Parking Eye PCN @ MK Marina - Current Stage: LBCCC Received

Wadger2024

Good Afternoon All,

 

I am here today to look for support regarding a parking ticket received at MK Marina in January this year.

 

To give a brief overview of what happened and where I am at this point.

-          Following my washing machine breaking down, I searched online and came across MK Marina, advertising laundry facilities on site. The MK Marina website lists the laundry facility as at the Marina. The Launderette (Soapy Sudz), lists their business address as MK Marina.

 

-          I proceeded to drive to MK Marina and entered the car park, on the impression I was a patron of MK Marina. The signage calls that patrons must enter their registration into the terminal at MK Marina reception upon arrival. 

 

-          After queuing for around 15 mins to enter the reception, I spoke to a young lady who said the car park is for people visiting residents etc and not using the launderette. I could not use the parking facility, as I was refused access to use the terminal.

 

-          Prior to leaving I enquired about the ANPR camera and was advised I have a 10-minute grace period to move my car, which had of course already been exceeded.

 

-          I offered a small fee to the receptionist to enter my registration, while still of course immediately removing my car however, this was also refused as she stated she would “get in trouble”.

 

-          I then returned to my car immediately and drove to the nearby pub/carvery car park, bought a small coke to allow use of their parking, then walked back over to do my washing. Copy of bank statement shows transaction.

 

-          Upon starting the washing, I returned to the carvery to enjoy a meal while waiting for the wash cycle to finish. Bank statement shows second transaction.

 

-          13 days after the incident I received the parking fine in the post. This took 9 days to arrive, based on the date of issue. The images and details of the letter show I stayed in the car park a total of 18 minutes. Copy of front of PCN attached, not sure if my partner threw it away, but ill try get an image of the back this evening.

 

-          I done a very poor attempt at appealing this to Parking Eye, as in my naivety I didn’t realise how corrupt (in my opinion) this industry is. This was of course refused.

 

-          I followed up with a POPLA appeal. The main grounds of my appeal were as follows. I of course wrote it out in a fair bit more detail. I also reiterated all of this when I got my opportunity to comment on the parking operators evidence submission.

1)      The signage does not distinguish clearly that MK Marina Ltd patrons are the sole users of the car park, listing only MK Marina, which is a place with a collection of businesses listing this as their address.

2)      The MK Marina Ltd website lists the laundry service as being on site, so I was refused access to register parking incorrectly.

3)      The 10-minute grace period was overstayed due to being delayed by the MK Marina reception. I left as soon as the parking terms had been clarified to me(Arguably incorrectly).

4)      The evidence I provided shows I didn’t abuse the land by parking here short term and moved to a suitable parking area, so I could stay in the area.

This appeal was subsequently declined also, with one of the key statements in the POPLA response being

" I must explain that the laundrette and parking operator are separate entities and there is no evidence to suggest the launderette staff are representatives of the operator. As such, the laundrette staff are not authorised to advise motorists of the parking restrictions in place. If the appellant has been given unfavourable information or turned away from registering by the staff, there this is a third party matter that must be taken up directly. "

It is clear they made a mistake in this, by stating I liaised with the laundry receptionist, which is not what was listed in any of the evidence or text of my appeal. Full copy of appeal evidence images etc attached.

 

-          I then raised a complaint with POPLA, listing my concerns with the process. I also requested a full copy of the appeal documentation. Copy of letter attached.

 

-          I sent Parking Eye a letter in the post appraising them of the situation and where I stand, with copies of the letter to POPLA. Copy attached.

 

-          I then received a formal response to my POPLA complaint (full copy attached), key part of their response being:

 

“Although I acknowledge that the assessor made an error in stating that it was the launderette staff that you spoke to, the premise remains the same. The signage at the site specifies:

(I copied the text from the image of the car park sign here)

`For use whilst registered at Milton Keynes Marina

Milton Keynes Marina patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay.`

As such, there isn’t a requirement to liaise with staff; motorists are simply required to register their vehicles at the terminal.”

