Ticketed less than 2 mins for unloading (Won at IAS Stage!)

KXL88

Dear All,

Wondering if you can assist or have any ideas with my case. I live in an apartment complex, and my allocated underground parking is over 100 meters away from my door. We have been told by our management that there is a 5 min ‘grace period’ for the purposes of loading/unloading at or near our door. This has recently been confirmed also by our housing management that in the contract between LINK parking and it’s in the contract (5 mins). However they have not categorically mentioned how one should unload/offload whether once should do so by parking near to the main door, or park ing temporarily in a disabled parking space. I chose the former.  

I have a dashcam, so I can confirm how long it took before I was ticketed (physically put a ticket on my windscreen). I ‘parked up’ near my front door just after 1747, to bring a heavy item up my apartment. I returned at 1751 to find a yellow envelope on the wiper. I checked my footage, and I got ticketed at 1749! The reason I was ticketed was ‘parked in a no parking area’

In the photographic evidence that they included, the parking warden has included a parking T&C sign that is NOT the closest one to where my car was, in fact, funnily enough, the warden has his pictures timed stamped, so the picture of the PCN on the car was 1749, but he/she had to walk some 2 mins to take a picture of the T&C of another sign 2 mins walk away that showed ‘no parking at anytime.’ On those other roads, there are indeed those signs there, plus nice other big red signs that showed no parking, no loading at anytime etc. No such sign exists where i left my car!  

In my first unsuccessful appeal, I argued that the 5 min grace period was not adhered to as per the contract, nor was it in IPCs (which they are with) code of practice of not even being given sufficient time to read find and read the T&C and to decide whether to reject it and leave. One cannot read these within 2 mins. The closest sign to my car was a disabled parking one, which states must be parked wholly in a bay, and must display badge etc. Nowhere does it mentioned no parking on pedestrian walkways, hatched areas etc, no waiting/unloading nor no grace period. Moreover I did also mention (and this is true) there is no sign at the obvious start of entrance stating no parking at anytime. In fact there is a sign that is turned the other way around (maybe by the wind) but is unlit and is 60 meters away, but not the closest to where my car was parked. That one (60 meters away) does state no parking at anytime. But does not mention no loading/unload/waiting.

In their rejection, they stated that no such grace period exists, and as a resident I should be aware of the parking T&Cs around. I did take a look around, and there were 4 different conditions. One is no parking at anytime, one is disabled parking, one is contractor parking (no private vehicles) and last one (where I park underground) is must park in allotted bay and display permit.

I tried asking my Housing  Managment to cancel or advise, but they said that they have given LINK their notice and from January they would no longer be doing this and unable to assist me.

Any ideas how I should argue my second round, or just pay up (despite knowing I did ''nothing' wrong)?  

Coupon-mad

Pay up?!!  Absolutely NOT NOT NOT.

Second round?  IAS isn't a valid appeal stage, it's not independent; it's a kangaroo court.

But you can try it (ONLY AS LONG AS IT IS THE FREE 'STANDARD IAS' VERSION, knowing it is a kangaroo court but sometimes PPCs cancel and run away) if you have this in writing to upload as evidence:

We have been told by our management that there is a 5 min ‘grace period’ for the purposes of loading/unloading at or near our door. This has recently been confirmed also by our housing management that in the contract between LINK parking and it’s in the contract (5 mins). 

I sincerely hope your idiot housing management team HAVEN'T gone and signed up with another parking firm? Surely not?

STOP THEM BY CALLING AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING FOR THE RESIDENTS.

Kick Link Parking out and tell the housing management that you (the residents, en masse) refuse to accept a new permit scheme.

You do not need to live like this.  You do not need any thug ex-clamper PPC.  You need more than a poxy 5 minutes to unload furniture for starters.

Mouse007

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

Jopson v Homeguard

All day long

Google it, read paras 20 and 21

Then read it all

Take note, it's an appeal court judgment - binding on the lower courts

It is your 100% FO Defence

diystarter7

Coupon-mad said:

STOP THEM BY CALLING AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING FOR THE RESIDENTS.

Hello

Point of order. When I worked for a coucil I would visit at times estated managed by HA's.
The people living on these estates were fed up with idiot drivers parking as they wished.
The residents, the majority petitioned and won the backing from HA for cctv parking enforcement. Indeed it did not
make everyone happy as nothing can but those that obeyed the rules were very happy. I bet the permit scheme was requested by the majority of T's as there must have been abuse of their parking environment as often the case.. That said, the rules need to clear and fair.

OP - I'm not referring to your incident it looks as though you have evidence you only parked in an allowed area for 2 mins otherwise they would have told you on the ticket you parked outside a marked area.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

 I bet the permit scheme was requested by the majority of T's as there must have been abuse of their parking environment as often the case.

I'd be willing to bet it wasn't...

What appear to be misplaced pro-PPC views (when the case in hand clearly shows rogue ticketing) can upset and even antagonise new posters.  What has happened to this OP is inexcusable, IMHO, and that's what we should be concentrating on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - and this forum is richer for the varied knowledge here - but just a heads up, so that this new poster knows that this forum community might also include PPC posters.

