Newbie: Not parked Wholly Within Bay

DynamicHelix

As the owner of this vehicle, I received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Park Watch.
They claim the driver is liable for a parking charge at Weston Favell Shopping Centre for "Not Parked Wholly Within Bay".

I believe the driver parked like this due to the pillar (pictured left) which obstructed the bay.

I have therefore contacted the centre as the owner of the vehicle:

To: customerservice@weston-favell.com; 
Subject: Unethical Parking Ticket
Content:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you today as a regular customer of your shopping centre, but I wish now to make my anger clear that as an owner of a vehicle I recently received a "Parking Charge Notice" from "ParkWatch".

I am thoroughly disappointed to hear that Weston Favell Centre are using these car park cowboys to enforce unfair treatment on your loyal customers. These rogue operators have used deliberately confusing signs, to ensure a PCN is issued in a wholly unjust situation.

The disgraceful company has sent me, the owner of the vehicle, a harassing letter demanding payment of £85 for a vehicle "not parked wholly within bay". This is disputable on multiple fronts; firstly, as can be seen in the attached image, the bay is obscured by a structural pillar, and secondly, perhaps most importantly, the signage does not clearly state a vehicle must be parked wholly in a single bay.

Further to this, I, the vehicle owner, deny any liability or contractual agreement was made, and dispute this predatory behaviour.

I hope Weston Favell customer service, and management will live up to your excellent reputation and agree, as the landowners, that this fine is unjust and trapping.

The reference number of the charge is: XXXX

Registration: XXXX

Regards

XXXX

And Submitted an online appeal to Parkwatch:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner the Weston Favell Shopping Centre.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual detailed photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. 

DynamicHelix

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.

Redx

Ownership is irrelevant , it's because you are the registered keeper , if your name is on the V5C !

Did Parkwatch comply with POFA ? Yes or no ?

finchman

DynamicHelix said:

As the owner of this vehicle, I received a "Parking Charge Notice" from Park Watch.
They claim the driver is liable for a parking charge at Weston Favell Shopping Centre for "Not Parked Wholly Within Bay".

I believe the driver parked like this due to the pillar (pictured left) which obstructed the bay.

I have therefore contacted the centre as the owner of the vehicle:

To: customerservice@weston-favell.com; 
Subject: Unethical Parking Ticket
Content:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you today as a regular customer of your shopping centre, but I wish now to make my anger clear that as an owner of a vehicle I recently received a "Parking Charge Notice" from "ParkWatch".

I am thoroughly disappointed to hear that Weston Favell Centre are using these car park cowboys to enforce unfair treatment on your loyal customers. These rogue operators have used deliberately confusing signs, to ensure a PCN is issued in a wholly unjust situation.

The disgraceful company has sent me, the owner of the vehicle, a harassing letter demanding payment of £85 for a vehicle "not parked wholly within bay". This is disputable on multiple fronts; firstly, as can be seen in the attached image, the bay is obscured by a structural pillar, and secondly, perhaps most importantly, the signage does not clearly state a vehicle must be parked wholly in a single bay.

Further to this, I, the vehicle owner, deny any liability or contractual agreement was made, and dispute this predatory behaviour.

I hope Weston Favell customer service, and management will live up to your excellent reputation and agree, as the landowners, that this fine is unjust and trapping.

The reference number of the charge is: XXXX

Registration: XXXX

Regards

XXXX

And Submitted an online appeal to Parkwatch:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner the Weston Favell Shopping Centre.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual detailed photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle. 

That's not pretty parking?

D_P_Dance

Many judges regard thisn as trivial, a waste of court time, and throw the case out.  Read this and compain to your MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Johnersh

The pillar narrows the bay, but doesn't obstruct it. They are not good bays, but the o/p also has a compact car.

The positioning does mean no car can park alongside the o/p.

I don't tell anyone what to do, but IMHO, I think the PPC will be quite confident of their prospects of success if this battles to trial. 

Thrugelmir

D_P_Dance said:

Many judges regard thisn as trivial, a waste of court time, and throw the case out.  Read this and compain to your MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Did you actually look at the picture?  Or is this a stock response on every thread. 

littleboo

I'm pretty hopeless at parking but could have managed to park in the bay despite the intrusion of the pillar, which is relatively small compared to how far the parked car is out of the bay. It's hard to imagine that occupying two bays like that isn't going to attract attention.

fisherjim

As much as I hate PPC's with selfish parking like that you were asking for it, unless the landowner caves in or the technicalities of the signage T&C's etc work in your favour I think you will struggle.

tboo

DynamicHelix said:

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated.

Not what you want to hear but going along with all the above comments.
Yeah, inconsiderate bad parking practices like this is asking for trouble, either from sh!sters companies or council owned parking places

Coupon-mad

I agree with the others, that is selfish parking (sorry but the driver has prevented a car from parking next to them).

But we don't want you to pay ParkWatch - they are greedy ex-clampers and two wrongs don't make a right - so maybe there is an out, if the PCN is nonPOFA in wording.  I assume no PCN was left on the windscreen as per usual...