Parking fine because it took me more than 5 minutes to pay - Can I get out of this?

1505grandad

"But at the end of the day they're a big corporation and I'm just an individual."

Even the skint little people can get through to justice eventually.

Mr.Generous

muffingg said:

I don't know what the experience here is with justanswer.co.uk, but I've just spoken to a barrister and their argument is that 10 minutes is quite a long time and I should be able to do the following steps within 5min:

• Park up the car
• Go to the payment machine
• Find out it doesn't take notes or card and only accepts an app payment
• Download the app
• Register on it with all my personal details
• Enter my card details (which were rejected)
• Enter another card's details (which were rejected again)
• Enter a 3rd card's details which were finally accepted

They're saying the only reasonable argument I have is that the network wasn't working well, but then I should've still had enough time to move to another area and download the app.

This is starting to make me thing whether it's worth doing all the hassle. As much as I don't want them to scam me, their sign board clearly reads I need to pay within 5 minutes of entering the car park and if a qualified barrister is saying I would likely lose the case, what should I do here?

This is what they wrote:

In all honesty, I don't think a court would accept it took 10 mins to do this.

I suppose it depends upon whether there is an advertised grace period.

If you are relying on the one implied by law then you need to show the period was required.

Some of the steps you are describing are very simple and quick and required in every car park in the country.

The only real challenge is whether the internet was adequate for downloading and 10 mins is actually quite a long time to do that.

I know that entering details in these machines feels like it takes forever but it usually doesn't.

10 mins sounds a short period of time but if you actually timed it , it would feel quite long.

And when you are having to justify every minute, thats important.

The problem for me wasn't that it didn't download the app. It did - slowly. I'd probably been in the car park 4 minutes before I'd wandered over to the board, read it all and decided we didn't have enough change - after searching the car and handbag, then returning to the board. So that's 4 minutes used easily. The download would start, then hang. I tried again. same thing. Wife then tried. Same thing happened. We tried walking around the car park a bit to see if the signal strength improved. Found a warm spot. Downloaded app. probably another 4 minutes gone.

Then we had to imput details, Both in our late 50's - we don't type with fast thumbs. about a minute I'd say. Unfortunately the brilliant app then rejected the payment card. Tried another card, same thing, then a 3rd card, also rejected. Put the original card in again and this time it worked. Several times either wife or myself thought we were nearly there, and the other would pause efforts until the point of failure.

Eventually one of us was able to pay. No way was it less than 10 minutes. I'd have driven off If I didn't believe they would invoice me for the time spent trying to pay. We also didn't leave the site to pay somewhere with a better signal because sometimes the T&C's on parking sites state leaving the site without making a payment will get you a ticket, and I didn't want to read the whole of the small print.

My belief is that I would make a good, adamant witness. I've attended court minimum 30, more likely 50+ times with work for shoplifting / fraud / deception / theft / assault - the joys of retail. I worked in Liverpool stores that made 200+ arrests per year. If you tell the truth, believe in yourself and are not easily swayed by the opposing legal rep my belief - and experience - says you will win. The court listen to the evidence, I can just picture an elderly judge nodding in agreement as you explain the difficulty and time consuming nature of the whole parking app process.

JoeN1988

Don't be worried. Your Internet barrister clearly does not specialise in Private Parking and contract law.

The forum regulars do and they help people win these cases on the daily.

The fact that Excel are a large corporation and you are an individual goes in your favour. They should know better than to waste the court's time with this rubbish.

I have personally been taken to court by the same company and won with ease, thanks to the help of these fantastic guys/girls on here.

You're in safe hands. 

muffingg

Thanks @JoeN1988

One question I had was, should I write the appeal in the sense that I understand that I am being charged for not paying within the first 5min or should I write it being ignorant of the 5min rule?

In other words should I say
"The driver wasn't able to pay within the 5min because of this this and this"
or
"The 9.30am exit time is wrong because the driver does have a valid parking ticket covering this period"

Gr1pr

The latter 

saajan_12

Even for someone with life experience and no private parking expertise, the 'barrister's comments sound off. I'm usually quick with technology and having payment methods pre-set in my phone. Still I would NORMALLY expect something like the below times, easily doubled or tripled for my older uncles.
- physically finding a space, parking, re-aligning 2 mins
- gathering my coat, pulling stuff out the boot and walking to a sign / machine - 2 mins
- reading sign, to even know about the 5 min rule - 30 seconds
- faffing with the machine (assuming its obviously broken) - 30 seconds 
- downloading app, confirming its the right one, reading T&Cs - 2 mins
- entering location, personal details etc - 1 min
- entering payment details (each attempt) - 1 min
- connecting to banking app to authorise (for the successful attempt) - 2 min 
That's easily a total ~ 12 mins if it took a couple of attempts. Double if my older uncles were doing it. 

LDast

You've already been advised elsewhere that the 5 minute term in the "contract" is not valid. Here is how you break down the unfairness of the 5 minute requirement in the "contract"

In this situation, the 5-minute requirement for payment can be considered both an unfair term and potentially an instance of impossibility, especially within the context of the CRA and principles of contract fairness. Here’s a detailed analysis:

  Impossibility

1. Objective Impossibility: The requirement to pay within 5 minutes of entering the land can be argued as objectively impossible due to several factors:

  - Physical Constraints: It often takes more than 5 minutes just to find a parking spot, locate a sign, and read and understand the terms and conditions.

