CEL Scotland

stevensanph

The car park in question is a small car park on a side street serving a doctors surgery (NHS Scotland). It has always been free without restrictions, although this must have changed recently (in last 12 months I'd guess). Street location is here https://goo.gl/maps/tk6ngV9vr2o

The driver had pulled into the side street with a mechanical problem on a Saturday morning, and with the street lined with cars it either needed abandoning in the middle of the road, or pulling off into the car park. The driver therefore rolled it slowly into the car park. Once in the car park the driver became aware of "terms and conditions" signs. These offered on the face of it 90 minutes free parking. They did not notice the small print which said only on Monday - Fridays. A breakdown company was called who removed the vehicle about an hour later. The driver can prove this via the text messages received from the breakdown company/subsequent repairs made.

The keeper (myself), has now received a PCN as shown below. I managed to make it down there this weekend to take pictures of the car park entrance and signs in the car park.

Do I:

1) Ignore as in Scotland
2) Reply back with a robust letter detailing the above
3) Reply back with details of above, plus challenging their right to charge £100 for a "breach" when clearly this cannot be contractual. There is no visible entrance sign unless coming from the other direction and therefore the driver, having rejected their terms and conditions, removed the vehicle at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if they hadn't, the sign offered 90 mins free parking which was not exceeded. There is no commercial justification for the charge as the doctors surgery is shut on Saturday/Sunday. The car park has a barrier which was raised, so if they are claiming a loss or damages for trespass they've made no attempt to mitigate their loss by simply lowering the barrier.

Any help much appreciated. I'd rather not ignore - I don't particularly want them selling my details to goodness knows who.




Entrance as seen by driver;


Entrance sign not seen by driver


Sign in car park

DoaM

1) .

Umkomaas

Unless you get the surgery to tell them to cancel, nothing you can do will stop them in their tracks. They won't 'sell' your data to anyone, but they might involve powerless debt collectors to write letters to you.

While you might feel you 'want to do something', there's nothing you can do - other than above. The more you try to 'do something', the more they will realise they have you rattled and a bit nearer to paying them to get them off your back. So they step up the pressure. That's the business model.

In Scotland - as long as the driver hasn't been identified, the parking incident took place in Scotland, and the car is not a hire, lease or company one - you are safe to ignore.

fisherjim

That signage is hilarious!


If the BPA say they have audited that they are either liars or more incompetent than I thought!


As Doam/Umkomaas say ignore the dozy Muppets.

Fruitcake

Ignore.

Come back here if you get real court papers.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.