HUMAN ERROR - PCN (SIP Car Parks)

ihatesipcarparks

Hello all

I received a PCN from SIP car parks at the start of Feb for ‘Insufficient Fee Paid’. The fine is for £60 if paid in 14 days but this has now increased to £100.

Thinking I’m doing the right thing I appealed to SIP direct. Obviously they dismissed my appeal.

I then went to the IAS with the following argument:

To summarise - I am appealing on the basis this was purely human error, having used the ticket machine at the car park regularly. Not to mention the fine is clearly exorbitant in comparison to the fee mistakenly not paid (£1).

I use this car park often as part of my commute to work. I purchase a ticket for £7 (12 hours parking) every time via the on site ticket machine and can provide evidence of this via the bank statement attached. I do not have access to the app to purchase using this method.

On this particular occasion and without realising, I mistakenly did not press the '+' button on the ticket machine enough times (needed to press it once more) to up the time frame to 12 hours, hence me paying £6 instead of the usual £7.

I have acknowledged this mistake, apologised and put it purely down to human error when rushing. I have voluntarily stated I am willing to pay the extra £1 that I should of paid on the day, however SIP have refused this.

£60 is clearly exorbitant for the mistaken sum of £1 and I do not find it comparable at all. Assuming the appeal process may potentially exceed the 14 day window, this amount will be increased to £100. This is absurd.

Not to mention the fact I NEVER use the full 12 hours of parking time during my regular visits to this car park. SIP clearly do not acknowledge this.

Attached is a bank statement to show the consecutive £7 purchase at this car park site. It is clear this occasion was human error and hopefully the Assessor can appreciate that.

(I attached a bank statement with a full A4 list of £7 payments to SIP car parks. It obviously showed the £6 which resulted in this PCN).

The operator’s prima facie case was as follows along with a few attachments showing the car on ANPR, etc:

The appellant was the driver.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on XX/02/2023.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on XX/01/2023.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

As shown in attachment "PlateChecker.pdf" the appellant did not purchase a parking session which covered the length of time the vehicle was present on the car park. As the vehicle exceeded the parking by paying the insufficient fee, a charge was issued.

The IAS adjudicator come back with the following:

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment covering the entirety of the parking event, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

The Appellant raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the Operator was clearly communicated to the Appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the Operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

I have since discovered this forum which suggests that the IAS is a kangaroo court!

I have not paid the PCN. However, how would you guys suggest I proceed? Pay it or Just do nothing?

Can this potentially affect my credit score further down the line?

Any help would be much appreciated… as you can probably tell I’ve never had this issue before with a private car park! Many thanks

Umkomaas

Wait for a Letter Of/Before Claim or a court claim via the Northampton CCBC and deal with it then. A judge will give a more balanced view than you were ever going to get from the IAS assessor.

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, provides detailed guidance on how to deal with the above two.

Have you complained to the landowner, asking them to intervene?  They can often be helpful, especially as you seem to be a regular customer.

B789

ihatesipcarparks said:
Can this potentially affect my credit score further down the line?

Not unless you don't defend this disputed, alleged debt, let it go to court where you lose due to not defending and/or not following the advice given here and/or not reading the Newbies thread and subsequentially receive a CCJ which you then decide to ignore and not pay within 30 days of the judgment.

99% of victims who receive claims and follow the advice in the Newbies thread near the top of this forum and advice from the forum experts either win their cases or have them discontinued before they ever get to court. The other 1% that lose is usually because they didn't follow all the advice or hadn't bothered to read and digest the Newbies thread or just give in and pay up for the easy life.

You can be a 99 percenter or a 1 percenter.

Your credit score will only be affected if you receive a CCJ and you don't pay it within 30 days. 

ihatesipcarparks

Umkomaas said:

Have you complained to the landowner, asking them to intervene?  They can often be helpful, especially as you seem to be a regular customer.

Thanks, I'll wait to hear from them further. I'm not sure who the landowner is. It's just a random piece of land in the centre of Manchester currently used by SIP as a car park. Cheers

Coupon-mad

Sometimes SIP file a claim in their own name (without using a solicitor) so come back if you get a court claim.

Tell SIP if you move address within 6 years.

Lesson learned: don't park in private car parks!  The industry is rotten and waiting to scam you for errors.  On-street parking is safe and better, or find a Council run car park.  I always look to find somewhere on street, even in large cities.

Galloglass

This is one of the examples of "frustration of contract". 

If SIP go to court, they will argue that you should have paid the full amount again and claimed back the wrong amount later - in theory. Usually on the signs there will be an instruction what to do when something goes wrong e.g phone this number, do this or do that. If you can get a pic of the signs, then you can check for it. [Council signs usually have it]

If it does go to court, and you claim human error, you will need to be there to proclaim your honesty and SIP's unwillingness to deal with a minor issue. The lack of instructions on the signs, if true, would help you.

Frustration in its various forms should be included as one of the points for discussion in the forthcoming DLUHC consultation, along with dodgy ANPR cameras, dodgy payment software, broken payment machines, no one to contact etc.

Coupon-mad

But the DLUHC Consultation will be only about the two JR challenge points.  Nothing else in the Code is expected to be revisited or change at al.