We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
Parking fine for a change of terms in car park
Tsb29
Posts: 7 Forumite
Hi All,
I have just caught up with all the forums good work and unfortunately i think I may have got to it a little too late.
Please see below which is the correspondence I have received from VCS and IAS with regards to my parking contravention.
Basically I parked in a car park that used to be 2 hours free, which has now changed to getting a ticket for free for an hour, then it paid for the second hour. I had no idea so parked for 2h2mins without realising. I argued on this basis but in doing so have admitted it was me that was driving. I have now received a letter saying it is being refereed to debt collectors and cost has gone up to £160. Do I just need to pay up or do I have any options left?
MY initial response:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a ticket for parking in the Berkeley Precinct on the morning of 15/10/19, at 7am.
The car park has for long as i can remember been a 2 hour free car park and the signs at the entrance to the car park still appear the same way.
Please find a photo of the sign at the car park entrance, which still shows you can park for 2 hours. I note the sign if not lit and in the dark mornings barely legible, and on a busy road in rush hour not appropriate to stop and read all the print. (which doesn't say it is a pay and display!)
you will see from my initial response to the car parking operator i thought they were charging me for being 1 minutes over my 2 hour parking allocation which was unreasonable . not that i did not have a ticket, which i was completely unaware of as the parking signs are not clear.
Please find attached 2 photos of the car park entrance and the signs which do not say it is pay and display?! they just say 2 hour parking which is as it has been for the last 10 years.
I hope we can sort this out as I have been a regular user of the Berkeley center for many years and not had this issue before.
Many thanks,
Site: Berkeley Centre Pay & Display
Issue date: 24/10/2019
We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 04/11/2019.
Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our
main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs at the car park make it clear that a valid ticket must be purchased for all vehicles which park/enter the car
park, giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles park
outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed; signs also state that when a ticket is purchased, the full and accurate
vehicle registration number of the vehicle parked must be entered into the P&D ticket machine. The above detailed
vehicle parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle on site and you became liable for the Charge
advertised.
In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you were the driver of the vehicle at the time it
parked in the car park.
Please be advised, the Berkeley Centre car park is a 24 hour pay car park with a permitted 2 hour maximum stay
commencing on entry. Payment of a pay and display ticket is required for the second hour of parking as the first hour
is free. The signs within the car park clearly state, "To park in excess of the free 1 hour period a valid ticket must be
purchased on arrival". The above detailed vehicle parked without payment of the parking tariff for a 2 hour stay for
the vehicle on site and you became liable for the Charge advertised.
We maintain that the signs on this site meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code
of Practice. The signs are large, prominent and legible ,so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware
of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so. It can
never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say, "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those
terms is reasonably advertised.
We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to
accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the charge
will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Charge Notice (CN): In order to settle the Charge, the payment of £60 to reach us by 27/11/2019 or £100
to reach us by 11/12/2019 must be made. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt
Recovery Action being taken and further costs up to an additional £60 being incurred. Payments can be made
online at ] by following the links for "Pay Now", or over the phone by calling
0845 226 9138 by using a valid Credit or Debit Card.
OR:
2. Appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS): If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to
appeal to the IAS. In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is also contained in the
subject header of this correspondence).
my response:
The signs that have been uploaded do not match the signs at the entrance to the car park?
The 600 x 1200 sign uploaded has a lot more information on it than the small signs at entry and the font appears bigger.
With it being dark and in the morning I didn't know to go to a pay and display box to read further info so the larger signs I didn't see on site.
Further to that under the response section 9 the need to pay and display has only been in force for 11 months - why wasn't there a sign saying the terms had changed in big obvious writing? If i had known it was pay and display I would have got a ticket or parked elsewhere to save on a £100 fine! I'm certainly not in the game of trying to get free parking on ANPR sites but I have parked on this site since 2008 when ive used to Tesco express before or after work and never had to get a ticket.
I believe there have been ANPR cameras for a while but that was to make sure people didn't stay over 2 hours, which is what i thought the rules were.
I hope we can resolve this without the need for an extortionate fine as it seems grossly unfair for a simple mistake with genuine reasons.
