Excell Parking - Paid 3 Minutes Late at Castle Hill Conisbrough

SniffyRabbit123

Could do with some advice on this one - whether to fight on or just give up and pay.

My wife took the kids to visit the Castle and parked in a car park that she thought was free and belonged to the Castle.  On returning to the car she discovered that (a) it's not free and (b) payment required some complex app that she was struggling to download.  The kids were tired and difficult, so she called me and asked for help.

I got the car park number, installed the app and paid the parking.  But disaster - I was too slow!   My payment for the parking went through at 14:53 (as per the receipt I have in my phone) but my wife had left the car park at 14:50

The automatic camera system didn't match my payment to the visit so we received a fine/invoice in the post for £60 increasing to £100 for late payment.  I dutifully filled in an appeal on myparkingcharge.co.uk but this has been denied on the grounds that the terms and conditions are clear I must pay before leaving.

"We acknowledge receipt of your appeal regarding the Charge Notice. While we understand that payment was indeed made for parking, it is important to note that this was done outside of the specified consideration period. As clearly outlined in the signage at the car park, vehicles must have a valid payment within the designated time frame. Any payment made outside of this period does not fulfill the requirements set forth in the Terms and Conditions. Therefore, the charge has been issued correctly in accordance with the regulations stipulated on the signage."

"In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you were the driver of the vehicle at the time it parked in the car park."

Curiously enough my appeal made it very clear that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time it parked in the car park - my wife was.

Anyway, we have the option now to pay at the £60 level or appeal to the IAS which if that appeal fails would mean being hit with the full £100 fine.   So the question is - are we bang to rights for breaking the terms and conditions and should just cough up - or would the IAS consider the fact that we were not attempting to park for free, we did in fact pay for the parking we used and it was just three minutes late.

Is it worth gambling the extra £40 or do they always go off the literal letter of the T's & C's?

Many Thanks

SR

Coupon-mad

There's no fine.

You won't be paying a penny.

Please read the third and fourth posts of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST. Top of the forum.

No link because you have two on this page.

Not_A_Hope

Anyway, we have the option now to pay at the £60 level or appeal to the IAS 

Don’t waste your time appealing to the ‘no so independent’ IAS that is funded by and run for the benefit of their IPC members. They only allow 4% of claims and will only trot out the same ‘ the charge has been issued correctly’ line. You are much more likely to win in court where the judge is likely to consider it ‘de minimis’.

SniffyRabbit123

Coupon-mad said:

There's no fine.

You won't be paying a penny.

Please read the third and fourth posts of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST. Top of the forum.

No link because you have two on this page.

Thank you - I'm seeing a lot of advice on that page to not let them know who was driving.  Unfortunately I have done that including a letter from my wife giving me permission to appeal on her behalf.  Was that a bad move?

If I have understood correctly I should now not appeal to IAS but just ignore the whole thing until it gets past the debt collection stage to an actual court date.  Do I have that right?  Is there any risk ot debt collectors turning up at my house/clamping my vehicle?

Apologies if these questions have been answered before, you sound very confident that I won't have to pay but I'm not familiar with the process and it's all quite fightening.

SniffyRabbit123

Not_A_Hope said:

Anyway, we have the option now to pay at the £60 level or appeal to the IAS 

Don’t waste your time appealing to the ‘no so independent’ IAS that is funded by and run for the benefit of their IPC members. They only allow 4% of claims and will only trot out the same ‘ the charge has been issued correctly’ line. You are much more likely to win in court where the judge is likely to consider it ‘de minimis’.

Do you mean the judge will not follow the literal terms and conditions?

Coupon-mad

A Judge will be unbiased.  You cannot get bailiffs or your car clamped.  We know what we are doing. Relax.

Come back if you get a LBC from a solicitor, as the second post of the NEWBIES thread tells you.  DON'T show us debt demands.

RogerW_3

This is the notorious Conisbrough Castle Hill Car Park Scam. The App fails to download/work properly and is unfit for purpose (violates IPC Code Section 14.2) and deliberately lures motorists into incurring Parking Charges (violates Section 27.3). 

Signage misleading. One sign says terms and conditions are on a sign next to the parking meters. There are no parking meters. If there were people would use them and not get a parking charge notice that is caused by Excel's chosen payment app failing to work. They know full well why it does not work. Poor WiFi signal at that location.

ANPR photographs on issued Notice are not time and date stamped. Even the Single Code which was published in June 2024, and mirrors and accepts the withdrawn 2022 Government Code, states that notices must not be issued unless there are time and date stamped photographs. 

Payment app demands more money than the tariff stated on signage. Most probably violates Unfair Terms and Conditions Consumer Protection law. 

Don't bother with the biased and prejudiced IAS. It is owned by Will Hurley, who is also co-founder and CEO of IPC, and is also a long time pal (from his Gladstones days) of Renshaw-Smith, the owner of Excel, who has also been on the IPC Steering Committee. 

The Government needs to urgently implement it's Code of Practice and a truly independent appeals service and end the IPC/IAS charade.

Coupon-mad

the Single Code which was published in June 2024, mirrors and accepts the withdrawn 2022 Government Code,

No, it certainly doesn't!  So much of it is altered and some clauses were alarmingly changed to spout the exact opposite of the DLUHC's CoP. The Single Code is a nasty, disingenuous joke designed to fool the public and press.

The Government needs to urgently implement it's Code of Practice and a truly independent appeals service and end the IPC/IAS charade.

Agreed but the work has been delayed due to having a completely different party running the Country.  I am still involved and the work is being expedited.  But as you can imagine, Labour are new to it.  Work to be done, I'm afraid, to get the hearts and minds onside all over again.

LDast

Coupon-mad said:
Agreed but the work has been delayed due to having a completely different party running the Country.  I am still involved and the work is being expedited.  But as you can imagine, Labour are new to it.  Work to be done, I'm afraid, to get the hearts and minds onside all over again.

So it might be ready just in time for the next change in regime... 

Coupon-mad

I don't disagree.  It is excruciating stuff, that is all I will say.  But I'm not going anywhere.

RogerW_3

@Coupon-mad. Please read what I wrote more carefully. In respect of time and date stamped ANPR photographs the single Code does mirror the Government Code requirement. Please do not reinterpret what I stated to mean the whole Code.