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!
Private "Parking Ticket" REJECTED
Options
johnsw
Posts: 6 Forumite
Hello,
I'm seeking some advice. Apologies if this has already been covered but I've had a search and could not find an answer to my question.
On 10/01/2019 my friend parked on the cusp of what they have now been told is a private residential area where a permit is required. I have been assured there were no signs up at the time stipulating exact terms of use.
At 1pm I saw a car pull up and begin to take multiple signs out of their car and taking them down the side of where my friends car was. I have a recording of this person walking to the side of the vehicle where a sign was placed, but not one of them putting it up as it is obscured by a fence. They started taking pictures of the vehicle so I went and spoke with them. I was told it was an "enforced area" and the vehicle would receive a ticket. I said it was not clear it was an enforced area because there was no signage, and the ones there has only just been put up. They said they had no glue so hadn't put signs up. I have a voice recording of this. The signs in the area were put up with cable ties so if this was true, what was the reason for them to bring signs out of their car?
The ticket was issued 10/01/2019 13:03 and appeal submitted by email 23/01/2019 23:36 as the letter said a reduced fee of £45.00 is applicable "within 14 days of the date of issue".
An email was received today to say the appeal has been rejected because "photographic evidence collected when this PCN was issued clearly shows your vehicle being parked without displaying a Valid Parking Permit". In the email it also states a charge of £90.00 is required and this will increase to £150.00 if not paid within 14 days.
Here is the evidence submitted:
- Video 1: sendvid com j5ov1u8b
- Video 2: sendvid com 5xmpn3gl
- Photograph 1: imgur com 2hhrZwj
- Photograph 2: imgur com i6mqeQ0
- Photograph 3: imgur com qljw5F4
- Photograph 4: imgur com fHKrIuM
- Photograph 5: imgur com iMV0elH
(had to remove links to post. I'm sure you know what to do but just message if not)
Video #1 10/01/2019 13:03:
- Woman taking a sign directly to the side of vehicle KS53YSH.
Video #2 10/01/2019 13:06:
- Woman going further into Grace Court to take photographs.
Photograph #1 10/01/2019 13:17:
- Sign recently placed next to vehicle KS53YSH.
- The sign states the driver had “agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage”. This sign was not present at the time the driver had parked. The driver also advised they have some impairment in relation to reading and as such it’s unlikely they would have been able to clearly see/read and therefore consent to the terms within such small print.
- The sign states “the following restrictions apply to all customers visiting this store”. There is no store in the area and the driver of KS53YSH was not a customer.
- The sign is fixed with cable ties, not glue. The other signs shown also appear to be affixed with cable ties to the fence suggesting glue need not have been necessary.
Photograph #2 11/01/2019 08:59:
- The sign is “skewed” less than a day later. In photograph #1 you will see the sign is straight. This shows there has been a change overnight. If the sign had been longstanding, there would not have been such change. Clearly the sign had slipped down overnight as one of the cable ties had been affixed to a vertical beam on the fence.
- Having checked, the sign is no longer present.
Photograph #3 10/01/2019 13:07:
- The line-of-sight of the driver from their point of exit. As you can see, the driver is not able to see the two left-most signs from their point of exit. The sign next to the vehicle had only just been placed there. Even if the driver had explored the area, there could have been one or more large vehicles blocking the signage at the time.
Photograph #4 July 2018:
- Image from Google StreetView, you will see there is no signage at the point the woman had placed the sign next to KS53YSH. There is no other signage visible.
Photograph #5:
- Image you will see a map of Sun Street and Grace Court which shows there is a single, shared entrance and exit point. At no point was the driver able to see a sign stipulating specific terms of use since the sign had only just been placed there.
The driver was unable to agree to terms of use as signage was not present or at the very least inadequate at the time of parking. The driver is not aware whether the two other pieces of signage deeper within the site were present at the time of parking; but even so, it would not have been visible to the driver between the point of entry and exit and due to the location could also have been obstructed. The vehicle reversed on to the island as it had seen many other cars do without issue; however, driver assures the sign was not present at time of parking and therefore did not agree to the terms.
My questions are:
- How likely is it the evidence will stand up with the IAS?
- Was the appeal submitted "within 14 days of the date of issue" and as such the reduced rate should only be applicable?
Thanks!
