Berkeley centre Sheffield

Albert_Arkwright

My other half has received a PCN from Excel parking issued 24/1/2023 for offence 17/1/2023, she was there taking a disabled person to shop in the attached premises.
This carpark is free for the first hour and £1 for a maximum stay of 2 hours, as she has done many times before she paid the £1 so they have plenty of time for the disabled person to shop at her leisure.
The pcn states arrival as 10:27:18 and departure 11:58:56, duration 1h31m38s.
The vehicle was parked, she put the £1 in, entered registration number, received ticket, no coin returned as expected and so carried on visiting the shops of the centre. When returning to the vehicle at just before 11:19 to load some shopping she noticed the ticket was only showing 11:29 how much time they had left she saw to her surprise the ticket showed an expiry time of 11:29, so believing she could again pay the £1 this time ensuring payment was acknowledged, would allow her the second hour, did so at 11:19.
On receiving the PCN I went onto their website and sent copies of the tickets and explanation expecting the charge to be dropped, as it was done through their website I have no copy of the statement I made ( i now realise it was a mistake but I didn't realise how nasty these people are), subsequent reply said it was acknowledgement of the driver, I would disagree but i think acknowledgement of purchasing the ticket means the keeper was present and would probably be enough for the judge to allow the claim against them.

Obvious as no witness to the machine taking the first payment and the parking operator won't be admitting any knowledge of it so that annoyingly has to be considered irrelevant. 
The reply from the Parking operator:


How can the parking operator claim for loss when the vehicle had proven payment of £1 for a duration of less than 2 hours being the charge and time limit of the sites terms, if the same payment was paid on arrival as they state is requested in their t & c's how would they have been financially better off? Real question is how would a judge rule the matter?

The T & C's;
The nitty is the "To park in excess of the 1 hour period a valid ticket must be purchased on arrival" obviously she was unaware of this why else pay the extra pound, just left as seems to be required.
I presume the first ticket won't count as although "valid" at the time of arrival for the first hour, having amount paid as 0 would make it not "purchased".

As the parking operator has not attempted to return the second payment which they claim invalid, does this not say they have accepted it as deviation from original terms and so contractually accepted by them?

This has happened to quite a few people by the sounds of it and a few have lost at court, i don't know if they too were being charged for paying too late, i suppose as people keep getting off on technicalities they close them off.
We have until end of feb to pay £60 then its £100, I struggle to see on what grounds we could win in court, and will probably pay the £60 it's a nasty scam but not reading carefully the smallprint is how they are getting people. 

B789

@Albert_Arkwright welcome to the forum. In order to be able to assist you, please read, re-read and understand the contents of the Newbies post near the top of this forum.

What a pity you didn't visit this site before you gave away the drivers identity. Never mind, what's done is done and now you need to consider what happens next and how to defend this scam claim by a bottom-dwelling private parking company who are alleging that you are in debt to them. As you are hopefully aware, this is just a dispute over and alleged debt. Nothing criminal about it. Just a civil case.

You say above that your other half received a "ticket"(do you mean receipt) from the machine in both instances she paid her £1. Do you still have those tickets (receipts). Does the PCN show ANPR of the car entering and leaving the car park?

This is very winnable should it ever progress to court. At the moment though, you are at IPC appeal stage and if you have already read the Newbies thread, you will know that an appeal to them is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick. The IPC is just a kangaroo court for their members.

If you do not appeal to the IPC or if you do and it is rejected (most likely) the PPC have up to 6 years to bring a County Court Claim. In the meantime you would receive very threatening letters from debt recovery companies. You can safely ignore those, no matter what they say in them as they are toothless and cannot bring a claim against you. They are basically offering the parking company a no-win no-fee by trying to scare their victims into pooping themselves at the sight of a threatening letter and paying up the PCN and the illegal add-on fee of c£70.

You do not have to do any more until such time you receive a LoC or LBCCC. All this is explained in the Newbies thread. The only other thing you may want to do in the meantime is SAR the parking company for them to show you everything they hold about your personal information which will include everything you have communicated with them until now.

So, no paying these scammers. Of all the people on this forum who have followed the expert advice given on here and they get to a court claim, 99% win or the case is dropped before it ever reaches a courtroom. The 1% that don't win are because they didn't follow the advice given here and probably didn't read, re-read and fully understand the steps and advice in the Newbies thread. That or they just gave up.

Are you a 99 percenter or a 1 percenter?

Albert_Arkwright

Thankyou for your reply, i have spent hours with the newbies thread, with respect to the people who have put in a lot of time and effort posting the information I have been going around in circles following the various links, reading lots of different posts it's difficult to follow for the not so sharp of us.
I will send a SAR including data logs from the ticket machine although I doubt they will supply me with any information to help my case. I will also separately ask for evidence they have the landowners authority to make this claim, evidence that the landowner identified in any such evidence is indeed the actual land owner and if an agreement is with the landowners agent then evidence this agent has the authority of the land owner to make this agreement on their behalf. Does that make sense? hoping their contract might be with a company that no longer existed at that time, it's complicated business, probably registered to a trustee as the company that developed the site and perhaps classed as the legal owner is a property investment (fund) company and used a agency to sort out things like planning permission and it was this agency that signed a 5 year contract with EXCEL back in 2018, I read you can't have a contract with a company that doesn't exist.
Yes machine tickets:


NTK:





I haven't bothered with an IPC appeal as have been led to believe it would just be a waist of time- correct assumption?

I am struggling to believe the cases are winnable and think our principles will cost us dearly, as they say she should have checked the ticket and phoned the help line as stated on the sign and the unusual condition about not being able to pay for a second hour except on arrival is also there. (in red). Being busy looking after a disabled person is a good reason to have not concentrated on studying such unexpected details and their action is unfair and nasty, it is it seems the modern world of trickery and legal scamming that this counties administration encourages. As ppc's lose cases at court on technicalities they will close those loopholes so we eventually don't have any escape.

