the number of cases the IAS has reviewed and provide a full breakdown of how many cases it has upheld and how many it has rejected. I request this so that the true independence of the IAS can be established if I wish to take matters further. Failure to do so will be taken that the numbers of rejections will reflect unfavourably upon the IAS.
I believe my appeal should be upheld and the ticket cancelled.
Their response: The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 24/11/2017.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 24/11/2017.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
1. The Peel Centre Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicles provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. There are 86 signs on site, including 5 Entrance Signs (2000mm x 1000mm), 29 Information Signs (1220mm x 660mm), 17 Tariff Boards (1200mm x 1000mm) and 14 P&D ticket machines with “Pay Here” signs erected at a height of approximately 2.5 metres, situated at key locations throughout the area. Site photographs confirm that the signs can be observed at the entrance and throughout the car park.
3. The signs state: “Pay & Display Car Park”, “Customers have 15 minutes from entering the car park to purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket” and “It is important that you enter the FULL and ACCURATE REGISTRATION NUMBER of the vehicle onsite when making payment” and makes it clear that any motorist parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of parking displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
4. Management of the Peel Centre Car Park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as they enter and leave the car park. The images are compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and any vehicle which remains in the car park without a ticket, after a period of 15 minutes, is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post.
5. ANPR images supplied, show that the appellant’s vehicle entered Zone 2 of the Peel Centre Car Park ‘StockPeelZ2In’ at 12:50 and exited through Zone 2 ‘StockPeelZ2Out’ at 14:17, a period of 1 hour 27 minutes.
6. The Pay & Display data supplied confirms that no P&D ticket was purchased that either matched or resembled the appellant’s full registration number ‘MK62O**’ from its entry into the car park, until beyond the expiry of the 15 minutes grace after their vehicle was recorded entering the car park. The data also shows that ticket machines were working and that other motorists were correctly purchasing tickets throughout this period.
7. The appellant in their appeal states they state “I could not understand why I had received the PCN at first; fortunately I found the original parking ticket that had been purchased at the Peel Centre. After close inspection of the ticket I realised that my Mum had entered the registration number of her own vehicle 'SD14R**' and not of mine.”
8. These circumstances do not mitigate the appellant’s contravention and does not constitute grounds for their parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions displayed. When entering this private land it is solely the motorist’s responsibility to fully comply with the Terms and Conditions. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. It is clear that the terms of parking stated that a valid pay and display ticket must be purchased and displayed containing the vehicles full vehicle registration mark, or the motorist would face liability for a parking charge.
9. We must state that it is the sole responsibility of the driver to ensure that they complied with the relevant terms and conditions of parking. In this case, if the ticket was obtained by another person, then they should have checked that the relevant details were correct, before they displayed the ticket, and left the vehicle parked.
10. Whilst we note the circumstances highlighted by the appellant, we would note a helpline is displayed on our signage for use by any motorist who has any queries or is experiencing difficulties. This was not utilised by the appellant. Had they checked the Pay and Display ticket and contacted us at the earliest reasonable opportunity to report their situation to us then it is possible that advice could have been provided or provisions made which could have lead to the appellant avoiding liability for a charge.
11. In response to the appellant’s comments in relation to the amount of the Charge Notice charge, our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would refer to the recent judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].
12. The appellant failed to purchase a valid Pay and Display ticket for the vehicle registration mark and became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
There's no chance I'll be paying any fine unless I'm ordered to do so by a judge. I just need some advice on how to get excel off my back. As you've probably fathomed I'm a novice in this matter and any help and advice that can be offered on what next step to take would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks
My parents, my daughter and I went for food at the peel centre in stockport which is controlled by Excel parking. My mum paid for parking but mistakenly put the reg in for her car instead of the reg for mine, an honest mistake, she is 72 after all bless her. I inevitably didn't realize and a week or two later I got the PCN in the mail off excel. I appealed, citing human error for the basis of the appeal. They rejected the appeal. I proceeded by asking for a POPLA code, even ringing POPLA to see if I definitely should receive a code, they told me that Excel are no longer registered as part of that particular sector and that I should appeal to the IAS. I did this and the operator (excel) promptly replied with their evidence for the basis of their PCN. I've now been given the option of a further appeal or to refer the case for arbitration. It's at this point that I feel i'm out of my depth and could do with some advice. I'll upload both my appeal and excel's response.
