[SUCCESS!] Parked outside designated markings - Cannot believe this one... Please help!

Excremation

Can't quite believe they've actually issued a fine for this one.

The fine is from "MyParkingCharge", of whom it is stated along with the "Central Processing Office" is a trading style of the "Excel Parking Services Group".

PCN states they are an 'Accredited IPC Operator'.

My partner parked at the train station in a singular bay right at the end of a row by a diagonal railing.

The front offside wheel is breaching the front marking of the bay, but is in a tiny triangular section that is not reserved for any parking... See below for photos.

Is there any specific appeal I can make to get out of this, or will one of the templates/newbie threads posted on here already suffice?

In the photo picturing the side rear of the car, there is half a line that looks like it used to make up the previous parking spot that is not longer used. Could this possibly be used as an argument, that the markings are not clear and concise, or am I screwed here?

Thank you in advance for any advice!

Coupon-mad

You are parked in a bay but don't blab about who was driving.  Try the appeal because I think Excel might drop this at IAS stage.

You won't be paying anyway, even if you lose.

Excremation

Coupon-mad said:

You are parked in a bay but don't blab about who was driving.  Try the appeal because I think Excel might drop this at IAS stage.

You won't be paying anyway, even if you lose.

Okay thank you! Should I use an appeal template from here, or do you think I can just point out what I've said above and that will suffice?

Johnersh

Do a bespoke one, making clear that no space was impeded and that by pulling forward more space was provided by the (unnamed) driver to assist others users access and egress from adjacent bays.

Is it correct that the wheel over the front line isn't occluding a pedestrian path or similar? Looks like there is a fence to the front and a hedge to the left.

Castle

The sign says "Vehicle Control Services" in the bottom left.

Johnersh

Spotted @Castle there's only one entity with whom the contract was made - VCS.

Castle

Question for the OP.

Have you received a NTK?

Coupon-mad

Please show the NTK as well.  Or the windscreen PCN.

Excremation

Johnersh said:

Is it correct that the wheel over the front line isn't occluding a pedestrian path or similar? Looks like there is a fence to the front and a hedge to the left.

Yes that is correct, there is no pedestrian footpath impeded there, it's just a fence and a hedge.

Castle said:

Question for the OP.

Have you received a NTK?

Just a PCN, it's my understanding this is not a NTK is it? Sorry I might be wrong.

Coupon-mad said:

Please show the NTK as well.  Or the windscreen PCN.

It was a windscreen PCN that was given, I've attached an image below.

Not_A_Hope

I would be arguing the case that the white line to the right hand side of the car has been extended all the way to the kerb and the driver parked within these markings. If this was not intended to be part of the bay the additional length of white line should not have been painted. 

In law if a term or condition can be interpreted in more than one way the interpretation used is the one favouring the consumer. 

Not_A_Hope

Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 succinctly covers that...

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.