 

-          I then emailed via reply (Full copy attached), my key points being:

“Reference the simple registration process, can you please provide confirmation, in detail, how you determined that there is no requirement to liaise with staff? 

I feel there is a significant lack of investigation and a lot of assumptions being made, effecting the responses and decisions. “

 

-          I yesterday emailed the landowner for the first time, asking for their support. Copy attached.

 

-          This is where I am at now. At this point I feel like I should appraise Parking Eye of the situation and where I stand. However it is only at this point I have searched and found the wealth of knowledge and experience of the users of this forum, so any advice would be appreciated.

 

As im sure you can understand, the cost is nearly irrelevant to me at this point. I like to think I am a fair bloke, if I had made an error, didn’t pay for a parking ticket, parked on double yellows etc I would of simply paid it and moved on.

However, I clearly done nothing wrong. I would feel a hundred times better paying lets say £500 in court fees etc and feel like I have tried my best to stand up for myself and what I believe in, instead of being bullied and paying someone for nothing. At the very least, they are going to have to earn this £100 from me.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

 

Wadger

Copies of letters below, as I cannot currently upload images or documents. 

Wadger2024

Complaint to POPLA:

To Whom it May Concern,

 

Please find below a copy of the formal complaint issued to POPLA, reference 6060324683

 

Kind Regards

 

**** **********

04/04/2024

 

 

 

“Reference Verification Code *********

 

 

Good Afternoon,

 

I am writing to you today following a call to your call centre, contacting Citizens Advice and seeking further independent legal advice. I would like to raise a formal complaint regarding the POPLA assessment carried out on the aforementioned verification code.

 

Following receipt of the POPLA response, it is apparent that an insufficient level of care and attention was given to the details of the appeal.

 

The POPLA response advises that I liaised with the Launderette staff regarding the parking restrictions and that this is a 3rd party issue.

 

Quote from POPLA Response:

" I must explain that the laundrette and parking operator are separate entities and there is no evidence to suggest the launderette staff are representatives of the operator. As such, the laundrette staff are not authorised to advise motorists of the parking restrictions in place. If the appellant has been given unfavourable information or turned away from registering by the staff, there this is a third party matter that must be taken up directly. "

 

This is not what was explained in the text information, or in the annotated map. These both clearly state it was the receptionist at MK Marina, in which I had to wait for the 15 minutes and was subsequently refused registration. I would also like to add that the launderette is unmanned, at no point in my appeal does it mention any laundrette staff.

 

MK Marina is the land-owner, who employs the parking operator. The parking contract demands I register for parking, which subsequently demands I liaise with the representative of MK Marina/parking operator, to complete/authorize registration.

 

This is not a 3rd party issue, it is in fact the complete opposite. The representative of MK Marina (the receptionist in this case) is the governing body of this parking contract, issuing authorization and a permit to park. There is no other way to obtain a permit/registration.

 

The fact I did my upmost to comply with the parking contract, entered the contract under false information from the landowners website, was refused a permit by the governing body/land-owner(arguably incorrectly), left as soon as possible upon being refused by the governing body/land-owner and overstayed the allotted "grace-period" of 10 minutes due to delays caused by the governing body/land-owner, this can in no way be perceived as a 3rd party issue or a breach of contract by myself due to my negligence or willingness to ignore the parking contract.

 

The contract was not possible to be maintained, given the circumstances all resulting from the land-owner. This in my opinion, is entrapment.

 

Following the error in the processing of my appeal, I would expect at a minimum that my appeal be re-evaluated by a different assessor and that you contact the parking operator to advise them of this issue.

I will be sending the parking operator a copy of this complaint, for my records also.

 

Finally, I would very much appreciate a full digital copy of the aforementioned appeal documentation, for my records.

