Excel Parking Swansea Bay SA1

Rod_of_Rassilon

The driver parked in the Swansea Bay SA1 Car park. The Car Park is operated by Excel Parking. A valid ticket was purchased.

The car parked in the adjacent space on the left side was clipping the boundary into the driver's intended space, and the right adjacent space was a particularly wide parking space close to a fence where the car parked there had provided plenty of clearance space (this car park has very poor boundary definitions for some parking spaces near the extremes)

Consequently the driver parked a relatively small bit over the marked boundary area in order to give adequate clearance from the encroachment of the left adjacent car.

The driver's position caused no reduction in spaces or obstacles to any other vehicle as the pictures show. Despite this a PCN was received by the keeper for £70 (reduced to £35 if paid within 28 days) for the contravention; "24) Not parked wholly within the markings of a designated parking bay".


The driver was not aware of any signage detailing this contravention. The payment was made using a mobile app, so wasn't aware of any small print on the inadequate signage near the Pay and Display machine.




Images Here

httpx://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/9459/yncRrK.jpg
httpx://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2338/x5lKL7.jpg

The Keeper has sent off the template appeal via the Excel Web Portal and is in the process of awaiting for the inevitable appeal rejection. Will keep you updated.

As an aside, how favourable are the courts towards "not parking within the designated boundary" types of contraventions where there is no detrimental effect to anyone?

The_Deep

Sometimes it is not possible to park entirely within a bay.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

Here are your links made live: -
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/9459/yncRrK.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2338/x5lKL7.jpg

Rod_of_Rassilon

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

As an aside, how favourable are the courts towards "not parking within the designated boundary" types of contraventions where there is no detrimental effect to anyone?

Swansea Judges are not favourable to Defendants v PPCs, usually.

However, it looks like the car is not over any line. Might be worth a punt at IAS and see if Excel have the brass neck to put those pics in front of the IPC/IAS.

Rod_of_Rassilon

Thank you for all the replies.


Coupon Mad: You can clearly see that the car is over one of the lines in those pictures. However, this is because the adjacent car is encroaching. Do you still suggest I go ahead with an IAS appeal when my first appeal is rejected?

Regarding Swansea's judges, I'm not from Swansea so presumably I could opt for the hearing to take place in Neath County Court?

Rod_of_Rassilon

OK. Just to keep you up-to-date, I have received my appeal rejection as expected.

Rejection Letter here;
Page 1
hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/4848/DXASE7.jpg
Page 2
hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/7053/xixfAb.jpg

They've also included what they claim is the signage (I haven't confirmed this, since the charge was paid by the driver without exiting the car)
hxxps://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4760/leGZ5T.jpg

Am I correct in assuming that one of the main aspect of the case rests on the incorrect wording for PoFA 2012 statement on the NTK (posted via links above from 13th August 2019)

"... if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice..."

As opposed to The Act itself which says
"...warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given..."

There is a note at the bottom of the NTK which stated "This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is proved". This still does not bring it in line with the above Act strictly speaking.
(I would be grateful if someone could fix the links for me)

Rod_of_Rassilon

Coupon Mad, I would like your advice on whether you still think this case is work a punt with the IAS given your earlier advice.

Thank you.

Le_Kirk

Your links made live: -
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/4848/DXASE7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/7053/xixfAb.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4760/leGZ5T.jpg

Coupon-mad

You can try IAS if the photos they have shown, do not show a car parked out of the markings of a bay.

But I wouldn't even bother to mention the POFA to IAS. They'll say the NTK is compliant and in any case they reckon their beloved IPC member firm can proceed anyway, by assuming you were the driver. So due to that drivel, this is not about the POFA.