Help needed - Paid for parking but at the wrong location.

D_P_Dance

Unless the full driver details are provided the charge will be pursued against yourself under the assumption you

were the driver at the time

There cannot and must not be  such an assumption, read this and complain to yoy MP

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

Coupon-mad

IgnitionBlue said:

Whilst reviewing the response to my initial appeal from I Park as the Operator I have noticed they have stated a ticket was issued on the date I was in the car park. However no such ticket was issued or attached to my windscreen - probably a technicality but surely it is worth arguing about this inconsistency in my response before it goes to the 'adjudicator'?

Thanks

You could argue that it was predatory because no ticket was issued on the spot for the driver to see, which breaches the CRA 2015 in terms of 'prominence' of drawing a consumer notice to the attention of a consumer. In a car park, a consumer notice is not only a sign but also the PCN.

This practice is now banned for self ticketers by the Govt in their new Code, and also almost banned for all ticketing staff, because it breaches the CRA 2015, as the new code says. The only exception is where a PCN can't be issued in extreme circumstances such as the person taking the photos being in danger, but there's no evidence of that, so this form of predatory ticketing shows a lack of good faith/open dealing (both doctrines from the CRA).

IgnitionBlue

Coupon-mad said:

IgnitionBlue said:

Whilst reviewing the response to my initial appeal from I Park as the Operator I have noticed they have stated a ticket was issued on the date I was in the car park. However no such ticket was issued or attached to my windscreen - probably a technicality but surely it is worth arguing about this inconsistency in my response before it goes to the 'adjudicator'?

Thanks

You could argue that it was predatory because no ticket was issued on the spot for the driver to see, which breaches the CRA 2015 in terms of 'prominence' of drawing a consumer notice to the attention of a consumer. In a car park, a consumer notice is not only a sign but also the PCN.

This practice is now banned for self ticketers by the Govt in their new Code, and also almost banned for all ticketing staff, because it breaches the CRA 2015, as the new code says. The only exception is where a PCN can't be issued in extreme circumstances such as the person taking the photos being in danger, but there's no evidence of that, so this form of predatory ticketing shows a lack of good faith/open dealing (both doctrines from the CRA).

Perfect - will add this to my response.

IgnitionBlue

Hi all, 

I have now received a response from the IAS. Surprise, surprise it has been rejected!

Response below:

"The Appellant challenges the parking charge on the basis that the driver paid for parking however it would appear from the comments made and evidence provided that they did not enter the sites location code correctly when making payment. I am satisfied that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the terms of parking are properly complied with. Signs are located throughout the site making clear the terms of parking at the location. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require the driver to pay for parking using the correct location code and by not ensuring that their location was entered correctly when making payment they agree to pay the charge. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location. 

The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

As the guidance to this appeal explains I am bound by the law of contract and cannot consider mistakes or extenuating circumstances, only legal challenges. It would appear that the payment systems were working correctly at all material times and simply that an error was made by the Appellant in not entering their location details correctly when making payment. I am satisfied that no payment was made for the vehicle registered on the day in question at this location. I appreciate that mistakes can be made, however, as the guidance to this appeal explains I have no discretion. The terms of parking have been breached by the Appellant as they did not ensure that their correct location was entered at the time payment was made and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

What should my next move be? 

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Wait for a LBC followed by a N1 claim form from CCBC interspersed with letters from debt collectors.  The LBC and the claim form must be responded to but the debt collector letters can be ignored, just kept if you want to consider a claim for unreasonable behaviour later in the process.

IgnitionBlue

Good morning, it's been a while!

Just received a 'reminder for payment' letter from iPark. Assuming I just continue to ignore until I receive the LNC and N1?

Thanks

Martyn

Fruitcake

You ignore anything and everything except a LOC/LBC, or a claim form.

IgnitionBlue

Many thanks Fruitcake

Coupon-mad

IgnitionBlue said:

Many thanks Fruitcake

Except don't stay away from this forum for months or you will miss the Public Consultation you need to respond to!

I know you won't want to miss changing the law to stop the greed. You can!

See the top thread by MSE_JC and read the latest posts on it, not the stuff about the 'appeal guide'.  Then once you know what the Consultation is, bookmark the thread and enable email alerts.

IgnitionBlue

Hello again,

Latest update on this one. I received a letter last week from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd).

It is the letter that states that case is not subject to High Court or Bailiff action.

Assuming I just continue to ignore at this stage?

Thanks

Martyn