 

Kind Regards

 

***** *********”

 

Proof of delivery below (Copy of website submission attached here)

Wadger2024

POPLA Rejection:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for failing to obtain a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They visited the site to do laundry as their washing machine was damaged. They say they entered the carpark under the impression that they were a patron of MK Marina as the services were offered here and in line with the terms of the signs. • They say they went to register their vehicle and had to queue for 10 – 15 minutes whilst another 3 people were attended to and having spoken with the reception were told the laundry services is not part of MK Marina. They say they were confused with the information and acted in instruction to move the vehicle. • They say they were told they had 10 minutes from entry to park without a PCN and they were 18 minutes due to waiting. They moved to another site to park and return to do their laundry. They say they were refused access to register as the receptionist told them she would get in trouble if she did. • They say the signs are not clear as to what businesses are classified as part of the MK Marina enforcement. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided images of the website, their payment at the Peartree Bridge, photos of the signs, the PCN and as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the PCN correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs make it clear that the site is for use only whilst registered at Milton Keynes Marina and to register one must provide the full and correct registration into the terminal at reception to entitle them to obtain a permit and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for 18 minutes. Both parties agree that a permit was not obtained. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no permit registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event. I acknowledge the appellant’s reasons for being there as they reviewed the website information that the laundrette was part of the Marina and they wished to use the services. However, I note that after queueing were told this was not a part of the land and they were refused registration. This led them to remain 18 minutes before moving their vehicle. I must explain that the laundrette and parking operator are separate entities and there is no evidence to suggest the launderette staff are representatives of the operator. As such, the laundrette staff are not authorised to advise motorists of the parking restrictions in place. If the appellant has been given unfavourable information or turned away from registering by the staff, there this is a third party matter that must be taken up directly. In this case the operator displays signs to alert motorists of the terms and the contract entered into is between a motorist and the terms displayed on the signs. Motorists must refer to the signage when parking as any comments or assurance made by unauthorised third parties do not override the displayed terms and conditions. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs are sufficient as there are 4 signs in place on this land which is sufficient for the size of the enforcement area, and they clearly state that motorists must register. The diagram provided by the appellant shows there was a sign where they parked the vehicle. Whilst they say the signs do not differentiate between what businesses are classed within the enforcement area, however the signs must only inform motorists of the terms in place for using Milton Keynes Marina. I am satisfied that this was clear. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the car park. As the vehicle was parked without registering, I am satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is refused

Wadger2024

Letter to Parking Eye (Containing the POPLA Complaint etc):

Reference: *****/*******

 

Date Issued: 05/04/2024

 

 

 

To Whom it May Concern,

 

Following receipt and review of the POPLA response, it is quite apparent that an insufficient level of care and attention was given, to the details of my appeal.

 

This has resulted in me raising a formal complaint to POPLA.

I have enclosed a copy of this complaint detailing the reasons, for your records.

 

I am sure you will agree that this is clearly a fault of POPLA, should you review the evidence I submitted in my appeal and their response.

As such, I do not accept the current decision, consider the appeal as ongoing and will not be paying any sum of money, as I’m sure you can understand.

 

Given my open and forthcoming attitude in sharing evidence and keeping you in the loop, I would very much appreciate a full copy (preferably digital) of your appeal documentation from POPLA, for my records.

 

I have today received a response from POPLA, stating that it will take roughly 7-21 days for me to receive a response. Please find enclosed copy of this correspondence.

 

I will of course update you further upon receiving their formal response and supply a copy for your records.

 

 

Finally, I would prefer a simple and efficient line of communication with yourselves, preferably via e-mail.

If this is not possible and to keep communication consistent between both parties, I will only accept any further correspondence via post. Please consider this effective as of the date on this letter.

 

If my response to your communication is required within a specific time frame, please note I will be basing this on the date upon receiving the communication, minus 3 calendar days. This is due to the parking charge letter taking 9 calendar days to be received from the date of issue, being over 64% of the 14 day period advertised to pay early.

