IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
Excel Parking - 2x PCNs, not paying 2 hours upfront when 1 hour is free
A_Nony_Mouse
Forumite 9 Posts
Hi!
The keeper of a vehicle that our family drives, has recently received 2x NTKs for PCNs for claimed contraventions of parking at the Berkeley Precinct, Sheffield.
This Car park, operates a maximum 2 hour parking, and offers the first hour free. However, what the driver on the two separate dates has fallen foul of, is an obscure requirement (that they've recently bought in, from what we can work out in the last 12 months) that if they 'intend' to stay longer than an hour, that they have to pay up front (on arrival) for this.
The driver arrived and took the free 1 hour ticket as they only intended staying that long at the time. But then realised they were going to be slightly longer, so returned and bought a (2 hour) ticket before this expired, then left the car park after a total of about 90 minutes (both days).
The PCN states contravention 101, parked without payment of the parking tariff. Which clearly isn't true, from 0-60 minutes she was covered by the offered free hour, then after that was covered by the purchased ticket. And the purchased ticket, covered the full term (2 hours).
They have appealed to Excels stooge 'independent' appeals company, IPC, who immediately rejected it. Admitting a ticket was purchased but that it should have been 'on arrival'. We have evidence of one of the days tickets being purchased (as it was done via the app), but not the other (as it was done manually at the machine).
We've also served them a subject access request, to which we've had no response (after 20 days so far).
Also, both PCNs were appealed, but they only sent a response to one of them. The other was ignored.
Finally, one of the NTKs only came through as a 'final reminder', no initial request came through.
I assume our next course of action is to appeal to POPLA?
The keeper of a vehicle that our family drives, has recently received 2x NTKs for PCNs for claimed contraventions of parking at the Berkeley Precinct, Sheffield.
This Car park, operates a maximum 2 hour parking, and offers the first hour free. However, what the driver on the two separate dates has fallen foul of, is an obscure requirement (that they've recently bought in, from what we can work out in the last 12 months) that if they 'intend' to stay longer than an hour, that they have to pay up front (on arrival) for this.
The driver arrived and took the free 1 hour ticket as they only intended staying that long at the time. But then realised they were going to be slightly longer, so returned and bought a (2 hour) ticket before this expired, then left the car park after a total of about 90 minutes (both days).
The PCN states contravention 101, parked without payment of the parking tariff. Which clearly isn't true, from 0-60 minutes she was covered by the offered free hour, then after that was covered by the purchased ticket. And the purchased ticket, covered the full term (2 hours).
They have appealed to Excels stooge 'independent' appeals company, IPC, who immediately rejected it. Admitting a ticket was purchased but that it should have been 'on arrival'. We have evidence of one of the days tickets being purchased (as it was done via the app), but not the other (as it was done manually at the machine).
We've also served them a subject access request, to which we've had no response (after 20 days so far).
Also, both PCNs were appealed, but they only sent a response to one of them. The other was ignored.
Finally, one of the NTKs only came through as a 'final reminder', no initial request came through.
I assume our next course of action is to appeal to POPLA?
0
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
There is no POPLA for Excel. They are not in the BPA. If you want it cancelled complain to the managing agents who run the place.
Otherwise, get it in the paper to see it cancelled; this one is very interested:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/fury-as-sheffield-firm-excel-parking-demands-ps170-from-driver-amid-confusion-as-to-why-4000380
And if they issue a court claim, you'd win and they'd be laughed out of court.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
I have contacted the Star journalist who wrote this piece, who said he would follow it up with Excel. The story in our situation is even more compelling than the one you've linked, by a long way, as our family are going through some horrendous personal situations while also being stung by this.
I've read other similar stories about this same car park, and people have commented that the managing agents have fobbed off any contact ("They pay somebody to sort out parking, so go deal with them" type responses).
Surely there is something more we can do than just sit back and wait to have days of our time tied up with court nonsense? The keeper is currently undergoing chemotherapy, and the driver has mental health issues to look after, and this is absolutely eating them both alive.
It's clearly an unfair term. Absolute rip-off.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
I posted this on the other berkeley thread where the op had been in contact with whom they believed was responsible for this carpark - workman LLP;
Are Workman LLP the maintenance / management company for the buildings perhaps and not the carpark?
In the contract Excel had from 2018 :
https://us.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/9h/dly86chtw2yp.pdf
is with landowner THRE (UK) property fund - that was TH Harrison Real Estate,( a company now dissolved) c/o lambert Smith Hampton https://www.lsh.co.uk/explore/directory/offices/sheffield - a property consultancy company,the pact signed by the lady herself Katy Brindley may be the one to contact.
LSH were the company applying for planning permission for the signage to the carpark on behalf of Harrison.
Could we ask at court proceedings evidence the parking operator has a valid contract with the current landowner and evidence of ownership of the land ie. Land register proof and if the contract is only with the consultancy company, evidence the current land owner has given permission to the agency Excel have the contract with for the parking controls as imposed. If any permissions are with a dissolved company would the contract still be valid with present owning company?
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09624720
As you see in the contract with them via agency LSH was made in 2018.
It was just a though,as we can only win on legal technicality thought this might have been one I not up on the legal side of things. No doubt excel will say it's the same company just with a different registered name so the contract is still valid. Thought perhaps if a company is dissolved all contracts with that company would no longer count.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
In my own case I will ask for proof of landowners permission and proof of that landowner is indeed current landowner, if they show me a contract between themselves and an agency representing the landowner I will want evidence that this agency is representing the current landowner in granting permission for this condition of charging users of this facility. Who knows might get lucky,I will post any results I get in all 3 of the ongoing threads on MSE.
I'm not convinced about the legality of the term. ParkingEye vs Beavis was built upon the enforcement of the parking terms and charges, being intended to prevent detrimental actions within the carpark. This term serves no such purpose.
It does not protect the car park against any specific action. The max 2 hour rule is in place to do that.
It does not protect Excel against loss. In fact, it does the opposite. Forcing the visitor to leave instead of pay for the additional hour results in loss of earnings to Excel
It does not protect the landowner/tenants against loss. It does the above, forcing visitors to leave before they're able to complete their shopping.
It does not protect the visitors. For obvious reasons.
It is *purely* to exploit the users of the car park. It literally serves no other purpose. It is unfair, it is not sufficiently communicated (and falls foul of the red hand rule), and it is outright immoral.
1) Interesting that Excel pass 40% of the PCN proceeds back to the landowners. Basically bribing them to not get involved. Also restricting them to cancel 5 PCNs per (calendar) month...
2) The parking tarriff quotes 0-1 hours (Free) and 1-2 hours (£1). And not 0-2 hours (£1). They surely can't demand the £1 for the first hour based on this.
3) There is no mention in the contract about the payment on arrival for the 2 hour tarriff. It's likely a term not agreed by the landowner/agent.
4) They accepted payment for the second hour parking, before it was due, and have not returned it (therefore they have accepted the payment). At no point, was the vehicle parked without payment of the actual due parking tariff.
5) POFA can only be instigated if payment is outstanding (which it isn't, as above). Surely they have no legal right to request the driver of the vehicle, or to pass liability of the charge to the registered keeper.
6) They have not responded to the SAR requesting all details they hold relating to the vehicle/driver/owner. 4 days before they are held in breach of the DPA