Berkeley centre car park - fine for staying ~1.5hrs

olives25

Hi all,

I as keeper received a NTK from Excel parking regarding the Berkeley centre car park, Sheffield. This was a £100 charge (with the usual early payment discount) for parking without payment. As many people in similar posts, the driver was caught out by the free parking at this site being reduced from 2hrs to 1hr. The driver parked for about 1.5hrs. The contravention date was 12/11/22, the NTK was received on the 22/11/22. It was issued by Excel parking services limited (not VCS as seen in earlier posts). 

The keeper naively trusted Excel's own appeals service and the IAS, and have been through both, the latter being declined last Friday (27/1/23). During the exchange, the identity of the driver was revealed. 

Having gone through other Berkeley centre posts, I think my defence centres around three main points:

1) Inadequate signage. Entrance and repeater signs do not make it very obvious that it is a pay-and-display car park. There is no clear indication free parking has changed from only 1hr instead of 2hrs as previously. Tariff boards were not visible from where the driver parked.

2) that £100 is an unfair charge and would constitute a penalty. I note this did not seem to work in the Beavis case. Excel have at this time not increased the charge from £100 but does mention 'Additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action" in the NTK. I believe these would likely be ignored in court. 

3) From reading other posts, it appears council permission has been granted for a 2-hour free parking car park. If this were true, the charge would be against this permission. I have emailed the council today to try and establish if this is the case, as I have not found any documental evidence for this so far.

I note that it is often a recommendation to seek cancellation from the landowner. I believe this to be Greg Barraclough but from other posts have not seen evidence of him intervening on behalf of motorists. Would it be worth contacting him regardless? 

As a side note, in the NTK it reads under contravention reason: "101)parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The maximum period allowed at this site is 0 minutes." I find it max period as 0 minutes to be odd, but not sure if there's anything in it. 

I was hoping for input as to whether you thought this case was winnable at court. Being able to establish what the council has authorised the car park to be used as seems important for this. Any input from the community would be greatly appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

Winnable at court.  Yes!  Sit tight.

Winnable at IAS, highly unlikely.  Laugh when you get the useless kangaroo court's bog standard appeal rejection saying they sympathise but pay up!

Umkomaas

As a side note, in the NTK it reads under contravention reason: "101)parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The maximum period allowed at this site is 0 minutes." I find it max period as 0 minutes to be odd, but not sure if there's anything in it. 

Sometimes this can mean there was a requirement to enter your car's VRM into a machine on site, even to park free of charge. Failure to do so gives PPCs the added opportunity of issuing a PCN even though the motorist didn't exceed the free stay.  Maybe this happened in your case?

olives25

Umkomaas said:

As a side note, in the NTK it reads under contravention reason: "101)parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The maximum period allowed at this site is 0 minutes." I find it max period as 0 minutes to be odd, but not sure if there's anything in it. 

Sometimes this can mean there was a requirement to enter your car's VRM into a machine on site, even to park free of charge. Failure to do so gives PPCs the added opportunity of issuing a PCN even though the motorist didn't exceed the free stay.  Maybe this happened in your case?

I think you're right, upon review Excel want you to enter a vehicle reg and pay for 2 hours of parking on entry, although 1 hour is free.

Coupon-mad

The more landowner complaints the better, regarding all unfair parking charges, because it can get PCNs cancelled and PPCs removed from sites that don't need this harassment of drivers.

No reason NOT to formally complain!

olives25

I'll email the landowner now.

Got the following reply from Sheffield city council:
"Sheffield City Council has no jurisdiction over parking at the Berkeley Precinct. The land owner has decided to operate a car parking business at this location and does not require our permission to do so."

This seems to be contrary to some previous posts which talked about the council authorising a 2 hour free car park at this site. Maybe terms have changed since previously? 

Coupon-mad

Nope, you seems to have asked the wrong questions, or put your complaint the wrong way.

Of course a private landowner doesn't need permission now for how to run their car park.  But the original planning permission may well have been granted on the stipulation of two hours free parking to encourage people to use the local shops.

olives25

Interesting, I initially wrote to the planning department who didn't reply directly to me. I can see in the email chain they said "We do not have any information regarding the car park in planning" and forwarded me onto the parking services, who wrote the above reply.

I noticed Sheffield city council has a record on planning applications on their website. I found applications relating to the surrounding shops but not to the car park itself. Do you think it's worth recontacting the council's planning department to try and get the original planning permission, or would there be a better route?

olives25

Update:

Sheffield CC does not seem to have anything related to car park conditions on record. I've checked the freely available applications online, it would cost £100 to check historic records and I don't think it'd achieve anything.

"Good Morning,

You can see the planning history for the site via our online applications:

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-development/search-view-comment

If the site pre-dates the online records, we can provide you with a historical planning history for the building of the site for £100.

However, I believe we have looked at the site previously for anything relating to the car park conditions and we could not trace any planning information.

If you would like us to check again for you, please provide a red line boundary plan of the site and pay £100 via the link below"

I also contacted Greg, who was the old managing agent on behalf on the landlord. Greg forwarded me onto Workman LLP who have taken over management on behalf of the landlord as of 1 Nov 22. They were not helpful:

"Please note, Workman LLP are the managing agents on behalf of the Landlord in respect of the Berkeley Centre, Sheffield.

Please see attached current clear signage that is displayed at Berkeley that outlines the parking provisions to pay & penalties associated if these are not adhered too. Therefore in this instance you are required to pay the penalty charge, as you did not display a ticket."

To be honest, I'm considering paying the 'fine' just to get this over with as I have a lot going on at the moment. However, I hope my research and enquires are helpful to others in future. In particular, formal complaints should now go to Workman LLP as managing agents. I will also be making a complaint to the MP (Sheffield central I believe). 

Coupon-mad

Please reconsider: please do not EVER pay a parking charge for an easy life/ too much going on.

If we'd all done that over the years there would be no new Statutory Code of Practice coming in, which I've been working in person with Government on (as a member of the Steering Group) for nearly 3 years now.  Including when working full time myself during 2020 and having 4 kids studying, elderly relatives and other life considerations.

You don't have to keep going down this rabbit hole.  There is no need to spend time on this until you get a court claim.

Ignoring debt letters just involves filing them in a drawer for later.  No work is required, no worrying about it having 'gone up' to £170...!

Sit tight, dispute a charge ONCE to appear reasonable (looks better than ignoring altogether) then - after that - ignore everything else, except a court claim.

And for that, I've written a Defence for you already so it's copy &paste stuff!   Dead easy.  You do not have to expend time or energy on this rogue industry.

Landowner complaint is always worth a go - but if you hit a brick wall you do not pay!

olives25

Hi Coupon-mad,

I guess I'm a little disheartened by not getting anywhere with finding the original planning permission or by talking to the landlord's management agent. I'm slightly worried that my defence mostly rests on the point of inadequate signage, which is fairly subjective, and an unfairly high charge. I wasted a lot of time going through their appeals service so am already feeling very done with it.

Nevertheless, I don't want to rush into a decision either way so will be spending the next few days thinking about it. Thank you for all the input you've provided so far.