 

Please ensure a suitable postage service is used and the letter is posted/issued the day it is stated as issued, or add adequate time for logistics as necessary. This will ensure I have fair time to evaluate the communication, create a response and arrange a posted reply.

 

Kind Regards

 

***** **********

Wadger2024

POPLA Complaint Response/My Response Email Trail(In Reverse Order):

From: ****** **********>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 2:29:59 PM
To: POPLA Complaints <complaints@popla.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Your POPLA complaint *************

 

Good afternoon Alexandra, 

 

Thank you for your comprehensive response. 

 

Can I please just ask for clarification of one thing, reference your comment. 

 

"As such, there isn’t a requirement to liaise with staff; motorists are simply required to register their vehicles at the terminal." 

 

Reference the simple registration process, can you please provide confirmation, in detail, how you determined that there is no requirement to liaise with staff? 

 

I am no longer disputing your decision, I am just looking for clarification on how you arrived with this response. 

 

As mentioned previously multiple times, the terminal is under the control of the receptionist at MK Marina, which I was refused from using. MK Marina is also the land owner. 

If it was simply a matter of entering my registration in a freely accessible terminal, we would not be in this predicament. 

 

The fact I moved my vehicle upon being refused, went to a different car park and entered my registration into a freely accessible terminal, so I could stay in the area, surely shows that I had all intentions of abiding by any contract, as I required to stay in the area. 

 

I feel there is a significant lack of investigation and a lot of assumptions being made, effecting the responses and decisions. 

 

If necessary, I can raise a separate complaint to request this information? 

Again, I am not requesting a change of decision, just clarification on the investigation and information processes. 

 

Thanks again for your time. 

 

******* ********

 

From: POPLA Complaints <complaints@popla.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2024 2:01:26 pm
To: ****** ********
Subject: Your POPLA complaint  *********

 

Dear **** *******,

 

Your complaint about POPLA case ***************.

 

Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by POPLA team as I am responsible for responding to complaints.

 

I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against Parking Eye Ltd.

 

It is important to explain that POPLA is a one-stage process, and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack. My role as a complaints handler is to determine whether a procedural error has occurred during the assessment of your appeal.

 

Having read your complaint, I have noted that you are unhappy that the assessor misquoted you and stated that you liaised with the launderette staff, whereas it was the marina staff. 

 

Although I acknowledge that the assessor made an error in stating that it was the launderette staff that you spoke to, the premise remains the same. The signage at the site specifies:

 

 (I copied the text from the image of the car park sign here)

`For use whilst registered at Milton Keynes Marina

Milton Keynes Marina patrons must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception on arrival to obtain a permit for the duration of their stay.`

As such, there isn’t a requirement to liaise with staff; motorists are simply required to register their vehicles at the terminal.

 

To confirm, the contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator through the terms and conditions set out on the signage. Any other information, such as advice given by staff or information online, is third-party information and would not have any bearing on the validity of this contract. Although the operator is instructed by the landowner to manage the site, the parking contract is not with the landowner or its staff.

 

Within your complaint, I can see that you have also re-iterated your grounds of appeal, asked that your appeal be re-assessed and that the operator be contacted.

 

Having thoroughly reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied that the correct outcome has been reached and that a procedural error has not occurred. As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.

 

Further to your request for appeal information, I can confirm that I have submitted a Subject Access Request to our compliance team and you should be in receipt of this within 30 days in line with General Data Protection Regulation.

 

In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. We have reached the end of our process and my response now concludes our complaints procedure. I trust you will appreciate that there will be no further review of your complaint and it will not be appropriate for us to respond to any further correspondence on this matter.

 

As our involvement in your appeal has now concluded you may wish to pursue matters further. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: citizensadvice or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Alexandra ********

POPLA Complaints Team

Wadger2024

Email to Land Owner

To the Manager,

 

I am writing to you today to request your assistance in regard to a parking ticket, received on Saturday the 13th January, 2024.