  - Practical Constraints: If the payment method involves downloading an app, setting up an account, and entering payment information, this process typically takes longer than 5 minutes.
  
2. Lack of Reasonable Opportunity: The terms were not presented in a manner that allowed the driver to comply within the stipulated timeframe, thus making compliance practically impossible under normal circumstances.

  Unfair Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the following aspects make the 5-minute requirement potentially unfair:

1. Transparency and Clarity: Terms and conditions must be transparent and clearly communicated to consumers. A sign with tightly packed text and confusing information does not meet this standard. It should be reasonably readable and understandable at a glance.
  
2. Fair Dealing: Terms that place an undue burden on the consumer or are unreasonably advantageous to the business can be deemed unfair. The requirement to pay within 5 minutes, especially when it’s practically impossible to do so, constitutes an unfair term.

3. Good Faith: The principle of good faith requires that terms are not only clear but also fair and not misleading. The imposition of a heavy penalty for something that the consumer could not reasonably comply with violates this principle.

  Legal Protections and Remedies
Given the circumstances, the driver has several potential legal arguments and protections:

1. Challenge the PCN: The driver can contest the parking charge notice, citing the impossibility of complying with the 5-minute payment rule due to the unclear signage and the practical time required to find a parking spot and understand the terms.

2. Unfair Terms Legislation: The driver can argue that the 5-minute rule is an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act protects consumers from unfair terms in contracts they have not had the opportunity to negotiate.

  Conclusion
The 5-minute payment requirement appears to be both an impossibility and an unfair term. It imposes an unreasonable and practically unachievable condition on the driver, leading to an unfair penalty. Challenge the parking charge notice on these grounds, citing both the practical impossibility of compliance and the unfair nature of the term under applicable consumer protection laws.

You would say that the driver paid for the parking. The burden of proof is on the operator to show that the driver didn't purchase parking. The sign does state that you can pay by downloading the App. It does not state that you should have the App already downloaded and ready to make payment. So, time how long it takes to read the whole sign, download the App, set up the method of payment in the App and then make the payment.

The point about it not being purchased within the time allowed is irrelevant as it is an unfair penalty clause and a private company cannot apply a penalty. Use the points about it being an "Impossibility in a Contract" and an "Unfair Term" under the CRA 2015.

So, simply appeal as the keeper. No stating who was driving. Just use the Royal "we". Explain to them that the driver paid for the duration of parking and that they should cancel the PCN as the requirement to pay within 5 minutes is an impossibility and an unfair term under the CRA 2015. Also explain that they have failed PoFA 2012 in that their signs fail to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge amount, in which case, you are not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and you will not be doing so.

I wouldn't worry too much about putting too much effort into this as you are dealing with an extremely unpleasant set of intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs whose unregulated private company is a member of the IPC. Their sole interest is in how much they can scam you for.

I'd place money on them rejecting any appeal and any secondary appeal to the IAS. Others may advise that you try the IAS but the choice is yours. You never know, you may be one of the less than 4% of appellants that succeeds with them. The most likely outcome is going to be count court clam from them where they will either discontinue or else get spanked by the judge for their vexatious and unreasonable behaviour.

Mr.Generous

saajan_12 said:

Even for someone with life experience and no private parking expertise, the 'barrister's comments sound off. I'm usually quick with technology and having payment methods pre-set in my phone. Still I would NORMALLY expect something like the below times, easily doubled or tripled for my older uncles.
- physically finding a space, parking, re-aligning 2 mins
- gathering my coat, pulling stuff out the boot and walking to a sign / machine - 2 mins
- reading sign, to even know about the 5 min rule - 30 seconds
- faffing with the machine (assuming its obviously broken) - 30 seconds 
- downloading app, confirming its the right one, reading T&Cs - 2 mins
- entering location, personal details etc - 1 min
- entering payment details (each attempt) - 1 min
- connecting to banking app to authorise (for the successful attempt) - 2 min 
That's easily a total ~ 12 mins if it took a couple of attempts. Double if my older uncles were doing it. 

Reading the T&C's is absolutely brilliant!! 

I bet the app asks you to confirm you have read and understood them.

I'd say that's your 5 mins right there. T&C's are so long nobody in the history of humanity has ever actually read them.

muffingg

Sorry for taking so long to get back on this. I really appreciate all the help from you guys. Given that the appeal is likely to get rejected anyway, I'm wondering if the following would suffice for this stage?

--------------------START--------------------

Re: PCN Number [PCN Reference Number]

I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close-up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made—showing partial VRNs—and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

I can confirm that a valid ticket (Reference: [12345678]) was purchased using the Connect Cashless Parking app to cover a period of 12 hours between 3 May 2024, 23:47, and 4 May 2024, 11:47. Therefore, the parking ticket claiming that the vehicle did not have a valid ticket for the period between 3 May 2024, 23:37:56, and 4 May 2024, 09:30:07, is incorrect.

Yours sincerely,

[FirstName LastName]

--------------------END--------------------

1. Does this sound fine? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

2. Where it talks about making a complaint to the landowner, by saying this, do I have to actually make the complaint as well or can I say this without actually making the complaint? If I should / have to do submit it, how do I find out who the landowner is?

Thanks in advance.

PS I have until 31 May to submit this.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine as a keeper appeal.

The reason complaining to the landowner is Plan A is because it works FAR more often than the bent 'appeals' services run by the industry in their own interests.