Should I just pay?

KeithP

beatsneedrhymes said:

Please can someone confirm or deny if what earlsdonUK said is true, here?

‘But you can then appeal to their trade association, within 21 days after their rejection. And I’m pretty sure, if you do, the discounted amount stands (check this out).‘

Will the discounted amount definitely stand? If so, I am more inclined to give it a whirl.

Why the concern about 'the discounted amount'?

That is nothing more than a bribe to get you to pay them something.

I thought that by coming to this forum you were looking to be paying nothing.
I guess I was wrong.  

D_P_Dance

If you pay this company there is a chance that the  money will go to an organised crime group.  Do you really want to fund moden slavery and people smuggling?

EarlsdonUK

D_P_Dance said:

If you pay this company there is a chance that the  money will go to an organised crime group.  Do you really want to fund moden slavery and people smuggling?

You may well be right, but putting pressure of that sort on people who are just trying to get their heads round it is only a hop skip and jump from the tactics used by the operators. IMHO, a better strategy is to help with answering the guys questions, even if you’ve seen it all before and are tired of it; or say nothing at all. Just saying.

D_P_Dance

 a better strategy is to help with answering the guys questions,


I disagree.  Imo it is better to tell people how they can help themselves by doing the research, reading the guidance, and using a search engine.  Spoon feeding people does not help them and often they do not understand that with which they are dealing.  

beatsneedrhymes

Thank you all for your continued input (and varied approaches!).

Might I have a strong (genuinely strong) case if the sign at the entrance is clear:
Big white ‘P’ on blue square, the words ‘permit holders only’, also very large and clear, and ‘small print’ that doesn’t offer any details as to what the charges will be - just directing drivers to ‘see additional signs for terms and conditions’ and company contact details.

BUT the other sign, with all the information on how much you will be charged was not visible in the close-to-pitch-black at the time of night the car was seen by the parking attendant? This sign is not illuminated in any way.

And can anyone think why the vehicle in question was ticketed while at least one other, parked there at the same time and also without a permit, was not, please? The Secure a Space website does not have a section for members of the public to report cars, but is it likely a ‘ticket warden’ would choose to just ticket this car?

D_P_Dance

 Could be that the other car belonged to an employee or a mate, or had an electronic permit?.  Read all the small print on all the signs, also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Poor signage is often the winning card in court.

Umkomaas

Big white ‘P’ on blue square, the words ‘permit holders only’, also very large and clear, and ‘small print’ that doesn’t offer any details as to what the charges will be - just directing drivers to ‘see additional signs for terms and conditions’ and company contact details.

Standard entry sign. 

BUT the other sign, with all the information on how much you will be charged was not visible in the close-to-pitch-black at the time of night the car was seen by the parking attendant? This sign is not illuminated in any way.

Concentrate on that. Judges pay particular attention to signage - legibility, visibility (esp in the dark), content, contractual formation, etc.

But all this pre-supposes a court hearing. With 8 million+ tickets issued each year, and only around half paid, there is no way the county court system could possibly accommodate 4 million claims. In your case I'd work on the basis that it won't get as far as court so you neither roll over and pay, nor allow this issue to consume you.