Parking Charge Notice: Reason for issue - "No valid parking payment found" ?!

cs95aam

There's a "consideration period" of 5 minutes, not sure when that changed from 10 to 5 minutes. I've been parking there for less than 10 minutes a couple of times a month for years.

Gr1pr

Ok, forget the old warning sign, forget the old Regent sign too

Clearly that new sign seems very new, and Asteria Parking seem new, so I would assume that the landowner or managing agent has recently employed them to manage the parking on that pay to park site 

It seems that they expect people to use the tap2park app , giving them 5 minutes consideration period to pay via the app

The consideration period is advertised as 5 minutes and their PCN states that the vehicle was there for 6 minutes 

The alleged breach is due to the time on site being not authorised, due to no tap2park session being found 

A Google search for Solution labs brings up Regent parking, so that must be the old company, meaning they have rebranded as Asteria with new signs 

Companies house shows them being setup a year ago 

Asteria Parking c/o PCN Parking Solutions

PO Box 5419, Hove, BN52 9AN

Registered Office: Preston Park House, South Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 6SB

Copyright © 2023 Asteria Parking Limited is a company registered in England with company number 14990652

Data Protection Number: ZB565964

PCN Parking Solutions was trading as Regent Parking, which included Solution labs 

cs95aam

Gr1pr said:

Ok, forget the old warning sign, forget the old Regent sign too

Clearly that new sign seems very new, and Asteria Parking seem new, so I would assume that the landowner or managing agent has recently employed them to manage the parking on that pay to park site 

It seems that they expect people to use the tap2park app , giving them 5 minutes consideration period to pay via the app

The consideration period is advertised as 5 minutes and their PCN states that the vehicle was there for 6 minutes 

The alleged breach is due to the time on site being not authorised, due to no tap2park session being found 

A Google search for Solution labs brings up Regent parking, so that must be the old company, meaning they have rebranded as Asteria with new signs 

I tried to get hold of the landowner but they are a restaurant and won't open until later this evening. Plus I didn't park to go there so I'm not sure what grounds I have to ask them for help. I will still try. So I have no grounds to appeal other than to say the charge of £100 is unreasonable given I overstayed a minute and 10 seconds more than their consideration period? Thing is I've done this quite a few times over the years and I'm not sure when the sign was changed. 

Gr1pr

It must have changed within the last year, because the company was set up in July 2023 , Regent was much older, at least 2014 or sooner 

Pointless stating that the £100 is unreasonable, its been £100 for over 12 years and the Barry Beavis case back in 2015 put that argument into the nearest bin 

Only the thought of the penalty rule being engaged because its not a free car park like Beavis may be an option, but that information on that fairly new sign by a fairly new company is hard to argue against ( even the old signs didn't mention 10 minutes grace period. ) frankly I think that arguing about the £100 would never stand up 

You won't find that argument in any appeal advice, nor in any defence 

In future, you should change your M.O. when out driving, to actively check and comply with signage on any place that you park, even familiar locations. That is a responsibility of any driver, so not doing so can be costly 

Lastly, the new 2024 IPC CoP version 9 gives the minimum grace period of 5 minutes on a pay to park car park 

cs95aam

Gr1pr said:

It must have changed within the last year, because the company was set up in July 2023 , Regent was much older, at least 2014 or sooner 

Pointless stating that the £100 is unreasonable, its been £100 for over 12 years and the Barry Beavis case back in 2015 put that argument into the nearest bin 

Only the thought of the penalty rule being engaged because its not a free car park like Beavis may be an option, but that information on that fairly new sign by a fairly new company is hard to argue against ( even the old signs didn't mention 10 minutes grace period. ) frankly I think that arguing about the £100 would never stand up 

You won't find that argument in any appeal advice, nor in any defence 

In future, you should change your M.O. when out driving, to actively check and comply with signage on any place that you park, even familiar locations. That is a responsibility of any driver, so not doing so can be costly 

Thank you. Given they've been around for a year they could in that case backdate charges and I could end up paying £1000s. Maybe I should get legal advice. This might not be the last charge I'm issued, that's my fear. 

EDIT: I've just spoken to the restaurant there and they told me that Asteria have been in that area for the last 3 months. He's offered to speak to Asteria for me. Hopefully this might help.

peteuk

In parking there you enter a contract with the parking company, as youve noted they have changed the "free" period from 10 minutes to 5 minutes.  It would be impossible to advise all users, however they could have highlighted this better. 

As noted its not a fine, but as noted the contract states any breach will lead to a charge of £100.  You overstayed by a minute.  Good luck with overtirning this, you can ignore it as some people doand risk it either going away or being esculated. 

prowla

KeithP said:

That PCN you have shown us claims that the parking event took place at...

Salisbury Road is not in the area covered by the postcode TW4 7NW.

The picture you have shown us of where you parked is not in Salisbury Road either, but being in Chinchilla Drive, it is covered by the TW4 7NW postcode.

I couldn't find number 69 Salisbury Road, but the Beavers Farm Post Office isn't in Salisbury Road anyway.

Is this sign still at the car park entrance?
It seems rather threatening...

Do they have authority to remove cars?

cs95aam

prowla said:

KeithP said:

That PCN you have shown us claims that the parking event took place at...

Salisbury Road is not in the area covered by the postcode TW4 7NW.

The picture you have shown us of where you parked is not in Salisbury Road either, but being in Chinchilla Drive, it is covered by the TW4 7NW postcode.

I couldn't find number 69 Salisbury Road, but the Beavers Farm Post Office isn't in Salisbury Road anyway.

Is this sign still at the car park entrance?
It seems rather threatening...

Do they have authority to remove cars?

That sign is no longer there, it probably belonged to Regent Parking that used to manage the site. Photos of the signs are above. Asteria, I have just been told have been there for the last few months. I've always parked there for less than 10 minutes thinking it was safe, clearly not the case now.

fisherjim

That consideration period is in my view an unfair term.

The IPC consideration period advise MINIMUM times, and for a site where the only way of paying is an app which the driver may not have, parking, reading the signage, downloading an app and setting up an account could take considerably longer than 5 minutes.

There is also the fact that a change in terms and conditions should be signed at the entrance, and those signs should be in place for a reasonable period, the IPC don't specify, but the BPA state four months.

These are new scammers on the block trying it on, and the IPC are by their own terms and conditions supposed to audit every site for conformance, they obviously do not!

KeithP

cs95aam said:

KeithP said:

That PCN you have shown us claims that the parking event took place at...

Salisbury Road is not in the area covered by the postcode TW4 7NW.

The picture you have shown us of where you parked is not in Salisbury Road either, but being in Chinchilla Drive, it is covered by the TW4 7NW postcode.

Chinchilla Drive and Salisbury Road are right next to each other.

Indeed they are next to each other, but the point I was trying to make is that despite the PCN asserting it, the car park under discussion is not in Salisbury Road.

You have been accused of parking in a car park that doesn't even exist.
As far as I can see there is no car park anywhere in Salisbury Road.