ANPR Overstay - Advertisement Consent Refused by Local Council

Clivero

Good evening All,



Thank you once again for all of your replies, your advice is invaluable to us newbies in this situation.



I will be getting the recording for the entering the car park, and showing it could not have been 55 seconds. Would this recording be part of the WS which I will prepare in the future?.



Also I have sent off an email to the DVLA for the GDPR breach. I was thinking of also reporting this to the ICO, but am not sure of they are the correct body to compain to regarding this?.



I have updated a couple of the points for the DS based on your feedback, and these are below. If they appear to be ok to use, I will send off the full DS to the email address quoted in KeithP's post.



2.1 The Claimant is under a duty to the Court to provide full and fair disclosure by informing it of all relevant issues. The Claimant has failed to advise the Court that a criminal offence was being committed by the display of its signage, as the Claimant's Advertising consent application was refused on 13th December 2018. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), it is a criminal offence to display this kind of advertisement in contravention of the Regulations.




3.2 Timestamps from the Claimant’s ANPR camera images indicate that the vehicle entered the car park at 09:59:05 and exited the car park at 12:22:43. Whereas the Claimant’s PDT transaction log records the timestamp for payment of the 2 hour parking ticket as 10:00am. Given the design of the XXXXXXX car park, whereby only a single lane entry and exit system is available, it is disputed that the time recorded on the ticket issued by the PDT was correct.

3.3 Equally given the timestamps attributed to both the APNR and PDT clocks in operation, it is disputed that the clocks for each component were synchronised with one another correctly at the time of the claimed contravention.

Coupon-mad

I will be getting the recording for the entering the car park, and showing it could not have been 55 seconds. Would this recording be part of the WS which I will prepare in the future?

Yes.

Also I have sent off an email to the DVLA for the GDPR breach. I was thinking of also reporting this to the ICO, but am not sure of they are the correct body to complain to regarding this?

Wait to see if the DVLA take it seriously first - they won't!

I would change this:

Given the design of the XXXXXXX car park, whereby only a single lane entry and exit system is available and it would take even the quickest drivers some 5 minutes to arrive, then drive round, park, lock the car, then walk to a sign and machine, then read the tariffs and choices of payment methods, and then actually pay, it is disputed (and indeed, the Defendant submits, impossible) that the time recorded on the ticket issued by the PDT was correct.

Clivero

Thank you again for the comments.


I have made the suggested amendments, and feel that the DS is in a good place now, so will be submitting this tomorrow. Thank you again for all your constructive and helpful feedback.



Once I have any further news, I will post an update.

steve1500

Clivero wrote: »

Good evening All,

Also I have sent off an email to the DVLA for the GDPR breach. I was thinking of also reporting this to the ICO, but am not sure of they are the correct body to compain to regarding this?.

Anything involving personal is the ICO everyday of the week. They are the regulator.

The tell the DVLA what to do if it involves personal information

Clivero

Hi All,

Things have moved forward, and I have now created the WS. Would it be possible for someone to have a quick review before I send this over this weekend.

Clivero

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXX
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
Witness statement
________________________________________

1. I, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXX am the defendant against whom this claim is made. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and my defence is repeated.

3. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and

reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as EB01.

4. Sequence of Events

4.1 On the morning of the 20th of January 2019, the driver drove into the entrance of the car park in question. They immediately turned right, due to lack of available spaces located at the front of the Crawley Boulevard car park, and parked into an available space towards the back of the car park. (EB01 - Page 1)

4.2. Following on from dealing with a young child passenger within the car, the driver then proceeded to the nearest ‘Pay and Display' machine. Upon inspection the 'Pay and Display' was not issuing any change, meaning the driver returned to the car in an attempt to find the correct coins. The driver then returned to the 'Pay and Display' and purchased a ticket for £3.00. (EB01 - Page 2)

4.3 Upon returning to the vehicle at around 12:13 pm, it was noted by the driver that the car park had now become increasingly busy, due to the large number of cars waiting within the driving lane for free spaces to become available. Due to the design of the Crawley Boulevard Car Park, whereby there is only one entry/exit as well as a single lane for all traffic, the ability to exit the car park in a timely fashion was diminished as the one way system had now become bottlenecked with other waiting vehicles.

5. Later Events

5.1 On 08th February 2019, after obtaining my details from the DVLA, I received a Notice To Keeper from The Claimant, demanding a payment of £100 within 28 days.

5.2 On 12th February I responded to the Claimant to appeal the charge, and believed that the overpayment of £3.00 would cover the overstay the Claimant believed occurred on the 20/01/2019 at Crawley Boulevard West car park.

5.3 On the 28th February 2019 the Claimant rejected my appeal stating the amount being sought was 'clearly communicated by the signage on the site'.

5.4 Upon further research into this matter, due to the numerous 'invoices' received from the Claimant or one of its representatives, I have since discovered that the Claimant was not in receipt of the legal 'Advertisement Consent' for any of its signage from Crawley Borough Council on the 20th January at the Crawley Boulevard West Car Park. The Claimant has actually been specifically named in the houses of Parliament by the Crawley Member of Parliament (Henry Smith), as erecting signage without the correct planning permission within certain Crawley car parks. Mr Smith used this example on the 17th January 2019, to gain assurances from other Members of Parliament that the 'Parking Code of Practice Bill' would receive royal assent as soon as possible at the that particular time.

5.5 Further more the Claimants lack of 'Advertisement Consent' at a number of car parks within Crawley town centre, along with the Crawley Boulevard West car park, also received national coverage within 'The Times' national newspaper on Sunday 31st March 2019 under the heading 'NCP's unfair penalties get townsfolk al revved up'.

