We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
DUPLICATE THREAD - PLEASE IGNORE IAS Appeal draft (Blue Badge)
ddiane
Posts: 17 Forumite
Hello, I previously posted a question about parking ticket on private car park in Windsor. The infamous castle car park. Link to my previous post: Uk parking limited parking fine disabled badge - windsor (sorry won't let me post link)
As expected, the appeal had come back rejected and was advised to appeal to IAS which in this forum is more commonly known as kangaroo court. I was wondering if you could kindly go through my draft (it's lot of copy and paste from other threads here who made appeals) and would very much appreciate your more wise guidance,
What I've noticed about this castle car park is misleading name, insufficient signage and hidden disabled parking warning. The ticketing officer who took the warnings picture clearly showed the image of blue badge hidden by PAY HERE in very small writing and instruction placed at the end of the car park. (*I'd be willing to share the picture if you want to see how it is).
More detail: My mother had parked the car with her BB at around 2 o clock to go to the post office and came back at around 4.40 ish literally second after PCN was issued. Her right leg is crippled with severe arthritis at the ankle and knee and she cannot walk unaided/unassisted and Windsor is uphill so she has to take lot of break. The appeal was made by mother who named herself as the driver and used 'I' (the big no no in the appeal).
Here's the draft.
Dear Sir/Madam
As the keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice UK parking Ltd issued against the mentioned vehicle. I believe the parking charge notice should be cancelled based on the following grounds:
Inadequate and Insufficient IPC Compliant Signage
(would attach castle car park sign)
The signage on entry to the land is improper and insufficient. As suggested under Schedule 1 of the IPC CoP “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. After revisiting the site since receiving the NtK, signage on entry to the land does not meet this criteria.
The signage (Sign1) is written in capital letters. The British Dyslexia Association and Gov.uk state that “Avoid text in block capitals: this is much harder to read”. This means that the signage provided can be argued as not easily legible and can cause problems for any driver that has dyslexia.
Additionally, the IPC CoP states under Schedule 1 that signs should “include a minimum of one phrase from Group A”.To clarify this point, Group A phrases are stated as the following :
Pay and display [free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes/hours] free parking [for customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit Holders Only
As can be seen in attachment Sign1, there is no Group A text on this signage.
The alleged breach took place in Castle Car Park in Windsor. Having subsequently visited the site, the main sign at the immediate vehicle entrance to the carpark where it says private land is barely noticeable as drivers who, unable to stop at that point in the road, rightly strive to accord with legal and safe driving practice.
The nearest pay and display parking meter, at the entrance displays no signs that suggest BB must pay and display ticket. One must travel to the end, which the driver due to disability cannot, and even then, BB must pay signs are written in very small font and hidden behind by PAY HERE poster.
The Charge is a disguised breach
The wording of the signage states that there is a “penalty charge for failing to display a valid ticket”. The NtK (attachment NtK1) states that there was an “Unauthorised Parking Event”. As such, I contend that this charge is not a contractual fee or tariff (consideration), but a breach. A contractual fee/tariff arrangement would not need parking to be authorised and would consider parking at any price or fee.
** For now, this is all I have, I know that BB are protected under 2010 Equality Act but I'm not sure how to word that here....
TL;DR private land in main sign very small, won't be able to safely stop the car to check as it's right next to the road and would disrupt the traffic.
parking meter by the entrance and most convenient, the picture of the car park shows there's no instructions about blue badge.
Blue badge must pay sign is at the far end of the parking lot and is hidden by the PAY HERE sign at the bottom in very small font.
Please please help me. I would very much appreciate any input....
Thank you.
As expected, the appeal had come back rejected and was advised to appeal to IAS which in this forum is more commonly known as kangaroo court. I was wondering if you could kindly go through my draft (it's lot of copy and paste from other threads here who made appeals) and would very much appreciate your more wise guidance,
What I've noticed about this castle car park is misleading name, insufficient signage and hidden disabled parking warning. The ticketing officer who took the warnings picture clearly showed the image of blue badge hidden by PAY HERE in very small writing and instruction placed at the end of the car park. (*I'd be willing to share the picture if you want to see how it is).