Thanks,
Then a response from indenpedant appeals service:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. While noting the Appellant's comments, I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display at the entrance and throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator.
The Appellant raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the Operator was clearly communicated to the Appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the Operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
I have just caught up with all the forums good work and unfortunately i think I may have got to it a little too late.
Please see below which is the correspondence I have received from VCS and IAS with regards to my parking contravention.
Basically I parked in a car park that used to be 2 hours free, which has now changed to getting a ticket for free for an hour, then it paid for the second hour. I had no idea so parked for 2h2mins without realising. I argued on this basis but in doing so have admitted it was me that was driving. I have now received a letter saying it is being refereed to debt collectors and cost has gone up to £160. Do I just need to pay up or do I have any options left?
MY initial response:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have received a ticket for parking in the Berkeley Precinct on the morning of 15/10/19, at 7am.
The car park has for long as i can remember been a 2 hour free car park and the signs at the entrance to the car park still appear the same way.
Please find a photo of the sign at the car park entrance, which still shows you can park for 2 hours. I note the sign if not lit and in the dark mornings barely legible, and on a busy road in rush hour not appropriate to stop and read all the print. (which doesn't say it is a pay and display!)
you will see from my initial response to the car parking operator i thought they were charging me for being 1 minutes over my 2 hour parking allocation which was unreasonable . not that i did not have a ticket, which i was completely unaware of as the parking signs are not clear.
Please find attached 2 photos of the car park entrance and the signs which do not say it is pay and display?! they just say 2 hour parking which is as it has been for the last 10 years.
I hope we can sort this out as I have been a regular user of the Berkeley center for many years and not had this issue before.
Many thanks,
Site: Berkeley Centre Pay & Display
Issue date: 24/10/2019
We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 04/11/2019.
Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our
main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs at the car park make it clear that a valid ticket must be purchased for all vehicles which park/enter the car
park, giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles park
outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed; signs also state that when a ticket is purchased, the full and accurate
vehicle registration number of the vehicle parked must be entered into the P&D ticket machine. The above detailed
vehicle parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle on site and you became liable for the Charge
advertised.
In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you were the driver of the vehicle at the time it
parked in the car park.
Please be advised, the Berkeley Centre car park is a 24 hour pay car park with a permitted 2 hour maximum stay
commencing on entry. Payment of a pay and display ticket is required for the second hour of parking as the first hour
is free. The signs within the car park clearly state, "To park in excess of the free 1 hour period a valid ticket must be
purchased on arrival". The above detailed vehicle parked without payment of the parking tariff for a 2 hour stay for
the vehicle on site and you became liable for the Charge advertised.
We maintain that the signs on this site meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code
of Practice. The signs are large, prominent and legible ,so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware
of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so. It can
never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say, "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those
terms is reasonably advertised.
We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to
accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the charge
will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Charge Notice (CN): In order to settle the Charge, the payment of £60 to reach us by 27/11/2019 or £100
to reach us by 11/12/2019 must be made. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt
Recovery Action being taken and further costs up to an additional £60 being incurred. Payments can be made
online at ] by following the links for "Pay Now", or over the phone by calling
0845 226 9138 by using a valid Credit or Debit Card.
OR:
2. Appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS): If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to
appeal to the IAS. In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is also contained in the
subject header of this correspondence).
my response:
The signs that have been uploaded do not match the signs at the entrance to the car park?
The 600 x 1200 sign uploaded has a lot more information on it than the small signs at entry and the font appears bigger.
With it being dark and in the morning I didn't know to go to a pay and display box to read further info so the larger signs I didn't see on site.
Further to that under the response section 9 the need to pay and display has only been in force for 11 months - why wasn't there a sign saying the terms had changed in big obvious writing? If i had known it was pay and display I would have got a ticket or parked elsewhere to save on a £100 fine! I'm certainly not in the game of trying to get free parking on ANPR sites but I have parked on this site since 2008 when ive used to Tesco express before or after work and never had to get a ticket.
I believe there have been ANPR cameras for a while but that was to make sure people didn't stay over 2 hours, which is what i thought the rules were.
I hope we can resolve this without the need for an extortionate fine as it seems grossly unfair for a simple mistake with genuine reasons.
Thanks,
Then a response from indenpedant appeals service:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. While noting the Appellant's comments, I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display at the entrance and throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator.
The Appellant raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the Operator was clearly communicated to the Appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the Operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
0
Comments
-
You are now in ignore mode unless the scammers decide to issue a court claim.
What happened when you complained to the landowner/retail managers of stores visited?
Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam.
It is not unknown for parking scammers to change Ts and Cs in breach of planning agreements.
Check with the local council to see if the scammers have planning approval for ANPR scameras if used, and Advertising Consent for the signs. Not having the latter is a criminal offence.
Also check what the original parking restrictions were when planning was approved. If it was free for 2 hours then complain to the council that the new times/payment regime is a breach of the original planning agreement.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Many thanks, ill try local MP now.
The ticket was received in a shared car park and the owners an investor - MAISON ANLEY PROPERTY NOMINEE LIMITED. I could write to them?0 -
Worth a try
Did they comply with the IPC rules, and put up PROMINENT signage showing this signfiicant change?0 -
Many thanks, ill try local MP now.
The ticket was received in a shared car park and the owners an investor - MAISON ANLEY PROPERTY NOMINEE LIMITED. I could write to them?
Whilst a complaint to your MP is important, you would be better starting with the council planning department. If the planning conditions are not being met then you can make a formal complaint to the council AND include that information when you bend your MP's earhole.
Remind them what MPs said about this by quoting their comments in red you will find in the NEWBIES, and ask why things are taking so long with stopping regards to ending this scam.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
You need to find out from the landowner when the change happened, as if it was only shortly before this visit, you'll find that useful at court stage when you win at your local court v VCS.
The IPC Code of Practice has a section about 'new restrictions' and the need for additional signage to alert local drivers familiar with the terms of the old signs, not that the IAS give two hoots about anything like that.
Appealing to the IAS was utterly pointless. Sad that you did, really. No-one should.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 -
Thanks All,
The issue im having is that the landowner is not any of the shops in the precint. Ive sent 3 letters on Monday to them complaining about the scam, but I have other way of getting in touch with them. My local MP is doing the same thing to the landowner.
I will chase down the planning department tomorrow and put some pressure on them with regards to the scam and also dates when terms changed. This was referenced by VCS and they said they have changed the terms in October 2018, so it is nearly a year before I parked there.
I have today received my 'final demand' from VCS, saying its my final opportunity to pay before they commence county court proceedings. I have a deadline for action of 20/1/2020 to pay on the letter.0 -
You can easily find who owns land, either from the Land Registry for about £3.50, or by asking the Local Authority:
Please tell me who pays the non-domestic rates at this parcel of land. I am being threatened with court by a parking firm and need to know who owns that parcel of land, so time is of the essence for your reply.
To be clear, you may not treat this request as if it falls under the Freedom of Information legislation and as such, must not delay your reply. I understand this information should be provided straight away to any interested person.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 -
Yes the owner is MAISON ANLEY PROPERTY NOMINEE LIMITED, or ANLEY TRESTEES LIMITED
both same address located 65 Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2DY.
I have found them and the directors who i have sent letters to, but finding a phone number i havent managed to get yet0 -
This link was posted a few minutes ago on another thread:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/traffic-and-travel/judge-throws-out-fines-issued-notorious-sheffield-car-park-13787200 -
Thanks Keith,
Yes i have seen this too on the star so lots of other people are clearly going through the same thing.
That said, today i have just received my ‘letter before claim’ from VCS, with some forms on the back to fill in showing my finances etc and why i cant afford to pay etc.
I have now made contact with the managing agent of the car park as my letters to the owner have been passed onto them, so i am hoping he will see sense and throw it out. However, should i now request the SAR? So that if it does go to court i am fully prepared and can prepare a defence?
I am spending an age looking or owners and speaking to MP’s etc, so im hoping this will all be worth it!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards