Forbury Retail Park - Present on site during no parking period

patient_dream

JM0809198 said:

patient_dream said:

As 1505grandad says, the appeal must be done by your wife although of course you can write it

Tell your wife not to worry, you/she is here now

As Coupon said, no point in saying about a grace period because you had a full 3 hours ... that's what the signs say ...... 

In your appeal, ask for pictures of the signs that clearly tell motorists about the restricted hours.   Be advised that UKPC are known to doctor pictures which is fraud

READ THIS:-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

You have pictures and so do I

patient_dream said:

As 1505grandad says, the appeal must be done by your wife although of course you can write it

Tell your wife not to worry, you/she is here now

As Coupon said, no point in saying about a grace period because you had a full 3 hours ... that's what the signs say ...... 

In your appeal, ask for pictures of the signs that clearly tell motorists about the restricted hours.   Be advised that UKPC are known to doctor pictures which is fraud

READ THIS:-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

You have pictures and so do I

Sure thing I will submit the appeal tonight. I'll include the pictures of the signs upon entering. 

Why enclose pictures ... the onus is on them to provide pictures that support their claim

As we are local, if you wish to PM me, please feel free

JM0809198

I see i'm still getting a grip on things, my initial thought was it would go against them as the sign clearly states that you can park for 3 hours. But I'll leave it as advised. Appreciate all the support! 

Umkomaas

JM0809198 said:

1505grandad said:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle."

"No worries, just to clarify Coupon-mad the last paragraph matches my particular case,....."

Just checking  -  the appeal will be in the name of your wife?.

Yep most definitely will be as you all have advised. I'm just posting here on her behalf but she can submit the appeal as the registered keeper (all written in 1st person). 

Bit concerned about an appeal going in like that. No 'I parked', 'I drove into the car park' or 'I didn't see the signs'. Perhaps best we have a quick look over before submitting. 

JM0809198

Umkomaas said:

JM0809198 said:

1505grandad said:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle."

"No worries, just to clarify Coupon-mad the last paragraph matches my particular case,....."

Just checking  -  the appeal will be in the name of your wife?.

Yep most definitely will be as you all have advised. I'm just posting here on her behalf but she can submit the appeal as the registered keeper (all written in 1st person). 

Bit concerned about an appeal going in like that. No 'I parked', 'I drove into the car park' or 'I didn't see the signs'. Perhaps best we have a quick look over before submitting. 

Apologies if I was unclear, I was just making a general reference that the appeal will be written from the perspective of the registered keeper as advised. Any feedback is appreciated. 

PCN*****

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, I was not the driver at the time of the incident in question.

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 photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

The driver is a diabetic and stopped temporarily to have something to eat in a safe place to prevent complications with low blood sugars/hypoglycemia, furthermore the signage is unlit, difficult to see/read and  locate and very poor in the hours of darkness. You also stated that the vehicle was present during a 'restricted no parking period' , there are no signs upon entry or elsewhere within the car park that clearly state or indicate to a restricted no parking period and that you shouldn't enter the car park. 

Furthermore, having visited the site the sign at the entrance is obscure and offers a 3 hour maximum stay, your NTK states that the vehicle was present for a period of 10 minutes. 

patient_dream

It will be interesting to see what UKPC say.   Will it be the normal rubbish 

If they claim it is in the tiny print, will they provide visitors with a magnifier ?

JM0809198

Just out of interest. Would it be better to state that the vehicle hadn't actually parked and leave out the part about stopping to eat to prevent low blood sugars? The driver never left the vehicle to go anywhere and didn't turn off the engine, likewise the claim made on the NKT states 'the vehicle was present on site during the restricted no parking period' and doesn't state that the vehicle was parked.

Fruitcake

Having a medical condition and needing to eat to control this is probably covered by the Equality Act 2010, and the PPC may have committed indirect discrimination by not making reasonable adjustments.

I suggest you leave it in, but don't refer to it as a parking event.

You should also look at the judge's comments around paragraph 19 or 20 in the Jopson vs Homeguard case where he said that "coping with some vicissitude of short duration" is not parking. I would suggest that attending to a medical condition was a vicissitude of small duration.

The transcript is available online.

Le_Kirk

Sitting in the car, not getting out and leaving he engine running is still parking, go with the truth and as stated above by @Fruitcake.

JM0809198

Thank you that makes alot of sense, I've submitted my appeal now, it states that UKPC will respond to me within 35 days. 

JM0809198

Fruitcake said:

Having a medical condition and needing to eat to control this is probably covered by the Equality Act 2010, and the PPC may have committed indirect discrimination by not making reasonable adjustments.

I suggest you leave it in, but don't refer to it as a parking event.

You should also look at the judge's comments around paragraph 19 or 20 in the Jopson vs Homeguard case where he said that attending at a vicissitude of some small period is not parking. I would suggest that attending to a medical condition was a vicissitude of small duration.

The transcript is available online.

Many thanks that's an interesting point on parking thats alluded to in the case.