Please see below a summary of what happened..

 

• Following my washing machine breaking down, I searched online and came across MK Marina and your website, advertising laundry facilities on site.
• I proceeded to drive to MK Marina and entered the car park, on the impression I was a patron of MK Marina.  
• After queuing for around 15 mins, I spoke to a young lady who said the car park is for people visiting residents etc and not using the launderette. I could not use the parking facility, as I was refused.
• Prior to leaving I enquired about the ANPR camera and was advised I have a 10-minute grace period to move my car, which had of course already been exceeded.
• I offered a small fee to enter my registration, while still of course immediately removing my car however, this was also refused as she stated she would “get in trouble”.
• I then returned to my car immediately and drove to the carvery car park, bought a small coke to allow use of their parking, then walked back over to do my washing.

 

A week or so later I then received the parking ticket, showing I stayed a total of 18 minutes.

Given the fact I done everything possible to follow the terms parking on your land and immediately removed my vehicle upon being refused, can I please request your support with ParkingEye to rescind this charge?

 

I have attached 2 screenshots of my bank statement showing I purchased the beverage at the carvery and a copy of the PCN, showing me leaving your land after a very short time and registering at the carvery, to prove I didn’t just abuse your car park and leave, I stayed in the area and completed my washing as intended.

I then returned to the carvery after starting my washing, to eat a carvery instead of standing there watching the washing machine, this can be seen by the second charge of £14.29. This is a large carvery and a large pepsi max.

 

I genuinely agree with restricting parking and had I intentionally tried to abuse the use of your land, I would simply take the hit and pay it, but it is quite clear this is not the case.

Even though I knew I had a parking charge coming as I had exceeded the 10 min limit, I still immediately moved my car from your land as it was simply the right thing to do.

 

I very much look forward to your response, thank you for your support.

***** *********

 

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye know where you are at (POPLA will not change the decision) and you don't need to appraise them.  

Come back if you get a court claim.

It's far easier to defend a claim than try POPLA!  I tell friends not to bother with the latter now.

Wadger2024

Good Evening, 

Apologies if I am wasting time, but I just wanted to update this thread.. 
I received the below correspondence today from parking eye. 

Now I have an email address from them, part of me thinks I should just tell them to skip the debt collectors letter and crack on with court proceedings. 
Would that help my case at all, instead of just leaving them in the dark and waiting for them to press? 

Again, I apologise if im wasting peoples time, but as I'm sure you all appreciate, I do panick a little and want to make sure I have the strongest case, showing me being fair and professional? 

Thanks as always for the support you guys offer, for all us rookies! 

Dear Sir /Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence received in relation to the above referenced Parking Charge.

We recently received confirmation from POPLA that your further appeal had now been considered and that

POPLA had found in Parkingeye’s favour. A copy of this decision should also have been provided to you and

you were advised to pay the outstanding amount of the Parking Charge in order to avoid further action.

As Parkingeye have previously rejected your appeal and a decision regarding your further appeal to POPLA

has now been received, we are writing to inform you that we can no longer consider any further appeal points

you wish to raise. We can confirm that £100.00 remains outstanding and full payment is required to prevent

further action.

Parkingeye is prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, further

costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitor’s

costs.

Payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444, by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk, or

by posting a cheque/postal order to the below address. Please note that you must quote the above Parking

Charge reference on the reverse of the cheque or postal order.

Yours faithfully,

Parkingeye Enforcement Team

Coupon-mad

Now I have an email address from them, part of me thinks I should just tell them to skip the debt collectors letter and crack on with court proceedings. 
Would that help my case at all, instead of just leaving them in the dark and waiting for them to press? 

I do recommend that, yes.  I would. And I's point out that no ParkingEye sign mentions any false DRA fee or costs, so they can't add it and pretend it's part of the alleged contract.  Because it just ain't!