I'm seeking some advice. Apologies if this has already been covered but I've had a search and could not find an answer to my question.
On 10/01/2019 my friend parked on the cusp of what they have now been told is a private residential area where a permit is required. I have been assured there were no signs up at the time stipulating exact terms of use.
At 1pm I saw a car pull up and begin to take multiple signs out of their car and taking them down the side of where my friends car was. I have a recording of this person walking to the side of the vehicle where a sign was placed, but not one of them putting it up as it is obscured by a fence. They started taking pictures of the vehicle so I went and spoke with them. I was told it was an "enforced area" and the vehicle would receive a ticket. I said it was not clear it was an enforced area because there was no signage, and the ones there has only just been put up. They said they had no glue so hadn't put signs up. I have a voice recording of this. The signs in the area were put up with cable ties so if this was true, what was the reason for them to bring signs out of their car?
The ticket was issued 10/01/2019 13:03 and appeal submitted by email 23/01/2019 23:36 as the letter said a reduced fee of £45.00 is applicable "within 14 days of the date of issue".
An email was received today to say the appeal has been rejected because "photographic evidence collected when this PCN was issued clearly shows your vehicle being parked without displaying a Valid Parking Permit". In the email it also states a charge of £90.00 is required and this will increase to £150.00 if not paid within 14 days.
Here is the evidence submitted:
- Video 1: sendvid com j5ov1u8b
- Video 2: sendvid com 5xmpn3gl
- Photograph 1: imgur com 2hhrZwj
- Photograph 2: imgur com i6mqeQ0
- Photograph 3: imgur com qljw5F4
- Photograph 4: imgur com fHKrIuM
- Photograph 5: imgur com iMV0elH
(had to remove links to post. I'm sure you know what to do but just message if not)
Video #1 10/01/2019 13:03:
- Woman taking a sign directly to the side of vehicle KS53YSH.
Video #2 10/01/2019 13:06:
- Woman going further into Grace Court to take photographs.
Photograph #1 10/01/2019 13:17:
- Sign recently placed next to vehicle KS53YSH.
- The sign states the driver had “agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage”. This sign was not present at the time the driver had parked. The driver also advised they have some impairment in relation to reading and as such it’s unlikely they would have been able to clearly see/read and therefore consent to the terms within such small print.
- The sign states “the following restrictions apply to all customers visiting this store”. There is no store in the area and the driver of KS53YSH was not a customer.
- The sign is fixed with cable ties, not glue. The other signs shown also appear to be affixed with cable ties to the fence suggesting glue need not have been necessary.
Photograph #2 11/01/2019 08:59:
- The sign is “skewed” less than a day later. In photograph #1 you will see the sign is straight. This shows there has been a change overnight. If the sign had been longstanding, there would not have been such change. Clearly the sign had slipped down overnight as one of the cable ties had been affixed to a vertical beam on the fence.
- Having checked, the sign is no longer present.
Photograph #3 10/01/2019 13:07:
- The line-of-sight of the driver from their point of exit. As you can see, the driver is not able to see the two left-most signs from their point of exit. The sign next to the vehicle had only just been placed there. Even if the driver had explored the area, there could have been one or more large vehicles blocking the signage at the time.
Photograph #4 July 2018:
- Image from Google StreetView, you will see there is no signage at the point the woman had placed the sign next to KS53YSH. There is no other signage visible.
Photograph #5:
- Image you will see a map of Sun Street and Grace Court which shows there is a single, shared entrance and exit point. At no point was the driver able to see a sign stipulating specific terms of use since the sign had only just been placed there.
The driver was unable to agree to terms of use as signage was not present or at the very least inadequate at the time of parking. The driver is not aware whether the two other pieces of signage deeper within the site were present at the time of parking; but even so, it would not have been visible to the driver between the point of entry and exit and due to the location could also have been obstructed. The vehicle reversed on to the island as it had seen many other cars do without issue; however, driver assures the sign was not present at time of parking and therefore did not agree to the terms.
My questions are:
- How likely is it the evidence will stand up with the IAS?
- Was the appeal submitted "within 14 days of the date of issue" and as such the reduced rate should only be applicable?
Thanks!
0
Comments
-
Which parking company?
