King Street Car Park, Wigan - HX car park management - overstay vs grace period

luizarios4

Got a letter from Gladstone so preparing my defense. I appealed to HX and the IAS, lost the appeals as expected.

I parked in the car park and paid for 1 hour. Between the moment the car arrived and left, it took 1 hour and 19 minutes. I was driving for the first time after a C-section, so especially slow and had with me a 2 months old baby I had to remove from the car seat, dress in outside clothes (cold day), unfold a pram, place baby on the pram. On arrival, I had to remove the baby from the pram, remove outside clothes, place in the car seat, fold-out the pram and fit the pram back in the car boot. It was my first outing with a baby so I took longer than I do nowadays but I couldn't just drive off without making sure baby was safe. Additionally, there was a car reversing behind me so I had to wait and a small queue of cars leaving, adding to the time.

Timeline:

• I arrived at 09:23
• ticket timestamp is 9:29 (6 minutes after the car entered the park)
• expiring time is 10:29
• camera clocked the car leaving at 10:42 (13 minutes after ticket expired)

I have three lines of defense and I wonder if I should mention all 3 or pick just one? They are:

1- HX said they have a 10 minutes arrival grace period and 10 minutes leaving grace period, therefore that's 20 minutes in total. Between leaving and arriving there are 1 hour and 19 minutes therefore only 19 minutes over which IS within the 20 minutes grace period. That's the defense I used on my appeal after reading some posts on this forum where other people used this argument and won the appeal. However, HX didn't accept adding both grace periods together and insists that they have to be looked at separately as such: 6 minutes of the arrival grace period, OK. 13 minutes leaving grace period: 3 minutes overstay. Could someone advise if they're allowed to separate both the grace period this way just because it's to their advantage? I argued that due to my special circumstances (2 months baby and C-section) an extra 3 minutes would be a very reasonable extra amount of time. Appeal denied, as expected.

2- Second line of defense would be to claim that although IPC code of practice states an arriving and leaving grace period should be allowed but doesn't state how long. HX-Management website DOES NOT have the 10 minutes grace period stated on their terms and conditions. That means the duration of the grace period is open as IPC CoP simply states:

Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid permitted period of parking has expired.

Then argue that 13 minutes was a very reasonable amount of time considering all I had to do to get a 2 months old baby ready to leave and considering I was myself very slow after a recent C-section. Additionally, there was a car reversing off just before me, I had to wait, and a queue to leave, I had to wait a bit more. Then hope the judge sides with me and find 13 minutes a reasonable amount of it.

3- Last line of defense would be to argue I wasn't given a fair appeal. I did appeal to IAS (I know the NEWBIES thread tells me not to). On their reply they say:

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they pay for a sufficient parking period to include getting back to their vehicle and taking whatever steps need to be taken to leave the car park. As the driver did not do so in this case, the driver was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and as such I am satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

The statement above, from their decision letter, clearly goes against IPC CoP (quoted above on 2.) which clearly states that drivers should be allowed sufficient time to leave a site after the permit has expired. The fact that IAS used such a poor argument to deny my appeal shows that they're either not knowledgeable enough to be the adjudicator or too biased to be an independent adjudicator and therefore I haven't been given a fair appeal.

So, would you guys use all the three line of defenses above or pick only one? If so, which one seems stronger to you?

Important question: I know you'll not know if I'll win or not, it's up to the judge. But from someone who's seen a lot of cases, would you say that my case is:
a)strong and likely to win
b)half and half
c)a long shot and you will probably lose
(I do pay court fees so I'd rather cut my losses and pay £160 if my chances are little).

Thank you very much for all your help

Le_Kirk

You need to read the NEWBIE sticky and in particular post # 2, where you will find 17 pre-written defence examples, pick one that most closely suits your circumstances and adapt it to fit. Most defences (note spelling, we are in UK) rely on signage, grace periods, landowner authority, I did pay, I have a permit etc. You can also search the forum for a thread by beamerguy (with a comment at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad) about Abuse of Process and add those points into your defence. you might also like to investigate the Equality Act 2010 for help with an area where new mothers - especially those still breastfeeding - should be afforded more time, i.e. a longer grace period.

beamerguy

Well of course the IAS would reject it because it's a scam set up by Gladstones solicitors.

No surprise that Gladstones are now trying to scam you

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Just based on what you say, Gladstones would be plain stupid to take this into court, they are highly incompetent at the best of times.
They seem to "get off" by being whooped in court

luizarios4

So I'm thinking of naming the driver to 'reset' the clock and give myself more time (I do have a baby to look after so really busy right now). Someone has mentioned in a previous forum ''If the notices aren't POFA compliant then only the driver is liable. If they don't know who that is then good luck.''

I've checked to see if they're POFA compliant and I think unfortunately they are. Could someone double-check it? Could really do with an extra pair of eyes to make sure I've not missed anything.

Thank you!

luizarios4

Wondering if someone could help with above post? Many thanks

Umkomaas

The NtK is PoFA compliant, meaning they can hold the keeper liable in the absence of knowing who the driver was.

However, the keeper can only be liable for the parking charge outlined in the NtK - £100 (not the try-on extra £60) plus any court costs (£25) and solicitor fees (capped £50).

Naming the driver exposes them to greater costs, although probably not much more than the above.

Is the driver up for handling the charges brought against them, or are they going to argue it wasn't them, throwing this all back in your lap again?

1505grandad

Presumably you are the Defendant and also the registered keeper and from your opening post also the driver.

I cannot see how you can therefore "reset the clock" by naming the driver.

The_Deep

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, many of whom are former clampers, 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

Umkomaas

1505grandad wrote: »

Presumably you are the Defendant and also the registered keeper and from your opening post also the driver.

I cannot see how you can therefore "reset the clock" by naming the driver.

I think the NtK is to her husband, she was driving. I've just realised there are a number of threads about this, so answering this question on this thread is without context and confusion is setting in.

@OP - please ask a Board Guide (via PM) to merge all your threads before you start receiving inappropriate advice due to not having context immediately available.

Coupon-mad

So I'm thinking of naming the driver to 'reset' the clock and give myself more time (I do have a baby to look after so really busy right now).

If the registered keeper has not got a claim yet, then thy can give the name & address of the driver if that's a different person (you?).

I would certainly do this if you are the more robust person to defend this in court and/or if the rk prefers to be out of the loop and you are up for it!

luizarios4

that's correct, my husband is the keeper, I am the driver. He's not really interested, I wrote all appeals and did all research for him, he doesn't want to turn up for court. During the appeal process, as I couldn't name the driver I couldn't show evidence such as birth certificate, breastfeeding reports etc as to not name the driver.

how do I name the driver? do I write to HX Car Park, Gladstone or somebody else? Are they forced to accept it or is it a too late case?

also, if we were to pay the £100 they want, would we be able to pay in 10 installments of £10?

Many thanks,