 Their reply saying they won't even consider any dispute now, disproves the utter rubbish this industry bleated to the DLUHC and in the Judicial Review where the industry lied (IMHO) that the added £70 was needed to cover all the 'IMPORTANT WORK' they do to resolve disputes.  They have got to be kidding.

Absolute fabrication.  In truth it's no more than a punitive 'late fee' reward to line their pockets and/or those of their thug DRAs.

Wadger2024

Good Morning Coupon-mad,

Thanks again for your response. 
I am currently writing out my reply and thought I best check the signage and it does mention additional costs. 
Can you confirm this is what you were referring to? 
It references additional costs for recovery action against me 😑

Thanks again! 

Wadger2024

I just thought i would add my further correspondence to POPLA, to keep this thread as comprehensive as possible, in showing my communications regarding this PCN. 

POPLA Response to my additional complaint:

Dear ****** *******,

 

Thank you for your email received 8 April 2024.

 

I understand my colleague has previously responded to your complaint on 8 April 2024 and confirmed POPLA’s position.

 

I note further they confirmed that this response marks the end of our complaint’s procedure, and it will not be appropriate for POPLA to respond further.

 

To clarify - when a motorist remains on private land for a reasonable period, they enter into a parking contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions of this parking contract are stipulated on the signage installed across the car park. POPLA’s remit is to determine the validity of this parking charge and whether the motorist complied with the required terms and conditions.

 

For your reference, I will provide the full sign from the car park that my colleague previously highlighted:

This clearly states that drivers must enter the full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal at reception. This means there is an onus on the motorist to ensure they obtain a valid permit to authorise their vehicle’s parking. There is nothing on the sign to suggest that the permits are obtained by liaising with the Marina staff.

 

The parking operator also provided their system report, to demonstrate that your vehicle was not registered on the day in question:

 

We can only base our decisions on the evidence presented by both parties with the appeal submission. It is not within our remit to source further evidence or information from either party during the assessment. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed.

 

If you maintain that only the receptionist had access to the terminal and did not input your details correctly, you will need to raise that with the Milton Keynes Marina directly.

 

POPLA does not have any authority over the parking operator’s internal processes and therefore I am unable to comment on this. Details on how to make a complaint with Parking Eye can be found here: www.parkingeye.co.uk/motorist/complaints/.

 

I will reiterate that you are still free to dispute your parking charge through other channels, such as the courts, if you wish to do so. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

 

For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended. Any further correspondence received in relation to this issue will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

My response to this as below:

Good Afternoon,

 

Thank you for your reply, it really is appreciated.

 

I do apologize if I am proving to be a pain however, I just wanted to send this final e-mail to save a formal record of my interpretation of the appeal process & POPLA processes etc. This will only be used in my formal witness statement / evidence as part of any court defence package, should the parking operator wish to proceed with a county court claim. 

I accept that no response will be given by yourselves, however if you feel i have interpreted the information provided incorrectly, I will happily receive your thoughts. 

 

Point 1:

The POPLA appeals process can only make an assessment based on the evidence submitted by both parties. No investigation is conducted, the landowner or parking operator are not contacted to confirm or clarify any information regarding the parking signage and/or the feasibility of complying with the contract.

 

Point 2:

In my specific case, the evidence submitted by the parking operator showing the signage simply stating the registration process must be completed, is deemed enough to categorically determine that the device in which the registration must be completed, is freely accessible.

The signage doesn’t state that the registration process is managed by the staff however, it also has no mention of this registration device being freely accessible.

In my opinion, which I accept is irrelevant at this point, this piece of evidence is neutral offering no firm information supporting either party.

 

Point 3:

The evidence I supplied, showing I immediately moved to a neighbouring car park, used their freely accessible registration device, in support of my claim that the MK Marina device was not accessible due to being refused access by the staff, is deemed less favourable than the neutral evidence mentioned in Point 2.

 

Kind Regards

***** *********