5.6 It is also now disputed that the timestamps generated on the ticket from the 'Pay and Display' were correctly synchronised with that APNR machine in use on the day of the alleged contravention. The time stamp displayed on the parking ticket purchased by the driver, states that the ticket was issued at 10:00 am that morning. However the Claimant's own APNR machine specifies my vehicle as entering the car park at 09:59:05. As detailed previously within section 4.2, with the movements of the driver prior to purchasing the the parking ticket, it is disputed that the ticket could not have physically been purchased within 55 seconds of my vehicle entering the car park, dealing with a young child, obtaining suitable change, and purchasing the parking ticket.

5.7 In section 13.4 of the BPA CoP (Version 7 - January 2018), it states that grace periods should be given when arriving and leaving the car park. As this was at the start of the New Year in 2019, a large number of retailers within the town had sales on at the time. This made exiting the car park in a timely fashion incredibly difficult, due to the number of vehicles waiting for a parking space in the single lane, as well as causing a bottleneck at the single entry/exit point of the car park.

5.8 While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land, I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of the Claimant whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them. Especially when the Claimant was fully aware that their own planning application for the required 'Advertising Consent' for the signage used at the Crawley Boulevard West Car park had been refused by Crawley Borough Council less than 4 weeks previously on the 13th December 2018. Nor do I appreciate the tactics of BW Legal who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making veiled threats towards my credit rating and even my employability.

6. Criminal Conduct

6.1 I understand from correspondence received from the Claimant, the Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a “contract” between myself and the Claimant. However the Claimant is under duty to the court to provide full and fair disclosure by informing it of all relevant issues. The Claimant has failed to advise the Court that a criminal offence was being committed by the display of its signage, as the Claimant's Advertising consent application was refused on 13th December 2018. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), it is a criminal offence to display this kind of advertisement in contravention of the Regulations.

6.2 The Claimant was fully aware that their initial 'Advertisement Consent' for planning permission was Refused by Crawley Borough Council on the 13th December 2018, and was committing a criminal offence due to not being in receipt of the required permission for displayong their sinage. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) it is a criminal offence to display this kind of advertisement in contravention of the Regulations. The penalty on conviction for the offence is at level 4 on the standard scale (current maximum £2,500) plus £250 for each day that the offence continues. (EB01 - Page 3 - 4)

6.3 The Claimant only received retrospective planning permission from Crawley Borough for their signage located at the Crawley Boulevard West car park on the 24th June 2019, some 5 months after the alleged contravention. (EB01 - Page 5 - 6)

6.4 The Court’s attention is drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes), (B/3). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case it has been produced because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. The Court’s attention is drawn in particular to paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case “It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful”. Paragraph 28 continues - “cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to
perform.” In this case it was not lawful for the Claimant to have in place its signs upon which it relies for the formation of an asserted contract with the Defendant.

7. Additional Costs - Abuse of Process

7.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 for “contractual costs”. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified. I have the reasonable belief that
the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already
counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

7.2 Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which
has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

7.3 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are
disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or
necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

7.3.1 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses
at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to
parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking
charge' as if they are additional losses.

8.The Beavis case is against this Claim

8.1 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.

8.2 This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

8.3 In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

8.4 At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

8.5 At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

9 The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim

9.1 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

(cont/)

Clivero

(cont/)

10 The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim

10.1 Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

10.2 In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

10.3 That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

10.4 In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

10.4.1 Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

10.4.2 BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

10.4.3 That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

10.4.4 At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply this this claim.

10.4.5 A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

10.5 Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the 'core exemption' as set out in the CRA 2015. The CMA Official Government Guidance says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

10.6 The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expended at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. 1.20 Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

10.7 The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

10.8 If this claim is not struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon and Southampton cases, then full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

11. Unreasonable Behaviour:

11.1 I contend that The Claimant has behaved unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court. Their actions and the actions of BW Legal have brought me considerable
vexation and distress. As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable amount of time researching case law on-line, processing and printing evidence and preparing both my defence and this witness statement. I have no intention of claiming for each and every one of the hours I have spent on this, but will be asking for a consideration to cover the hours used in preparation for my defence, as detailed in my costs schedule.

11.2 The Claimant was made aware I contested their charge and they were also very aware that they di not have the correct 'Advertisement Consent' planing permission, due to the negative national coverage that they had received at the time for this particular car park. They, or any of their representatives, have never disclosed this fact when sending correspondence after the alleged contravention occurred.

11.3 The Claimant received retrospective planning permission for their signage on the 24th June 2019. This shows they were fully aware their signage was committing a criminal offence. However they still pressed forward with their case against me.

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Clivero

The one question I do have, is in your WS are you able to place links underneath the points made?. I would like to link in the Youtube and Times article showcasing the criminal act that NCP knew they were committing for an extended period of time at a number of car parks in Crawley town centre.

Fruitcake

I think you need to supply video evidence on a durable medium such as a memory stick and ensure in advance that the court has equipment suitable to play it, or provide a device yourself.

Fruitcake

You mention an overpayment included in the £3 paid, but have not said what the tariff was for the period of parking purchased, presumably 2 hours.

I wouldn't mention the time the driver returned to the car, simply that it was at the end of the paid for period of parking, or about 2 hours.

Have a look at NCP vs HMRC where an overpayment is mentioned with regards to VaT, and also that the contract begins when the "green button is pressed"