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).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Operator conceded this appeal due to Mitigation
Options
grum1965
Posts: 11 Forumite
Details:
My Appeal: You completed the appeal on 17/01/2018 10:27:12.
The car park Charge notice that I have received states that I have exceeded the time limit and that there is clear signage in and around the car park stating such. The whole area in which I park has NO such signage and in fact appears to be a separate area - this is based on the fact that all the other sections of the car park are FLOODED by parking restriction signs and this section has NONE in the area at all. It has clearly been left clear of signs on purpose. Please see my photographs and a google map diagram of the area (The red on the diagram shows where all the signs are located and the green is the section that is completely free of signs and thus where I park my car). The Car Park Attendant seems to have chosen a random sign from the other part of the car park and added it to my case in order to infer that I was parked in one of the restricted areas. Please note. I have been sent another charge notice since this one with the same detail and similar photographs (Charge notice Z9621) and will provide the same evidence for that one, and any subsequent ones. I am willing to take this all the way to Court if necessary.
Operators Prima Facie Case: The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 23/01/2018 11:19:19.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
At this site there is a requirement to park within the time limit which is 3 hours and no return within 1 hours or a charge to park of £100 is incurred. This is a contractual condition which is displayed on signs at the entrance and throughout the retail park. Our photographic images clearly show the motorist overstayed and UKCPS Ltd therefore request this appeal be dismissed.
Appellant's Response: The appellant made their response on 24/01/2018 14:11:45.
I refer you to my diagram which shows there are no signs showing any restriction in the section of the car park where the car was parked. The photographic images taken by the operator merely show a sign from the other area of the car park. my photographs show that there a NO signs in that area of the retail park (please take note that the first photograph shows the entrance of the car park and you will see that the signage claimed by the operator does not exist). I reiterate that the "flooding" of signs in the other areas shows clearly that there are restrictions in those areas of the retail park but there is NOTHING to designate the area where
the car is parked (shown in green on my diagram) as restricted.
Operator's Response: The operator made their response on 31/01/2018 17:20:32.
The signage on site is adequately placed throughout the site it makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
Appellant's Response: The appellant made their response on 06/02/2018 10:31:36.
The Operator is obviously not looking at the evidence that I have supplied and is assuming that the issuer of the PCN is correct. My evidence CLEARLY shows that there is NO signage AT ALL in the area in which the vehicle is parked. I invite The Operator to join me on the site and see this for his/her self and confirm that the photographs that I have supplied truly reflect the reality. I am still happy to take this to Court with the same evidence provided here.
Appeal Status: Operator Conceded <-Just updated today 13/02/2018
The Operator conceded this appeal due to Mitigation.
I have also noticed the PDFs of random signage and their "so-called" photographic evidence has been removed from the appeal document since that response was posted this morning.
My Appeal: You completed the appeal on 17/01/2018 10:27:12.
The car park Charge notice that I have received states that I have exceeded the time limit and that there is clear signage in and around the car park stating such. The whole area in which I park has NO such signage and in fact appears to be a separate area - this is based on the fact that all the other sections of the car park are FLOODED by parking restriction signs and this section has NONE in the area at all. It has clearly been left clear of signs on purpose. Please see my photographs and a google map diagram of the area (The red on the diagram shows where all the signs are located and the green is the section that is completely free of signs and thus where I park my car). The Car Park Attendant seems to have chosen a random sign from the other part of the car park and added it to my case in order to infer that I was parked in one of the restricted areas. Please note. I have been sent another charge notice since this one with the same detail and similar photographs (Charge notice Z9621) and will provide the same evidence for that one, and any subsequent ones. I am willing to take this all the way to Court if necessary.
Operators Prima Facie Case: The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 23/01/2018 11:19:19.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...
At this site there is a requirement to park within the time limit which is 3 hours and no return within 1 hours or a charge to park of £100 is incurred. This is a contractual condition which is displayed on signs at the entrance and throughout the retail park. Our photographic images clearly show the motorist overstayed and UKCPS Ltd therefore request this appeal be dismissed.
Appellant's Response: The appellant made their response on 24/01/2018 14:11:45.
I refer you to my diagram which shows there are no signs showing any restriction in the section of the car park where the car was parked. The photographic images taken by the operator merely show a sign from the other area of the car park. my photographs show that there a NO signs in that area of the retail park (please take note that the first photograph shows the entrance of the car park and you will see that the signage claimed by the operator does not exist). I reiterate that the "flooding" of signs in the other areas shows clearly that there are restrictions in those areas of the retail park but there is NOTHING to designate the area where
the car is parked (shown in green on my diagram) as restricted.
Operator's Response: The operator made their response on 31/01/2018 17:20:32.
The signage on site is adequately placed throughout the site it makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking.
Appellant's Response: The appellant made their response on 06/02/2018 10:31:36.
The Operator is obviously not looking at the evidence that I have supplied and is assuming that the issuer of the PCN is correct. My evidence CLEARLY shows that there is NO signage AT ALL in the area in which the vehicle is parked. I invite The Operator to join me on the site and see this for his/her self and confirm that the photographs that I have supplied truly reflect the reality. I am still happy to take this to Court with the same evidence provided here.
Appeal Status: Operator Conceded <-Just updated today 13/02/2018
The Operator conceded this appeal due to Mitigation.
I have also noticed the PDFs of random signage and their "so-called" photographic evidence has been removed from the appeal document since that response was posted this morning.
0
Comments
-
Good result, but what is the name of the PPC please?I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
It's written in the Prima Facie: UKCPS Ltd0
-
How can I show the photos (and diagram) that I submitted to the appeal? I'm restricted from posting links0
-
-
How can I show the photos (and diagram) that I submitted to the appeal? I'm restricted from posting links
Upload them to a web hosting site such as postimage, or tinypic, then post the URL here but change http to hxxp. Someone will then convert it back to a live link for you. Make sure you redact all personal information first.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
It's not "mitigation" but entrapment. Perhaps a complaint to the IPC is in order - interesting to see them trying to spin thisThis is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
-
To be fair they had a VERY weak case and my final response was very cutting.0
-
Not sure I'd describe that as mitigation. Sounds like they knew their signage was inadequate in part of the car park, they're up against someone who was willing to fight their corner and do the 'leg work' and that they were likely to lose at the 'independent' appeal stage (even with the IAS).0
-
hxxp://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af354/grum1965/Castle%20marina%20Signage.png
I think that's all that's needed. The other photos show storyboard of me entering the site and various views around the area marked, all including my car in the images.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards