I Park Services (Ipark)

Passenger101

As a search about iPark services didn't produce anything, I thought I'd add some comment & observations...
My daughter has learning difficulties & attends a weekly meeting in Chester.  She & her personal assistant (support person) use a car park managed by iPark. The only way to pay for parking is online - the online service offers a reminder SMS when the  parking is due to expire.  On this occasion, the SMS didn't arrive, & they were 20 mins late getting back to the car.  Online payments are managed by a different company to iPark & have no input to appeals services or PCNs.
iPark issued a £60 PCN threatening to increase to £100 after 14 days.  
We sent an appeal e-mail explaining the situation re failure of SMS. - no response
We've now had a Reminder Notice (no reference to any appeals)   The reminder notice says "If you wish to challenge the validity of this charge, you must use the Appeals Procedure described above" - there is no appeals procedure described.

The iPark web site has a section "appeal or pay your PCN online " -  this only goes to a page where you see the photos of your car in the  car park, & have the option to name a driver different from the registered keeper.   Anything else loops back to the "appeal or pay your PCN online" page.  There is NO option to actually "appeal online".

The FAQ web page lists a pile of FAQs but clicking on the link to get an answer gives nothing (guess it could be because popups are blocked)

Much as it would  be just and fair to contest the charge, my daughter suffers from seizures brought on by stress & trauma, so we don't want the stress of a county court case, & will be paying the charge to these crooks.

Umkomaas

The iPark web site has a section "appeal or pay your PCN online " -  this only goes to a page where you see the photos of your car in the  car park, & have the option to name a driver different from the registered keeper.   Anything else loops back to the "appeal or pay your PCN online" page.  There is NO option to actually "appeal online".

How many days since the parking event?

Much as it would  be just and fair to contest the charge, my daughter suffers from seizures brought on by stress & trauma, so we don't want the stress of a county court case, & will be paying the charge to these crooks.

What makes you think this will get to a county court case?  How many IPark county court cases have you read about?  

You can handle this for your daughter (in her name, not 'on behalf of') so she doesn't need to feel any pressure. There are 'adjustments' by law that have to be made for those with disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 which could apply to your daughter.  Please don't knee-jerk prematurely.

Passenger101

Just a follow-up.... going to pay the charge & their "make a payment" page has 2 links from it "Appeals & refund policy" and "terms & conditions" - clicking either link gives a popup box with a title and an "OK" button but no policy or terms and conditions. Looking at the web page source code, there's nothing there to bring up 

I'm sure this means they don't really have a "contract" to enforce in court, but as per my previous post, we can't cope with the hassle (medical/psychological impact) of fighting so are going to pay.

Passenger101

Umkomaas said:

The iPark web site has a section "appeal or pay your PCN online " -  this only goes to a page where you see the photos of your car in the  car park, & have the option to name a driver different from the registered keeper.   Anything else loops back to the "appeal or pay your PCN online" page.  There is NO option to actually "appeal online".

How many days since the parking event?

Much as it would  be just and fair to contest the charge, my daughter suffers from seizures brought on by stress & trauma, so we don't want the stress of a county court case, & will be paying the charge to these crooks.

What makes you think this will get to a county court case?  How many IPark county court cases have you read about?  

You can handle this for your daughter (in her name, not 'on behalf of') so she doesn't need to feel any pressure. There are 'adjustments' by law that have to be made for those with disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 which could apply to your daughter.  Please don't knee-jerk prematurely.

We're 54 days since the parking event.  We submitted an appeal by email within their 14 day period.... but this was not acknowledged (looking at the way their web site is constructed, I suspect it just went down a black hole)

Daughter would know that we were handling the case for her and her PA - so WOULD cause stress.  We're currently dealing with stress of daughter's medical condition so don't really want any distractions.

To be honest, post here was just to vent some anger  & to save others the frustration of finding that the iPark web site really doesn't work & really does send you round in circles with no appeals or contact mechanism.
Bottom line - they're a load of extortionist crooks.

Trainerman

Passenger101 said:

Umkomaas said:

To be honest, post here was just to vent some anger  & to save others the frustration of finding that the iPark web site really doesn't work & really does send you round in circles with no appeals or contact mechanism.
Bottom line - they're a load of extortionist crooks.

And they get away with it because people pay them. The more people who pay, the more the scammers are encouraged

D_P_Dance

& will be paying the charge to these crooks.

You are aware I hopr ythta, according to at leadt one MP. there may be a connection between some of thes sompanirs and organised crime.

Therfote ny payon them you could e fundingding people smugglers snd modern slavery.

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

& will be paying the charge to these crooks.

You are aware I hopr ythta, according to at leadt one MP. there may be a connection between some of thes sompanirs and organised crime.

Therfote ny payon them you could e fundingding people smugglers snd modern slavery.

@D_P_Dance - have you got something stuck in your keyboard?  It's a bit like reading a Stanley Unwin script! 😄

Coupon-mad

Please don't pay this.  Wrong move.

Is the car Motability or was displaying a Blue Badge?  A person with protected characteristics is entitled to more time.

Did the appeal state that she has protected characteristics and is a regular customer at that car park who always pays but needed more time on this occasion?

Get your MP to help explain this and complain to the parking firm on her behalf and to their trade body and the landowner.  Do that even if you pay,, because it could extract a climbdown and refund if your MP is good enough.

You say you (she) appealed?  Who is the vehicle keeper getting the letters?

You should wait for the reply to appeal then can appeal further.

nicolerusso

A letter to my local MP in Wadebridge in Cornwall:

Dear Ben Maguire,

Please find attached:

1. A Screen Recording showing the METADATA on each photo I viewed on my friend's phone to assist my poor eyesight on the day I decided not to enter into a contract with i-Park.

As explained I left their car park within 2 minutes and 16 seconds which is permitted within the Code of the British Parking Association as I was reading their signage in that time.  Despite this, i-Park are being allowed to indulge their pursuit of extortionate charges on the false allegation that I failed to pay for parking, when I neither parked nor entered into any agreement and read the signs and chose to leave.  According to the BPA Code of Practice I behaved according to their codes of Practice, despite this i-Park are attempting to start legal action that will destroy my life at this time by forcing me further into hardship, even though I have provided witness statements that adequately state my correct and lawful actions on the day in question.

2. The email I received from the IAS on Christmas Eve which fundamentally assumes I am a liar in order to uphold the i Park's decision.  The IAS indicated that I should have provided 'photo evidence' of the signs I looked at on my friend's phone - their assumption being I am lying and so is my witness.  As I provided a witness statement, I did not believe I would need those photo files that we had run out of time finding a tech person to remove them from her phone so that they could retain the METADATA proving when they were taken.  However I believe the witness letter was sufficient, as how could any unbiased organisation simply decide I did not view something, which in turn  assumes my witness and I are both lying, without any knowledge of our characters.  

Therefore the IAS has decided my witness is lying or of no consequence which is neither unbiased nor based on 'balance of evidence' and flouts the British Parking Associations own code.

Now that Christmas is over, I have been able to find an available technically proficient person to extract the photos, at a time my witness could do without their phone for a day.

The photos which have METADATA confirming they were taken weeks prior to my "Parking Charge" are now available, however I believe are surplus to requirement given that I provided a witness statement.

Why is i-Park being given preferential treatment by an organisation professing to be unbiased?  Also why is i-Park being afforded a power that will enable them to destroy my life and put me into debt when I am already in financial hardship?

Could you advise on how I might contact the land owner, seeing as The IAS has sided with i Park based on their decision only informed by their opinion that both I and my witness lied, of which there is no supporting evidence.

Sincerely,

Nicole Russo.

THESE COMPANIES CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE BULLYING PEOPLE UNFAIRLY.

BACKGROUND OF EVENTS:

Having seen Clare Emmerson and her two young girls at the side of the road and who appeared to be in trouble I therefore offered them assistance and I pulled over to offer them to enter the safety of my car.  Realising I might block traffic on the roadside I moved my car to the entrance to the Day Lewis car park area but did not enter a parking space, as my sole intention was to assist them by offering them a lift.  As they entered my vehicle the 6 year old little girl in my back seat stated that she could not secure the seat belt.  As a motorist I am legally required to ensure that all passengers in my vehicle have secured their seatbelts, therefore, for only this reason I exited my seat without stopping my engine nor moving my car to a parking space while assisting her.  This entire incident took 2 minutes and 16 seconds, as your records show.  

Therefore I neither entered into any contract with you nor parked, therefore this fine has been illegally and unlawfully issued to me.  

 

1. Please find attached a statement from Clare Emmerson who is witness to the events as described above. 

 

2. Please also find below excerpts from the British Parking Association's Code Of Practice, which supports the fact that by definition my car was not parked and as such any "Parking Charge" by it's very definition is illegitimate and therefore illegally and unlawfully issued, as supported by the Bill Of Rights Act 1689.

 

3. As of June 2024, the ATA's newly introduced Single Code of Practice established a Grace Period at the end of the parking period of 10 minutes, this Grace Period would also apply to the start as the BPA specifically states: "There must be sufficient time for the motoris to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

 

EXCERPTS FROM THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE.

 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:

“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case - a contract was never entered in to - therefore it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

 

Finally, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

“Implications of the 10-minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11-minute grace period.”

If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park, locate (and read) terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave the car park.

ATA CODE OF PRACTICE

As of June 2024, the newly introduced SIngle Code of Practice established a Grace Period at the end of the parking period of 10 minutes.

Aside from the clear legal fact that:

1. by definition I did not park.

2. I did not enter into a contract with you.

3. By adhering to the British Highway Code Rule 242 I chose to not leave my car in a dangerous position to avoid any unnecessary obstruction of the road.  Therefore in order to keep pedestrians safe I momentarily entered a pedestrian area to avoid harm and did so to comply with the Highway Code.  

4. My action as a motorist was also in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 22.

5. My action as a motorist was also in accordance with the Road Vehicles Regulations 1986 CUR reg 103.

For all of the reasons as stated above, please cancel this illegally and unlawfully issued Parking fine as the accusation I parked is untrue, and by stretching the definitions of words clearly defined in law to harass and penalise me is now causing me significant alarm and distress, as I feel fraudulently targeted in an unlawful way.

Le_Kirk

You seem to be confusing two different entities, BPA and IPC, which one controls the car park in question?

Fruitcake

@nicolerusso

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner.

It is not a fine. 

Parking charge notices from unregulated private parking companies come under civil (contract) law, not criminal law, so even if the charge has been given incorrectly, it was not illegal to do so.

This thread is almost three years old. If you need further assistance, please start your own thread where you will get bespoke help.