Llangrannog Beach car park - PCNs when prevented from paying

Fruitcake

Has anyone fluent in Welsh and English checked the Ts and Cs to see if they are identical?

Redx

Another victim here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6270474/bought-a-10-ticket-for-12-hours-still-slapped-100-charge-by-one-parking-solutions-at-llangrannog#latest

ParkingMad

Another couple of newspaper articles about this car park-

https://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/news/19324480.llangrannog-car-park-users-urged-make-stand/

https://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/news/19330072.complaints-unjust-parking-fines-llangrannog-pour/

ParkingMad

Frustration of Contract was mentioned during a Parliamentary debate on the Parking Code of Practice:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with my frustration—I have had lots of cases in Worthing—that people legitimately try to pay at the machines and the machines do not work? They try and ring a number, and that does not work and it is so complicated. Or they have to download an app. The average resident of Worthing does not have apps. If the equipment does not work, there should be no basis on which the charge should go through. Does he agree that there should be a system like that?

Sir Greg Knight
If there are a number of payment machines and one of them is not working, that is not an excuse, but if there is only one machine or all the machines are out of order, that ought to be a perfect defence. The company operating the car park has in effect invited the motorist on to the car park to park the car on payment of a fee, and if it is not going to facilitate payment, it should not be able to extract a penalty. Rip-offs from car park cowboys must stop. Most parking operators have nothing to fear from the Bill, but we must stop unscrupulous operators who are undermining the whole sector with their bad practices.

D_P_Dance

I very much doubt if that sign would be able to convince a judge that a valid contract was formed   It is more suitable for the commissioning of a nuclear power station imo, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

David

Mildly_Miffed

I'm another Llangrannog victim.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6275173/paid-displayed-but-only-partial-plate

Snakes_Belly

Paying by app (if you are in possession of a smart phone) means that you first have to set up an account and download the app. By that time you will have gone over the 10 minutes.

It does not say on the signage "only enter this car park if you are in possession of a smart phone".

I don't know much about Tim Loughton but he did support the WASPI women. 

ParkingMad

Here are a couple of successful appeals against PCNs at Llangrannog -

http://llangrannogwelfare.org/beachfront-car-park

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist due to expired payment/ticket. Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. The appellant has questioned the signage at the site. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to manage the site. The appellant says there is no evidence the camera and payment system has been calibrate and maintained adequately. The appellant says the PCN is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has explained their mitigating circumstances. The appellant has mentioned planning permission. The appellant has provided evidence in support of their appeal, they have provided comments on the operator’s evidence pack.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The name of the driver has not been disclosed, however, as the PCN complies with The Protection of Freedoms (POFA) Act 2012, the operator has transferred liability from the driver to the keeper, and it is the keeper’s liability for the PCN I will be considering. 

The signage at the site states: “…PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR: Vehicles full and clearly displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket in the front windscreen…BY PARKING OR REMAINING ON THIS SITE OTHER THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE YOU THE DRIVER ARE AGREEING TO THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTUAL TERMS. You agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in the sum of £100.00…”. The operator issued a PCN to the motorist due to expired payment/ticket. 

In regard to the amount of the PCN, this matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” (paragraph 99) The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must be proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for whom it is providing the service.” (paragraph 100) It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage. 

While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the signs and is therefore it does not meet the expectations of ParkingEye v Beavis. Due to this, I confirm the PCN has been issued incorrectly. I note the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

95Rollers

Ralph-y said:

may be time to dust off .... not that dust has had time to settle the recent court  judgment ....

"I am sure we will all find lots of bits to quote/ use but on first reading this is mine fav.... the sign contained 650 to 700 words many technical and that an average reader read 200 to 250 per min, taking 3 to 4 mins ..."

Ralph

If its the 45cm x 45cm one then it's actually 830 words.

ParkingMad

OPS has had a claim about Llangrannog car park dismissed this week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59524211

Ceredigion: 'Bully' parking firm loses case against driver

3rd December 2021

A "bully boy" parking firm that pursued a driver for money for over two years has had its case thrown out of court.

One Parking Solution claimed it had sent Hannah Thomas, of Caerwedros, in Ceredigion, a parking charge notice. But Ms Thomas told Llanelli County Court she had never received a ticket from the firm, which is based in Worthing, West Sussex. Judge Graham Carson dismissed the parking company's claims, finding it failed to follow proper procedures. Ms Thomas had visited the firm's pay and display car park in Llangrannog, Ceredigion, on 6 July 2019. A friend paid for Ms Thomas's parking ticket as she saw to her children. Over a month later, on 13 August 2019, she received a letter claiming she had received a parking charge notice for not having a ticket during her visit, and that she owed £170. She later found her pay and display ticket in the car, and emailed a copy to the company. One Parking Solution refused to back down, telling Ms Thomas more than 28 days had passed and therefore she could not appeal.

Since then, the court heard Ms Thomas had received numerous letters from the company which claimed she owed them various amounts for non-payment of fines. In March 2021, Ms Thomas received a claim for £256.34. One Parking Solution lawyers did not turn up to court on Friday, so the case went ahead without them. Judge Carson said the company should have a record of posting the parking charge notice. The court heard tickets had to be served to vehicle owners within 28 days of alleged offences. Judge Carson said that during the hearing, Ms Thomas had been "specific, consistent and clear" in her evidence that the firm had failed to do so. 

The firm could not prove one had been sent in the post, Judge Carson said. Judge Carson said companies had the right to recover unpaid fines if proper procedure was followed, and was satisfied One Parking Solution had not done so. Sara Rowlands, representing Ms Thomas, said the company behaved "vexatiously". She told the court it caused "annoyance, frustration and worry" for Ms Thomas and accused them of using "bully boy tactics". An application for costs by Ms Thomas, on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, was refused.

Outside court, Ms Thomas said she was "was relieved and grateful" for the judgment. "I'm happy that I stuck to fighting them. So many people have paid unfairly and have been bullied into paying," she added. One Parking Solution has been asked to comment.