Bankpark Machine Faulty - PCN Issued

smk626

I got a PCN from Bankpark for Oxford Road Reading (big Tesco). Wrote to the council, they said they don't own the site, Tesco does. Tesco staff said they don't own it.
I can check it on land registry, but I'm certain Bankpark don't own it either.
Issue is that the machine which prints the ticket is faulty a loooot of times, and I don't have my phone on me every time to take screenshots. 
I've even seen an old man failing to print ticket for his car (30 minutes free), and machine printing it for me just fine.
They sent me a ticket last time for going over the limit of 30 minutes (5-6 minutes over), which was canceled when I told them I'll only pay £5, because it's "exorbitant and extortionate", considering that 30 minutes are free and 5 minutes are £60, and also that I was not hogging the space etc, plus that they don't pay anything to maintain the open air parking lot.
However, this time I cannot prove that machine was faulty when I tried to print the ticket.
I have challenged it on the basis that they will have records of how machine being faulty
1) from their own computer.
2) from their records of fines issued when drivers did not print/display ticket for 30 minutes period. A sudden spike of tickets being issued is suspect anyways, and somone who has been parking there freqeuntly with valid ticket suddenly not displaying ticket one day....that's clearly not ignorance of rules or dodging them. It's a genuine problem with the machine.

I have appealed with IAS as well, but it's going in circles.

Anyone else had similar experience with these fraudsters?
Any suggestions about what to expect as next steps?
I'm not paying them on the basis of this being deeply unfair to the people, because I have paid up for extra 5-10 minutes twice or more times because tesco shopping took longer.

Coupon-mad

Why did you try IAS? That's not the advice in the NEWBIES FAQS thread 3rd post! It's a kangaroo court paid for by, and meeting the needs of IPC members. Not an appeal service at all, IMHO.

Only 5% of all appeals heard are upheld for motorists! It's as useless as a chocolate fireguard to consumers, and the Government is set to replace it.

Then read the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread. Cheerfully ignore debt demands.

Come back if you get a LBC or court claim.  Bank Park are not known for them.

smk626

I didn't know IAS is meant to be an excuse for delaying things.
I have had a few occasions when I successfully got previous PCNs after I read Supreme Court's decision on one of these private parking lot fines, and that judgement states a few conditions:
- There are expenses to maintain the facility, e.g. rent, personnel, building maintenance etc.
- Fines are not exorbitant or extortionate.

Both times I have offered the private firms like these to pay £5-10 for a period that would normally be £1.50 or less. Because they don't own the place and don't have personnel or maintenance except for a camera and a payment machine. They just cancel it.
This judgement "Barry Beavis (Appellant) v ParkingEye Ltd (Respondent)" was the reason they were brave enough to continue asking for ridiculous amount of money, quoting it proudly in their websites, even though the very long judgement doesn't uphold their ridiculous claims.
Mostly the fine is unfair, and £10 is enough to deter the driver without giving them a nervous breakdown.

In this case it's not even my fault, and I'm sure they know it.
I'll let you know how it goes.

Coupon-mad

And please come back to do the Public Consultation once the DLUHC publish the Impact Assessment about the level of parking charges. Sounds like you share our views that the parking charge levels should be lower.

See this discussed recently on the top sticky thread by MSE_JC.  Please do bookmark it, if you are not a regular browser on this forum.

smk626

I got two reminders from debt collectors to pay up £160, saying "This case is not subject to High court or bailiff action" at the bottom of the letter. It's from DCBL. I called them and told them I'll not pay up because the fine is deeply unfair, given that:
1- The notice on parking lot says claim your free parking stay within 15 minutes of entering. I actually exited within 15 minutes.
2- Their machine was faulty, and stays faulty a lot of times. Sometimes it's out of paper, so you don't know if it has worked or not.
3- I did not have my phone on me to take a photo at the time, but I've had plenty of free parking stays there before this time, each of them with a valid printed ticket for free 30 minutes. On top of that I have paid up £1.50-2.00 if my parking session has gone over 30 minutes due to any delays at nearby Tescos. That extra £1.50 gives me 90 minutes, whereas I have only been 10 minutes over the free parking limit. So it proves that I have not been dishonest with them or don't know the rules of that parking lot.
4. I have been taking regular photos of when their machine has been faulty, and asked some of my friends who park there sometimes to keep sending me photos when they find the machine faulty. So there is proof their machine goes faulty a lot of time.
5- Session was meant to be free anyways, and the fine amount doesn't justify it. Specially, when the local council charges you £35 if you violate their parking space rules on the same road, and they are the ones maintaining those streets and parking spaces also. So the fine is clearly over and above local authority's own fines.