My Appeal: On the 16/11/2017 I visited the Peel Centre in Stockport with my parents and my daughter. My mum offered to pay for parking and she duly went to the parking machine and paid for 3 hours parking time.
On the 8/12/2017 I received a PCN from excel parking through the post. I could not understand why I had received the PCN at first, fortunately I found the original parking ticket that had been purchased at the Peel Centre. After close inspection of the ticket I realised that my Mum had entered the registration number of her own vehicle 'SD14R**' and not of mine.
Based on this information I decided to appeal the PCN based on the grounds that no financial loss was incurred as we had paid for parking and still had sufficient time left on our ticket at the time of us leaving. I continued by explaining that the PCN was issued as a result of sheer human error on my Mum's part and not because of an unwillingness to pay for parking. I even offered to provide details of my Mum's car as proof but this was ignored.
On the 21/12/2017 Excel Parking replied to my appeal and chose not to accept it, citing that I had not paid attention to their terms and conditions when parking on their land. In this case I feel that Excel have chosen to ignore the mitigating circumstances of sheer human error.
I cannot understand how being threatened with a charge of £60 or £100 is a fair and proportionate fine, especially as we were willing to pay.
The amount suggested does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term nor does it represent any material damage to the Peel Centre or Excel. The fact that the charge is non-itemised and given as a round figure to the maximum amount allowed (also with the minimum amount of discount offered for payment within 14 days) under the AOS Code of Practice (Schedule 5) means that this charge can only be interpreted as quite literally no more than a disguised penalty which has been issued in the form of a misleading, un-solicited invoice with the aim of maximising revenue for Excel.
Excel have claimed that we have breached their terms and conditions by not entering the registration number for the relevant vehicle. I would argue the case that entering a vehicle registration, despite it mistakenly being an incorrect one, would in itself show an awareness and compliance for the rules and terms and conditions. To suggest that an individual, in this case my 72 year old Mum, would deliberately enter an incorrect number is completely absurd as there is nothing to be gained by doing so.
In summary, I refuse to pay the fine issued by Excel and I shall vigorously defend any court action by Excel, including full use of any court appeal system if it becomes required.
If the IAS fail to find in my favour then I respectfully request a full breakdown and explanation as to why my appeal has been rejected. I also request details to be provided on the number of cases the IAS has reviewed and provide a full breakdown of how many cases it has upheld and how many it has rejected. I request this so that the true independence of the IAS can be established if I wish to take matters further. Failure to do so will be taken that the numbers of rejections will reflect unfavourably upon the IAS.
I believe my appeal should be upheld and the ticket cancelled.
Their response: The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 24/11/2017.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 24/11/2017.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
1. The Peel Centre Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicles provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. There are 86 signs on site, including 5 Entrance Signs (2000mm x 1000mm), 29 Information Signs (1220mm x 660mm), 17 Tariff Boards (1200mm x 1000mm) and 14 P&D ticket machines with “Pay Here” signs erected at a height of approximately 2.5 metres, situated at key locations throughout the area. Site photographs confirm that the signs can be observed at the entrance and throughout the car park.
3. The signs state: “Pay & Display Car Park”, “Customers have 15 minutes from entering the car park to purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket” and “It is important that you enter the FULL and ACCURATE REGISTRATION NUMBER of the vehicle onsite when making payment” and makes it clear that any motorist parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of parking displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
4. Management of the Peel Centre Car Park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as they enter and leave the car park. The images are compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and any vehicle which remains in the car park without a ticket, after a period of 15 minutes, is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by post.
5. ANPR images supplied, show that the appellant’s vehicle entered Zone 2 of the Peel Centre Car Park ‘StockPeelZ2In’ at 12:50 and exited through Zone 2 ‘StockPeelZ2Out’ at 14:17, a period of 1 hour 27 minutes.
