Britannia parking no planning permission

Coupon-mad

State exactly what you just told us.

Plus, point out that the operator's evidence list shows ONLY people paying by phone for the entire half an hour after the car entered, so this plus the appellant's witness account on site that day, proves the machine(s) was/were not working during a prolonged period. If people paid by phone it cannot be presumed those persons were on the same floor/area as this driver (where there was no signal).

It can't even be assumed this 'evidence' sheet (an alterable Word doc) relates to the same car park at all, if its headings fail to confirm that. Could be any site.

Whatever2023

Not sure why people think they can park for free if they perceive a payment terminal to be faulty/out of service…

If a shop, or shall we say a cinema incase someone says there are no goods involved, had a problem with their till; there would be no expectation to get the goods or watch the film for free.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement amongst some when it comes to parking for some reason. 

UncleThomasCobley

Whatever2023 said:

Not sure why people think they can park for free if they perceive a payment terminal to be faulty/out of service…

If a shop, or shall we say a cinema incase someone says there are no goods involved, had a problem with their till; there would be no expectation to get the goods or watch the film for free.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement amongst some when it comes to parking for some reason. 

The problem is not due to any sense of entitlement. It is a frustration of contract that we are dealing with in most of these cases. If a pay machine is broken or it is almost impossible to pay due to poor phone signal or it takes a long time to download a required app which then puts the victim into breach of contract just by being at the location for more than 5 minutes, is a completely different situation.

These are contracts by conduct and are used to entrap victims. More so, because most of these unregulated private parking companies are owned or run by ex-clamper thugs with the morals of a pile of dog poo. Apologies to dog poo for the comparison however, dog poo probably has more intellectual nourishment.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

Not sure why people think they can park for free if they perceive a payment terminal to be faulty/out of service…

If a shop, or shall we say a cinema incase someone says there are no goods involved, had a problem with their till; there would be no expectation to get the goods or watch the film for free.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement amongst some when it comes to parking for some reason. 

Not sure why parking firms feel entitled to set up traps, such as hidden terms and non-working apps and payment machines.

Play fair and the industry MIGHT just shake off its market failure reputation by 2026 at the next review.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement to issue PCNs amongst some operators for some reason. 

Whatever2023

It may well be frustrating and unfortunate for the motorist; however, a landowner/operator is not obliged to provide parking in any capacity. 

Perhaps the misconception that a faulty terminal awards free parking stems from when local authorities had this policy prior to phone payments coming on the scene; however, a local authority is kind of obliged to provide parking.

If you can’t pay, don’t park; it’s as simple as that. The contract is not frustrated as the driver can comply with it by leaving.

UncleThomasCobley

Whatever2023 said:

If you can’t pay, don’t park; it’s as simple as that. The contract is not frustrated as the driver can comply with it by leaving.

Absolute testicles, especially as a huge amount of the claims we see on here are from intellectuals malnourished PPCs who issue their PCNs well within the time it takes to drive past an ANPR camera, find a vacant parking spot, lock up, walk over to what is invariably a poorly located, high up on a pole, poorly lit sign with "War & Peace" terms interspread with poor grammar and legalese, then read it and if necessary then go through the process of figuring out how to actually pay for it. If, in the meantime, they struggle to pay because of the woefully poor standard of app or poor phone signal and then decide to leave, they are alleged to have breached the terms  and get a PCNn anyway.

The number of drivers we see on here that are entrapped by the seedy practices of most ex-clampers is not unusual.

Coupon-mad

Whatever2023 said:

It may well be frustrating and unfortunate for the motorist; however, a landowner/operator is not obliged to provide parking in any capacity. 

Perhaps the misconception that a faulty terminal awards free parking stems from when local authorities had this policy prior to phone payments coming on the scene; however, a local authority is kind of obliged to provide parking.

If you can’t pay, don’t park; it’s as simple as that. 

It's interesting to read the mindset of PPC World but I heard enough of that in the Steering Group - and whose evidence was taken more seriously on many points?

Yep, the 'good side'.  Long may it last.  

The contract is not frustrated as the driver can comply with it by leaving.

Sadly, your side even deny the driver that, because they only allow a pathetic five minutes.

In the case of:

- driving in,
- driving round to queue for a space
- parking up,
- getting your kids/dogs or bags out,
-  locking the car,
- walking across the car park to find a machine in a corner,
- reading the signs (sometimes in darkness),
- trying to pay in good faith by various methods, and finally
- discovering the damn machine or app is unusable,

...this takes more like 15-30 minutes at least, and then you've got to plod back to the car, safely secure kids/dogs & belongings and leave.

And you'd still get a PCN. Actually you wouldn't, because you're exempt from all this unless you are just AnotherForumite?

Abject scammery. Not found from LAs.

Linny22

Half_way said:

What did you say to the landowner?
The response from the landowner should have a reply giving the landowner the chance to cancel it however the response will depend upon what you said in the first place

Does it matter now? I said how I was informed by the driver, that machine was out of order, provided a pic of it, that there were no phone signal, and just kindly asked if they could cancel pcn. Unfortunately I was referred back to Britannia parking every time. Then I came across that planning permission is not in place and mentioned that but it didn’t change their mind 🤷‍♀️

Linny22

Coupon-mad said:

State exactly what you just told us.

Plus, point out that the operator's evidence list shows ONLY people paying by phone for the entire half an hour after the car entered, so this plus the appellant's witness account on site that day, proves the machine(s) was/were not working during a prolonged period. If people paid by phone it cannot be presumed those persons were on the same floor/area as this driver (where there was no signal).

It can't even be assumed this 'evidence' sheet (an alterable Word doc) relates to the same car park at all, if its headings fail to confirm that. Could be any site.

Thank you. 

What should I say about not having a planning permission? As I did provide a document from council proving it. And as I understand if cameras, signage, barriers are unauthorised, then they are operating illegally am I wrong? As it shouldn’t even be there while no permission is granted 🤔

Coupon-mad

It's not a winning point.