Signage in the Private car par and NTK

linasp

Hello All,

I had few questions regarding few parking charge notices I have recently received from Highview Parking.
First one is kind of obvious, I have received several Notice to the keeper (NTK) and they all issued ~ 20days after the they day of the parking. One is 18 days, and few are actually more than a month after the parking.
Now in normal circumstances I would simply ignore the NTK, because it failed POFA Section 4 i.e. they cannot prove I was driving, nor force me to disclose who was driving, because they missed 14 days period. If they cannot prove who was driving and have not followed POFA ~ I reckon slim chances of enforcement.
The only reason I am tempted to respond, is that they have sent me 8 NTKs so far and there might be more coming (oops) i.e. they all late, but overall volume might be high enough to justify (for them) to go to the court.
The Second questions is regarding signage, I have looked to BPA best practice and around the interwebs and I was always under impression that price for parking has to be clearly stated, but I cannot find any specific clause for it. It does say signs must be clear, but that isn't really saying anything.
The specific part of signage I want to challenge is the price. It reads ~ "£7/Day or variable on the event days". Now in my interpretation that is invalid sign and therefore cannot be enforced - "variable" and "event days" does not constitute as a clear cost nor time frame, furthermore event dates not posted anywhere. Basically, what sign is saying - "on any random day we can charge any random charge".
What is worse - this a ANPR car park without any barriers and one can only pay by SMS or APP on smartphone and they require to pay before leaving. So basically what happens you get to the car park in the evening and you may see £7 on the screen (which I generally pay), or it could be £10, or like it happened to me several times £35. So they really mean "variable".
Finally, from 8 NTKs , I have actually paid for parking in 2 cases so it should not be a problem to challenge those, but I am not tempted because the NTK themselves are invalid and I kind of opening myself for other 6.

What would be your take on this - ignore and wait.. Challenge on 2 and ignore the rest, or challenge all - 2 on the basis they been paid and NTK invalid, and 6 for generally incorrect/misleading signs and NTK invalid.

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

Challenge all of them using the template from the NEWBIES thread.

Highview will just cancel, it is that easy!

The_Deep

The specific part of signage I want to challenge is the price.

You might like to ask this of your local Trading Standards Officer, as for the other, get your MP on side.

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 five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

Do they refer to POFA and/or Elliot v Loake?