6. The Pay & Display data supplied confirms that no P&D ticket was purchased that either matched or resembled the appellant’s full registration number ‘MK62O**’ from its entry into the car park, until beyond the expiry of the 15 minutes grace after their vehicle was recorded entering the car park. The data also shows that ticket machines were working and that other motorists were correctly purchasing tickets throughout this period.
7. The appellant in their appeal states they state “I could not understand why I had received the PCN at first; fortunately I found the original parking ticket that had been purchased at the Peel Centre. After close inspection of the ticket I realised that my Mum had entered the registration number of her own vehicle 'SD14R**' and not of mine.”
8. These circumstances do not mitigate the appellant’s contravention and does not constitute grounds for their parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions displayed. When entering this private land it is solely the motorist’s responsibility to fully comply with the Terms and Conditions. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. It is clear that the terms of parking stated that a valid pay and display ticket must be purchased and displayed containing the vehicles full vehicle registration mark, or the motorist would face liability for a parking charge.
9. We must state that it is the sole responsibility of the driver to ensure that they complied with the relevant terms and conditions of parking. In this case, if the ticket was obtained by another person, then they should have checked that the relevant details were correct, before they displayed the ticket, and left the vehicle parked.
10. Whilst we note the circumstances highlighted by the appellant, we would note a helpline is displayed on our signage for use by any motorist who has any queries or is experiencing difficulties. This was not utilised by the appellant. Had they checked the Pay and Display ticket and contacted us at the earliest reasonable opportunity to report their situation to us then it is possible that advice could have been provided or provisions made which could have lead to the appellant avoiding liability for a charge.
11. In response to the appellant’s comments in relation to the amount of the Charge Notice charge, our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would refer to the recent judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].
12. The appellant failed to purchase a valid Pay and Display ticket for the vehicle registration mark and became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
There's no chance I'll be paying any fine unless I'm ordered to do so by a judge. I just need some advice on how to get excel off my back. As you've probably fathomed I'm a novice in this matter and any help and advice that can be offered on what next step to take would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks
0
Comments
-
its not a "FINE" , its a parking Charge Notice , in simple terms , an INVOICE
NOWHERE ON THE PAPERWORK WILL THE f WORD BE USED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A "FINE"
they can and do issue a Parking Charge Notice
the IAS is a waste of time which the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread does tell you (third thread down from the top of this forum)
I can assure you that you are NOT going to get EXCEL off your back, its not going to happen unless you either pay up , IN FULL, or if you go to court and win your case based on "de-minimis"
ie:- its a trivial matter as you say and payment was made so no loss has been suffered
the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 does help you regarding any LBC or if you receive an MCOL
EXCEL (or BW LEGAL) have 6 years to issue a court case , which has always been the case since the small claims court started in 1973
so whatever you decide, EXCEL will not get off your back until you pay up OR they lose in court
if they win in court , pay the judgment within one month to stop if affecting your credit rating
SOMETIMES , THERE IS NO "NEXT STEP"
hope that explanation helps
ps:- NEVER park up at the Peel Centre , its a notorious honeytrap and the unwary become their victims - I live a few miles away and NEVER go there and never would park there , plus I have been warning people on here about it for 5 years0 -
I proceeded by asking for a POPLA code, even ringing POPLA to see if I definitely should receive a code, they told me that Excel are no longer registered as part of that particular sector and that I should appeal to the IAS. I did this and the operator (excel) promptly replied with their evidence for the basis of their PCN. I've now been given the option of a further appeal or to refer the case for arbitration. It's at this point that I feel i'm out of my depth and could do with some advice.
The advice is you should have Googled the IAS before starting this doomed appeal, sorry. It's well documented as a Kangaroo court, and you have zero chance at IAS and will then feel on the back foot when you lose and you get a demand.
Should not have done this, but as long as you now know your appeal is doomed to lose, hopefully you can laugh at the decision & ignore it. Also complain to your MP and to the Peel Centre themselves, they need to hear your WRATH.
Good, so say all of us.There's no chance I'll be paying any fine unless I'm ordered to do so by a judge.
You can't.I just need some advice on how to get excel off my back.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 243K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards