Disputing a ticket - frustration of contract?

Snakes_Belly

Vanadesse said:

Fruitcake said:

Let's play, spot the entrance sign.

Approaching with the car park on the left. Note the all important image capture date at the bottom of the photo

2015
Mind the pedestrian!



2016



2015
Approaching with the car park on the right. Note the lack of sign facing a driver, and the road markings. This is the earliest a motorist can change lanes to make a turn into the entrance.



2016




It is reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, the site entrance and signage remained the same between the image capture dates of July 2015 and June 2016, the signage did not change, therefore it can reasonably be assumed this represents the layout and signage at the time of the alleged event.
Then factor in time and day and weather conditions that would have made it impossible for a driver to see the signs.

You might be able to reproduce the conditions by driving past the entrance in similar light and weather conditions, getting a passenger to take photos as you go. 

This is really helpful, thank you.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there is a lot of large unrelated signage that would be very distracting. Its a bit like the entry to the car park in my scenario where there were numerous random signs and the entry was from a ring road. Excel will cite the barrier car park case to support the point that the contract is formed on entry. It's not relevant.   

Snakes_Belly

"I really appreciate everyone's time and help here. You guys don't know me, you have no benefit to any of this other than simply 'sticking it to the man' that is Excel Parking so I really do appreciate it."

That and trying to change a broken system for the better.

Coupon-mad

Yes, our main job is to make a bigger difference.

please come back here regularly this Summer, ready to spend an hour being heard to Government by completing the upcoming Final Technical Consultation about regulating the levels of parking charges from next year. 

Coming soon...

...please check back on the forum each week as we need real people like you to counterbalance the spamming of the Consultation by the industry and people purporting to be ‘landowners’.

Snakes_Belly

Excel are a very litigious PC however they can be easily (and are) beaten in court. Their WS may be daunting but it is full of irrelevant material. The cases that they cite can be easily argued as they are mostly irrelevant and taken out of context.

The car park where I was ticketed by Excel also had a lot of random signage and a poor entry sign (obscured by other signs). I used the following example which although a motoring infringement it explains what happens when there is too much signage to process. The defendant is an expert in her field.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47175357

I don't see an issue with using a case involving a motoring infringement if it is relevant to your scenario. They cite criminal cases (also irrelevant) in a civil court. 

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/elliot-vs-loake/

Vanadesse

Snakes_Belly said:

Excel are a very litigious PC however they can be easily (and are) beaten in court. Their WS may be daunting but it is full of irrelevant material. The cases that they cite can be easily argued as they are mostly irrelevant and taken out of context.

The car park where I was ticketed by Excel also had a lot of random signage and a poor entry sign (obscured by other signs). I used the following example which although a motoring infringement it explains what happens when there is too much signage to process. The defendant is an expert in her field.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-47175357

I don't see an issue with using a case involving a motoring infringement if it is relevant to your scenario. They cite criminal cases (also irrelevant) in a civil court. 

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/elliot-vs-loake/

If they’re so litigious, I wonder why it has taken them this long to pursue it again. They can’t feel too confident about it I’m guessing. 

They’re really useful links, thank you. 

Coupon-mad

The thing is, Excel and their sister firm, VCS issue millions of PCNs per annum and it’s cheaper to frighten people into paying more than they’d get at court.  So they spend years harassing people with ‘debt recovery’ letters demanding £160 because that’s far more lucrative.

However, they are very litigious and old cases being brought to court now is typical. The 2 firms account for about a quarter of County court parking case hearings, according to MoJ statistics.

Vanadesse

A post weekend update. 

Harbert have come back to me saying they don’t own the site and haven’t worked with the company. However Avison Young have confirmed that HMC were the landowners in March 2016 and so I’ve gone back to them again as they had cc’d someone within the management company who he said may be able to help. 

DCB have responded to my SAR and said they’re requesting evidence and documents from Excel so have put it on hold. I did laugh at their subject heading of Excel Parking v Me, phrasing it as if it’s already a court case in an assumed scare tactic. 

Planning are looking into permission applications but have said it may take a while. 

Thank you again everyone for your help, it really is appreciated.  

Snakes_Belly

Excel and VCS are heavily involved in car parks at airports, stations and shopping centres. Their business has been badly hit by the pandemic. They are now trawling through old claims. They were probably aware at the time that these claims would struggle in court but they are now having another bite at the cherry to see if anyone will cough up.

Of the cases like yours which have been dormant for some time a number of them have been discontinued at the last minute.  

Vanadesse

Fruitcake said:

Not needed at this stage, but I have found some GSV images spanning the date of the alleged event where the entrance sign is nicely hidden behind a tree, and a pedestrian is about to step off the pavement to cross the entrance, meaning that's where a driver would be looking, not at signs in tiny font.

I'm guessing you drove in with the entrance on your left, but anyone approaching with the entrance on the right wouldn't see the sign at all. 
There is no large, prominent entrance sign showing a large letter P, nor is there anything in large lettering to warn a driver it is pay and display with a half hour free limit.

Do contact the planning department and ask if planning permission exists for the ANPR scameras, if advertising consent was granted for the signs, and what was the authorised free parking period for the site.
Not having advertising consent is a criminal offence (but only the council can pursue it).
Failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office. (No need to go down that route ... yet. You want the planning department on your side.)

Signs greater than 0.3m2 need advertising consent in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 and the unauthorised display of advertisements is a criminal offence liable for prosecution.

Planning approval can be granted retrospectively, but advertising consent cannot. 

If you determine that the free parking period as granted in the original planning approval for the site has been arbitrarily reduced, you can then use that as ammunition in your complaints to the landowner.
You can then also contact your MP and local council, and ask them to contact the MP and council for the site (if different to yours).

I found this site very useful to contact my MP and council, who then did indeed contact the MP and council for the site where a friend of mine got a PCN after the free parking period had been reduced from three hours to two.
My councillor was very clued up and referred to the PoFA requirements in his email to the other council.

WriteToThem - Email your Councillor, MP, MSP, MS, MLA or London Assembly Member for free

Hi Fruitcake (and everyone else) - an update.

I've had a not overly helpful reply from the Authority who have told me that all planning applications from 2000 onwards are available at: https://publicaccess.tameside.gov.uk/online-applications/

I cannot find anything related to the ANPR cameras or signs related to parking that are post-2000 on there, they have said that original planning permission would be requested through the archives.

Could someone else do me a favour and look at the link above as I can't find anything at all relating to ANPR or the car park signs or in fact the car park at all, mostly it's the Bingo, Vets and Gym. I'm not quite sure how to go back as I don't know if it means that there isn't any permissions in place.

Umkomaas

On the occasions I've seen planning permission/advertising consent raised in court defences, the Judges have said (effectively) 'nowt to do with us, they are Local Authority issues and it is for them to deal with and enforce'. In fact, advertising consent is a criminal issue and cannot be dealt with in the civil court. 

These aren't going to kill your tickets, and I'd only pursue them if you want to cause trouble for the PPC and you are determined, dogged and resilient to face push-back from the LA (something you seem to have just had a taste of!).  For after your case is resolved, IMHO.