Coupon-mad

I haven't bothered with an IPC appeal as have been led to believe it would just be a waist of time- correct assumption?

Correct.

I am struggling to believe the cases are winnable and think our principles will cost us dearly.

Absolutely incorrect! Judges aren't stupid.  This is quite obviously an 'unfair term' which is not binding on the consumer.

And you don't risk paying more than the claim (you'd pay LESS if you lose, and you won't lose).

it seems the modern world of trickery and legal scamming that this counties administration encourages.

If you mean this country, that's incorrect too.

The Government stepped in and is now close to finalising the statutory regulation and curbing of the worst rogue practices of the out of control private parking industry:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-clamps-down-on-rogue-parking-firms-with-new-code-of-practice

As ppc's lose cases at court on technicalities they will close those loopholes so we eventually don't have any escape.

Wrong. See above. The opposite is happening in the near future, and IMHO the likes of Excel will be lucky to survive.

B789

Albert_Arkwright said:

You have to wonder about the intellectual deficiency of the people at Excel. If you look at the first ticket issued, it was issued at 10:29, just 2 minutes after entry to the car park. However, you can also see that it only gave you 1 hour of parking. However, the second ticket, when purchased, gave you 2 hours of parking. It is so obvious that they have an unreliable ticket machine and yet you can evidence having paid promptly the first time and then gone above and beyond and paid a second time!

This is so obviously going to backfire on the feckwits at Excel if they ever try to take it to court. Just keep all the paperwork and receipts. They can issue a claim up to 6 years after the event. In the meantime keep an eye on the upcoming DLUHC PPCoP.

Coupon-mad

No, they only paid once because the ticket on the right is the initial two hours free.  Zero paid.

The term that ostensibly 'allows' ex-clampers Excel to 'fine' a driver for making a perfectly normal payment within the free time, to pay and extend their stay (but Excel bleat it was made "too late") is gobsmackingly obvious as an unfair term which purpose is purely to punish drivers and enrich Excel.

Not enforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  The template defence already covers this aspect.

Castle

B789 said:

Albert_Arkwright said:

You have to wonder about the intellectual deficiency of the people at Excel. If you look at the first ticket issued, it was issued at 10:29, just 2 minutes after entry to the car park. However, you can also see that it only gave you 1 hour of parking. However, the second ticket, when purchased, gave you 2 hours of parking. It is so obvious that they have an unreliable ticket machine and yet you can evidence having paid promptly the first time and then gone above and beyond and paid a second time!

Not quite-the ticket issued at 10.29am was for the free 1 hour parking; so, no payment was necessary.

B789

So how does that ticket machine work? If you only plan on staying up to an hour, you select a 1-hour option and it spews a £0 receipt. If you plan on staying up to 2 hours you elect a 2-hour option and it spews a 2-hour receipt for £1?

Albert_Arkwright

I presume it gives an amount of time based on receiving and accepting at least the fee     <£1 = 1 hour   >£1 = 2 hours

She is sure no coin was rejected from the first attempt you can tell the noise of the dull internal clunk and the clink of one dropping in the opening in front of you, perhaps you have to press something. Interestingly this machine was out of order when I went to take a photo of the signage, I haven't found anybody on social media that have said they had not their pound recognised unfortunately.

Albert_Arkwright

Coupon-mad said:

No, they only paid once because the ticket on the right is the initial two hours free.  Zero paid.

The term that ostensibly 'allows' ex-clampers Excel to 'fine' a driver for making a perfectly normal payment within the free time, to pay and extend their stay (but Excel bleat it was made "too late") is gobsmackingly obvious as an unfair term which purpose is purely to punish drivers and enrich Excel.

Not enforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  The template defence already covers this aspect.

Just being devils advocate (or Judge perhaps) though i share the sentiment, had a look through the consumer act I can't see why it would legally be an "unfair term". If  they have the authority from the land owner then is it not for prospective consumers to accept it (after reading all the sign in detail)  or go some where else? although it feels like trickery to trip people up knowing full well most people don't read the small print, it is however a take or leave-able condition (unless grizzly old disabled person says otherwise of course but that's not a legal reason, should be but..  shame she isn't the judges mother) 

The only angle I see is that any monies paid on arrival would not be refunded or the extra hour available on another occasion if the duration of the stay was less than one hour. This requiring an unreasonable amount of foresight in able to choose on arrival the contract appropriate to your business this parking site is provided for. The anti argument as they stated in their reply is accept the free hour contract and leave within that hour. An odd term as they loose their £1 and the businesses loose your custom, unfortunately as its a property investment company or their trust that owns it and the businesses are tied into contracts they don't give a sausage. 

Coupon-mad

Clearly an unfair term set up purely to trip people up.  Offends against the doctrines of good faith and open dealing that the CRA 2015 is based on and we usually point to clauses 6, 10 and 14 of Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair).

All this is already in the Template Defence where it talks about the charge being distinguished from Beavis because there is no overriding legitimate interest that is necessary to save a high charge from being unenforceable.

A parking charge cannot be purely to punish a driver; there must be a legitimate interest to support a charge that exceeds the loss.  In the Beavis case the charge served to encourage a fairly quick turnover of parking bays which supported the aims of the landowner in making sure bays weren't taken up long term by the same cars.

They didn't want people there more than 2 hours. But in the Berkeley Centre they clearly do.  They have a system to let you.

I can't see any 'legitimate interest' to support what Excel are doing here, can you?

Quite the opposite; they are sending people away who would otherwise have extended their stay and paid money to the landowner and shops.

= Unenforceable penalty, then...using Beavis as the authority.