I don't know if that includes the person who replied above, but PPC posters have appeared here many times over the years and usually the discussions are open and honest.

But all posts need to be relevant and helpful to the thread's OP.  As you admit, you are "not referring to the OP's incident" so whilst no forum rules seem to have been overstepped, I don't see how the above post is on topic or assists.

Rarely (if ever) have I heard of a residential car park monitored by CCTV parking 'management' and certainly, this is not the case here, so that example from the viewpoint of a council isn't going to help this victim.  What the OP describes is the usual Link Parking MO seen on this board time and again: a predatory ticketer on foot.

There is no doubt at all that this case is strong and defendable in court and that's what we must focus on and help this poster to do.

Mouse007

diystarter7 said:

Hello

Point of order. When I worked for a coucil I would visit at times estated managed by HA's.

Spelling alert

Grammar alert

Troll alert

FOff

diystarter7

Coupon-mad said:

 I bet the permit scheme was requested by the majority of T's as there must have been abuse of their parking environment as often the case.

I'd be willing to bet it wasn't...

What appear to be misplaced pro-PPC views (when the case in hand clearly shows rogue ticketing) can upset and even antagonise new posters.  What has happened to this OP is inexcusable, IMHO, and that's what we should be concentrating on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - and this forum is richer for the varied knowledge here - but just a heads up, so that this new poster knows that this forum community might also include PPC posters.

I don't know if that includes the person who replied above, but PPC posters have appeared here many times over the years and usually the discussions are open and honest.

But all posts need to be relevant and helpful to the thread's OP.  As you admit, you are "not referring to the OP's incident" so whilst no forum rules seem to have been overstepped, I don't see how the above post is on topic or assists.

Rarely (if ever) have I heard of a residential car park monitored by CCTV parking 'management' and certainly, this is not the case here, so that example from the viewpoint of a council isn't going to help this victim.  What the OP describes is the usual Link Parking MO seen on this board time and again: a predatory ticketer on foot.

There is no doubt at all that this case is strong and defendable in court and that's what we must focus on and help this poster to do.

I'm certain that people with cars were fed up hence the controlled zone. I'd seen it many times when I visited HA estates.
Your "bet" carries no more weight than mine so we will agree to disagree.

However, as the OP was clearly parked within the rules EG in a bay and or designated area and not on a walk=walk etc I guess they have an appeal.

Thanks

Half_way

Get in touch with the management company/agency and quote the revenant bots of Jopson vs Homeguard at them, as well as your evidence.

 remind them that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents and if you have received any rubbish in the post from their agents then you will take that to be a breach of GDPR as they have no just cause to proccess, process and store personal data in relation to a parking charge notice

KXL88

Dear all,

THank you all for your insights and Jopson vs Homeguard. I will read that. Please note that in January where I live will indeed be going towards a CCTV monitoring system with 15 mins grace period for non-residents. As I park in the underground parking, my car would be exempt.

Their argument was I was parked in a 'no parking' area, but in that area where I was, there isn't any double yellows or criss crossed double yellows. The sign where it states 'no parking at anytime' on a road there are obvious double yellows, but further in, the next time it shows 'no parking at anytime' whilst not having double yellows, there were big massive red signs saying no parking along with the T&Cs.

About 6 months ago, I did ask the housing management team during one of those meetings with residents as I see MANY cars routinely ticketed where I live, most of them mainly because they did not display their badge, some with mutiple tkts. They did say, as far as they know, Link Parking only asked for 2 car's details, and they amassed like 30-40 tickets. So those they will try to recover from courts etc.

Would you say, should I fail in my second appeal (assuming I should use the Jopson vs Homeguard (5 min grace)) and incorrect/insufficient sineage that I should just leave it, and hope they won't come after me in the courts will a parltry single PCN (parking not penalty). As someone posted, DO NOT PAY!  

I guess at least I have dashcam proof that it was less than 5 mins (provable, timestamped and footage with my VRM).

*Forgot to mention, yes I've got an email correspondence from my Housing managment saying there is a 5 min grace period in an email. Not an excerp from their contract though. Oh and yes they/we are kicking LINK out, hence they are now within their notice period.

KXL88

diystarter7 said:

Coupon-mad said:

STOP THEM BY CALLING AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING FOR THE RESIDENTS.

OP - I'm not referring to your incident it looks as though you have evidence you only parked in an allowed area for 2 mins otherwise they would have told you on the ticket you parked outside a marked area.

Thanks

Actually on the tkt it shows 'parked in a no parking area'

The alternative was to park in a disabled parking to unload/offload, which I thought wasn't right, plus wouldn't one park nearer to the door? I even left my parking lights on (but I know that's not relavent).

KXL88

Coupon-mad said:

 I bet the permit scheme was requested by the majority of T's as there must have been abuse of their parking environment as often the case.

 What the OP describes is the usual Link Parking MO seen on this board time and again: a predatory ticketer on foot.

There is no doubt at all that this case is strong and defendable in court and that's what we must focus on and help this poster to do.

My dashcam was still running when it picked up a car (I even know the VRM) about to leave the estate, paused, made a bee-line for my car, stopped, put the ticket and left. There is no way he or she could acertain I was there more than 5 mins or not.