19 mins to purchase a ticket.

ws8219

Is this how it plays out?

Entered car park at 09:09 - purchased a ticket at 09:28. I received a phone call when parked up, hence the delay.

Left within the allotted time.

PCN issued - NTK - Charge £100 / £60.

Appeal - Expect to be rejected.

Second appeal - Expect to be rejected.

Ignore all letters.

It gets dropped or ends up in court.

Go to court & explain to the judge that the delay in buying a ticket was because I was on an important phone call and that the "invoice" from the parking company is disproportionate to the alleged offence.

Judge rules against the parking company?

B789

ws8219 said:

Is this how it plays out?

It depends. Do you have a PCN? Do you have a claim?

ws8219

I'm at the PCN stage.

Coupon-mad

Which PPC?  Some are easy.

ws8219

Excel Parking

Coupon-mad

OK so they might sue you.  This is NOT how to argue it:

Go to court & explain to the judge that the delay in buying a ticket was because I was on an important phone call and that the "invoice" from the parking company is disproportionate to the alleged offence.

Certainly DO NOT mention taking a phone call in your appeal!

B789

"...the delay in buying a ticket was because I was on an important phone call and that the "invoice" from the parking company is disproportionate to the alleged offence."

The above is a classic example of how to shoot yourself in both feet.

ws8219

Unfortunately, I coughed up. Not prepared to go to court over £60. 
Technically I did break their terms regardless of how unfair it seems.
Lesson learned and move on.

Coupon-mad

ws8219 said:

Unfortunately, I coughed up. Not prepared to go to court over £60. 
Technically I did break their terms regardless of how unfair it seems.
Lesson learned and move on.

That'll go towards another horse or yacht for SRS:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713705/amp/The-parking-ticket-fat-cats-one-s-chum-Prezza-two-drive-Aston-Martins-Meet-men-ve-millions-motorists-misery.html

Don't worry.  Your case has taken money from you but some good people are taking action.

The regulars here are fighting and succeeding in changing the law to protect people like you.  The applicable law is changing in 2024 thanks largely to us, good people on motoring groups and robust MPs who smell a rat when it's in front of them.

Over 5 years of hard work is finally working.

B789

Pay a scammer, you are then marked as a 'mug" for future reference. 

ws8219

How could I possibly win if it went to court?

I broke the terms, and after reading on here and Pepipoo it seems that Excel rarely back down

Although I since checked my email and this appeal worked for me in 2017 against Highview. Not sure if it is still relevant.

"I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The PCN makes no attempt to pass liability to the keeper after 28 days. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found: ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''