Don't appeal to IAS ignore anything further unless you get a court claim?0 -
An appeal to the IAS will prove to be futile. They routinely deny the vast majority of appeals sometimes giving the most ludicrous reasons.0
-
LDK but they've said it's going up to £150 in 14 days and said:
"As we have now reached the end of our appeals process, please note that a firm of Solicitors has now been appointed to prosecute all outstanding PCNs. Files will be passed over without any more prior warnings."
I understand the company have had complaints from residents in the areas and so I think they will progress matters to the courts. 2 thugs in a black out range rover went in yesterday with two other people in fluorescents in separate cars so seem to be taking it quite seriously.
I guess the final question is whether it's "within 14 days of the date of issue"
10/01/2019 13:03 and appeal submitted by email 23/01/2019 23:36 suggests it's within "the date of issue" but not "date and time". Can someone clarify?0 -
LDK but they've said it's going up to £150 in 14 days and said:
"As we have now reached the end of our appeals process, please note that a firm of Solicitors has now been appointed to prosecute all outstanding PCNs. Files will be passed over without any more prior warnings."
I understand the company have had complaints from residents in the areas and so I think they will progress matters to the courts. 2 thugs in a black out range rover went in yesterday with two other people in fluorescents in separate cars so seem to be taking it quite seriously.
I guess the final question is whether it's "within 14 days of the date of issue"
10/01/2019 13:03 and appeal submitted by email 23/01/2019 23:36 suggests it's within "the date of issue" but not "date and time". Can someone clarify?
bring it on0 -
Post one of the Newbies Sticky covers this completely...?
The futility of IAS appeals is also fully explained.0 -
Post one of the Newbies Sticky covers this completely...?
The futility of IAS appeals is also fully explained.
Apologies if already covered, I've read the huge sticky and couldn't see this case covered specifically. Do you have a link to the relevant thread?
What I pasted above was what we sent to the company to appeal. I'm struggling to digest all this information and different cases and all the individual threads for each. I've had some good info but still uncertain, especially given the implications of being prosecuted and increased amount?
I'm 100% sure we're within the 14 days so have the option to pay £45, as 14 sets of 24 hours from 10/01/2019 13:03 is 24/01/2019 13:03 and my appeal was made on the 23rd... am I right? Their email says £90 so I'm tempted to reply saying what they have proposed does not agree with the terms of use stipulated in the evidence they themselves submitted (signage and ticket)
So it would seem the IAS won't uphold my case. There's no signs at the entrance other than "permit holders only" but this doesn't go into detail.
The sign on the fence was placed there and I have 2 videos of a woman carrying signs down the side of where the vehicle was but not the actual footage of her putting them up.
The image on google maps (2018) shows there being no signs.
Vehicles (the one in question included) have parked on the space opposite and in that location for the past year with no tickets. It seems this is the first.
The driver did not appeal in their name (fake name and account).
Help!
:(:( 0 -
You need to redact personal information such as the VRN from your first post. Any videos or images showing VRNs should be redacted or not posted.
Using fake names is not a good idea. Has the keeper received anything through the post or are you only dealing with a NTD at the moment?
The Keeper should be dealing with this.
The 14 day discount for mugs is irrelevant. I doubt many people here would advise your friend to pay anything. It's a scam. Even our MPs have said so.
Your friend should definitely complain to their MP about this unregulated scam.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 -
I have no idea how to convet your videos to live links.
Your photos.
Photograph 1: https://imgur.com/2hhrZwj
Photograph 2: https://imgur.com/i6mqeQ0
I can't get number 3 to work
Photograph 4: https://imgur.com/fHKrIuM
Photograph 5: https://imgur.com/iMV0elH
In future, upload the images to a web hosting site then post the URL here but only change http to hxxp. Any more changes than that make it hard work for old folks like me to work out what format it should be in to convert it to a live link.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 -
If they are seeking damages for breach of contract they will have to prove that the signs were all in place before you parked. if they were not, I would complain to Trading Standards Department, and your MP.
The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.
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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I'm struggling to understand why, having so meticulously recorded this disgraceful scam unfolding in real time, you are then considering paying up!
I guess you were motivated by the hope that the evidence you captured would quash any charge very quickly, which isn't going to happen, yet sheer outrage is obviously in the mix too.
You've used your initiative and then some .... now comes the time to listen to the very experienced regulars here and follow their advice to the letter. The combination sounds like a winning formula to me!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