This time I got the letter saying DCBL will advise Bankpark to take me to County Court.
I have written to Bankpark a month ago to ask for my car's full record before the time of fine. That will show them and the judge what I have been telling them. They didn't respond at all. I guess they will have to produce that data if case went to County Court?

Coupon-mad

Stop ringing up DCBL.  It's as useful as sticking needles in your eyes!

Await the claim form.

You certainly have a strong defence.  Clearly the advertised 'consideration period' to decide whether to stay or leave the car park is 15 minutes.

No question, and even if that was in question it is ambiguous, so you win. The CRA 2015 applies. Here is some wording I suggested in para 5 of this person's defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79783636/#Comment_79783636

KeithP

So after that phone call, Bank Park now know who was driving.
That will make their job a whole lot easier.

smk626

I've had the DCBLegal letter of claim, one written December 2022, other May 2023. Attaching them here.





Need to correct my earlier points, I actually parked there 22 minutes, not 15 minutes.
22 minutes is still within free parking period, so the points of defense for me will be something like this:

1- Parking site is not owned by Bank Park, just operated by them with sign post, parking machine and a camera. It's an open site with no maintenance requirements. If they'd been maintaining an built up, secure parking site, Bank Park could have a point to recoup these costs.
2- Parking used to be crowded until few years ago before Bank Park installed camera and parking machine. It has done its job of enforcing a fair use of space by drivers, most of whom use it for a short trip at Tesco store there, and do not pay for their first 30 minutes of parking. I am one of those shoppers, and had always complied with these rules prior to August 2022.
3- Bank Park have not replied to my question, "what happens to a car parked for 30 minutes on this site when parking machine is faulty?"
4- Bank Park have not replied to my request to provide my own vehicle parking record in July-August 2022, which will prove that I am aware of parking rules on this site, and have been correctly keying my car reg for free 30 minutes window, and have paid for parking if gone over 30 minutes.
5- Attaching for Court's case a few photos when machine does goes faulty. It happens a lot frequently than the evidence I have. Being an engineer myself I also see machine doing a kind of Reboot repeatedly.
6- Bank Park have not said if they have a record of parking machine doing this kind of reboot, or being faulty at so many occasions, including one where I was fined. It is possible the machine was faulty when I tried it, and was back online by the time I took the car away. Bank Park are not clear about this machine's status for that time period, which is main point of contention.
7- A free 30 minute parking is by definition is just that, FREE, and anything above 30 minutes being paid for (around £2 for next 90 minutes) automatically presents a proposition to the driver to clear the parking quicker, so other drivers can use it. There have been one or two occasions in July/August 2022 where I had claimed 30 minute free parking, and when 8-10 minutes late for exit I paid this extra £2 to avoid penalty. Bank Park have not provided any records I have repeatedly asked in my emails to them. DCBLegal now claim in their email that Bank Park consider this query to be 
8- Initial £100 fine (£60 if paid promptly) is far above what local authority charges as penalty on the same road (£35), and £60 is far above anything Bank Park consider to be deterrence against unfair parking use. Bank Park do not maintain the site, and seem to be using these fines as a profit-making scheme, rather than enforcing fair parking terms. Supreme Court's judgement in "Barry Beavis (Appellant) v ParkingEye Ltd (Respondent)" clearly makes the case that parking fines make sense if there is a maintenance cost to the firm, and shouldn't be extortionate/disproportionate/excessive.
9- Being user of this parking machine and others on the same road I have found Bank Park's machine to be faulty at various occasions. Bank Park have been reluctant to accept this fact, and refuse to supply any record of faulty machine, which shouldn't be a difficult task to achieve if they have put so much effort in pursuing parking charges. Every engineer and many non-engineers these days understand the concept of logs, and where they are recorded on a database. Bank Park seem to ignore their records when sending these notices to drivers.
Response from DCBLegal on May 25, 2023:
"if there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately."

Anyone knows what my next port of call will be?

Grateful for any help here. I would rather pay to the forum than being harassed by these people.

Coupon-mad

The next port of call is reading other DCBLegal threads at LBC and court claim stage.

And read the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Almost none of what you've written above is relevant for your defence, especially not 1. 2. and 3. 

smk626

Picture of faulty Bank Park machine at Oxford Road Reading site. I have a video of machine trying to reboot and giving up with this particular screen, but cannot upload that video. Pretty sure there will be records of these faulty machine time with them, as on multiple occasions I have parked when machine was faulty, but they did not send me parking notice for those times. This one time they seem to have a problem how they have recorded my parking time and haven't properly tallied up with faulty machine logs.

Note that coin slot has not been working through all this time.

Half_way

Bank park and tesco are an odd couple - i would go down the landowner complaint route , possibly via land registry search.

I would also take issue with the threatening letter you revived, as they are making threats they can not carry out.

 The text in the centrally located bottom header white box clearly sates "Cant pay? We'll take it away" which is something they can not do