More detail: My mother had parked the car with her BB at around 2 o clock to go to the post office and came back at around 4.40 ish literally second after PCN was issued. Her right leg is crippled with severe arthritis at the ankle and knee and she cannot walk unaided/unassisted and Windsor is uphill so she has to take lot of break. The appeal was made by mother who named herself as the driver and used 'I' (the big no no in the appeal).
Here's the draft.
Dear Sir/Madam
As the keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice UK parking Ltd issued against the mentioned vehicle. I believe the parking charge notice should be cancelled based on the following grounds:
Inadequate and Insufficient IPC Compliant Signage
(would attach castle car park sign)
The signage on entry to the land is improper and insufficient. As suggested under Schedule 1 of the IPC CoP “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. After revisiting the site since receiving the NtK, signage on entry to the land does not meet this criteria.
The signage (Sign1) is written in capital letters. The British Dyslexia Association and Gov.uk state that “Avoid text in block capitals: this is much harder to read”. This means that the signage provided can be argued as not easily legible and can cause problems for any driver that has dyslexia.
Additionally, the IPC CoP states under Schedule 1 that signs should “include a minimum of one phrase from Group A”.To clarify this point, Group A phrases are stated as the following :
Pay and display [free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes/hours] free parking [for customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only
Permit Holders Only
As can be seen in attachment Sign1, there is no Group A text on this signage.
The alleged breach took place in Castle Car Park in Windsor. Having subsequently visited the site, the main sign at the immediate vehicle entrance to the carpark where it says private land is barely noticeable as drivers who, unable to stop at that point in the road, rightly strive to accord with legal and safe driving practice.
The nearest pay and display parking meter, at the entrance displays no signs that suggest BB must pay and display ticket. One must travel to the end, which the driver due to disability cannot, and even then, BB must pay signs are written in very small font and hidden behind by PAY HERE poster.
The Charge is a disguised breach
The wording of the signage states that there is a “penalty charge for failing to display a valid ticket”. The NtK (attachment NtK1) states that there was an “Unauthorised Parking Event”. As such, I contend that this charge is not a contractual fee or tariff (consideration), but a breach. A contractual fee/tariff arrangement would not need parking to be authorised and would consider parking at any price or fee.
** For now, this is all I have, I know that BB are protected under 2010 Equality Act but I'm not sure how to word that here....
TL;DR private land in main sign very small, won't be able to safely stop the car to check as it's right next to the road and would disrupt the traffic.
parking meter by the entrance and most convenient, the picture of the car park shows there's no instructions about blue badge.
Blue badge must pay sign is at the far end of the parking lot and is hidden by the PAY HERE sign at the bottom in very small font.
Please please help me. I would very much appreciate any input....
Thank you.
0
Comments
-
here is your link
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6013302/ias-appeal-draft-for-uk-parking-limited-parking-fine-disabled-badge-windsor
now copy and paste your post above into that older thread and alter post #1 of this thread to say DUPLICATE THREAD - PLEASE IGNORE
you should stick to one thread per case, dont keep opening new threads unless its a new case
thank you0 -
Yes please add it to your thread as a reply so we can see the context, and help you.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 -
You can view them here sorry but it won’t let me upload direct link please get rid of bracket and space
ibb (.) co/
jRXNBx9
87hsQ1j
zmRVyw4
MNqwJyX
VJDgD3K
94fG2KZ0 -
Thank you so much. I’m a new user that’s why. I’ve edited it as duplicate forum now.0
-
You misunderstand
You need to edit your OP post above to read "duplicate thread, please ignore"
And then use advanced edit to change the title of this thread to be "Duplicate - Please ignore"
You can see how busy this forum gets, it will become impossible if everyone simply starts a new thread with each development
You can't expect us to search for your separate threads to understand the context!0 -
We need you to mark THIS as a duplicate and stop replying here, and go back to replying on the first one so we can see the context.
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 -
Sorry, I’ve edited them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
