Confusing signage - worth an appeal or pay up?

A_Kay

So I recently parked at a Euro Car Parks site at the Harvester restaurant on Pride Park, Derby. I was actually going to a different restaurant but as their car park was already full, used the next nearest car park. So was not a Harvester customer. 

I was happy to use the pay and display but on reading the sign and the ticket machine, assumed that there was no charge as my visit was on a Sunday afternoon. Does anyone else interpret the signage the same way or was this my error in not entering my registration details?

Coupon-mad

I agree. It's pay & display Monday-Friday only.

And the other term 'Harvester Guests must register' for free parking doesn't apply to you either.

Ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  That is the law - Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Not sure why the idea of paying a private parking charge is in your mind anyway, regardless of signs.  No-one here pays.

DO NOT PAY EVEN IF YOU LOSE AT POPLA.

Check your NTK against the ECP ones in my NTK pictures thread. POFA or non-POFA? Don't guess.  Go and check the difference in the pics and don't admit to driving in the appeal.

fisherjim

Yes I read it like you though there is a confusing statement in "charges apply at all times for non guests" but in cases like this the terms most favourable to the "consumer" apply anyway.

Looks like a honeytrap to me

Coupon-mad

fisherjim said:

Yes I read it like you though there is a confusing statement in "charges apply at all times for non guests" but in cases like this the terms most favourable to the "consumer" apply anyway.

Looks like a honeytrap to me

Can't even see that?  I read it twice!

  

A_Kay

Thanks both, that’s what I hoped. 

I can’t understand who they think the Mon-Fri charges would apply to if they’re saying that charges apply at all times for non-guests. When the Harvester guests get it free?

Coupon-mad said:

I agree. It's pay & display Monday-Friday only.

And the other term 'Harvester Guests must register' for free parking doesn't apply to you either.

Ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  That is the law - Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Not sure why the idea of paying a private parking charge is in your mind anyway, regardless of signs.  No-one here pays.

DO NOT PAY EVEN IF YOU LOSE AT POPLA.

Check your NTK against the ECP ones in my NTK pictures thread. POFA or non-POFA? Don't guess.  Go and check the difference in the pics and don't admit to driving in the appeal.

Have checked and it is POFA. So will follow the template for the appeal. 

Is there any point referencing the Consumer Act in the appeal or when it gets passed on to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

POPLA stage for the CRA point.

KeithP

The foot of that sign you have shown us has this...

I can't recall the detail, but isn't there something significant in the fact that EURO CAR PARKS are claiming to be managing the car park ON BEHALF OF MITCHELLS & BUTLERS?

Coupon-mad

Yep, Fairlie v Fenton. The contract is offered by the principal m, where that party is disclosed. Agents can't sue on it.

fisherjim

Coupon-mad said:

fisherjim said:

Yes I read it like you though there is a confusing statement in "charges apply at all times for non guests" but in cases like this the terms most favourable to the "consumer" apply anyway.

Looks like a honeytrap to me

Can't even see that?  I read it twice!

  

Completely at odds

Coupon-mad

Yes, contradictory - and the pay machine confirms the top version applies.  Of course a driver will conclude no payment is due on a Sunday!

Either way, ambiguous terms must be interpreted in the way that most favours the consumer.  That is the law - Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Johnersh

Charges apply at all times.... Within the stated period which the sign says charges will be applied. Otherwise, why add that sentence at all?

The sign could say

parking charges apply 24 hrs 7 days per week. Free parking only for Harvester customers entering registration details on the console inside the restaurant.

If that was their intention, that wasn't so difficult, was it? So of course the o/p should appeal.