Excell Parking - Paid 3 Minutes Late at Castle Hill Conisbrough

1505grandad

"..... and mirrors and accepts the withdrawn 2022 Government Code (X)....."

Perhaps adding at (X) "in this respect" would have made it clearer that you only meant "mirrors the time and date point".

Coupon-mad

Yes, that makes it clearer. 

RogerW_3

Petty comments. it was clear enough in the first place

Johnersh

and breathe people…. Parking the issue (see what I did there? 😎) of codes of practice which aren’t law or in force, I would just reassure the o/p that naming the driver can have some merit, so having done that, there’s no need to worry about it.

Each case is different, but here there should be two statements, from the driver and from the o/p that made payment. It will be top class evidence of the challenges with the site and the quite assiduous efforts made to pay before leaving. That evidence is much easier to give from a first person basis, what you all did, rather than a guarded account not naming the driver. The claimant won’t be able to trump that. 

Beavis may actually support the defendant here, on the basis that the penalty is disproportionate to the breach of the secondary obligation such that is a penalty.  The ppcs like to pretend otherwise but Beavis does not say all parking charges are legit and enforceable.

RogerW_3

@1505grandad

Please note that when you enter the car park, you are only agreeing to what is stated on the car park entrance sign and with respect to whatever other signage that sign specifically refers to.

If you live locally to the car park please go and photograph that entrance sign (the one on the left hand side with a photo of the castle) and post it here. It will be extremely useful for everybody else who has been scammed (lots recently based on other forum reviews). Many people (like me) using that car park live far away and are tourists visiting the castle. Excel abuse that because they know it would cost someone a lot to drive to Conisbrough and back to photograph the sign.

Read what it specifically states on that sign. A gentle hint - try finding the invisible parking meters and their associated terms and conditions. Also, no mention of any debt recovery fee (there is a photograph on the internet taken 2 years ago which is the same as in both of their retrospective conservation area planning consents, the first one of which only covered a 5 year period and expired in 2023).

Originally Excel used parking meters (as is evident from a 2018 conservation area advertisement application/ consent). There is a 2019 Google Street View which shows what looks like a pay and display coin machine (difficult to be sure as it is not a clear photo).

They lazily forgot or were too incompetent or tight-fisted to change the entrance sign when they got rid of the parking meters and associated terms and conditions. IPC Code of Practice Section 27.1 requires Excel to ensure that it's operatives, servants and agents act professionally and in accordance with laws at all times. They failed to do that, including their Director, Alun Cockcroft, who applied for the 2023 planning permission that had details for the incorrect and misleading entrance sign. So effectively, he deliberately set out to mislead all motorists with his chosen unclear entrance sign.

I suspect that they have not had an IPC audit carried out on their signage since they changed some of it in 2023. An IPC audit should have picked up the entrance sign referring to invisible parking meters and the IPC should have ordered Excel to carry out corrective action pursuant to the Code. Without that IPC Code of Practice compliant audit any court claim is likely to fail. I will be requesting it in my response to the Letter of Claim. Either there is no audit or the audit that was carried out is erroneous (which would serve to evidence that the IPC is merely a smokescreen protecting it's errant members)

Also, the sign makes no reference to the terms and conditions for using their current payment app and you cannot comply with those anyway because they add a hidden convenience fee (which is not stated on any signage terms and conditions). Please note that the terms and conditions for you to use the payment app are also not correctly referred to on the car park entrance signage (or as far as I presently know, any other signage).

Several months ago they also had a hidden optional SMS confirmation fee on the app (but that had been removed last time I checked their app) that Excel has not notified to motorists on any sign.

It will be interesting to see who ends up with the fee money based on the agreement between Connect and Excel.

In simple terms, due to their own act of prevention, you cannot just pay the tariff and nothing more, and the terms and conditions are most likely unenforceable (consumer protection law - unfair terms and conditions).

Do not allow yourself to be conned by the usual Excel red herring that they are not responsible for the "third party" payment app.

Pursuant to IPC Code of Practice Section 14.2 they are responsible for all technology they use being fully maintained and fit for purpose, and pursuant to Section 27.3 they cannot use an unfit for purpose payment app (or their deficient entrance sign) to mislead or lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Plenty of reviews on the internet to support their payment app being unfit for purpose. I have also used an SRA to request copies of all parking charge appeals made to Excel that identify the payment app problem (names, vehicle reg, addresses redacted) because they should have properly reasonably and fairly taken those appeal reasons into consideration when processing my data and before issuing a parking charge (based upon their obligations under Code Section 21.6). It will be interesting to see how they react to that. At the very least if they avoid providing it then potentially it could be used to indicate to a court that they deliberately want to hide evidence and long term knowledge that their payment app is unfit for purpose and they are deliberately continuing to lure motorists into incurring parking charges. 

Also, if you do a dummy purchase of a 50p tariff using the app (from home where your wifi signal is strong as opposed to at the car park where it is too weak for the app to be downloaded or payment made without repeatedly crashing - which is why Excel deliberately use it at their car parks) you will be required to confirm payment using your bank app. The Connect payment app will also force you to pay the added convenience fee which is not stated on any Excel signage or terms and conditions. Screenshot that. When you check your bank app at the confirmation stage, that will give you details of where the payment is going to - fairly obvious from the account name that it is an account set up for Excel specific payments. Screenshot that. I have also submitted an SRA, One thing I have requested is a copy of the agreement that they have with Connect for the use of payment app. They must have one in order for the payment to be passed from Connect to Excel (another fatal flaw in their "not responsible for third party app" nonsense), and they cannot prove that I did not pay unless they can get information from Connect. This will also be requested in a response to the Letter of Claim, as well as a photograph of their entrance signage on the date of the alleged parking event.

Incidentally, I have repeatedly demanded that they provide me with a date stamped photograph of the entrance signage (and the terms and conditions referred to on it) to evidence the basis of their issued parking charge notice. They deliberately avoid providing me with what is very basic and fundamentally necessary evidence. That may indicate that they already know that deficient entrance sign means they cannot legally enforce their parking charge, and that they cannot continue with their debt recovery bully threats charade once they candidly disclose that necessary evidence.

So make sure you demand a copy of that entrance sign (including through an SRA), because absent their provision of that copy, they have not evidenced any valid basis whatsoever to issue a parking charge notice. That will help you if they later file a court case. By failing to provide you with that repeatedly requested basic necessary evidence any court costs are caused by their own deliberate default failure to provide you with that basic necessary evidence at an earlier "process" stage and, secondly, that may be considered by a court to be abuse of process and the court may even dismiss the case.   .  

I have also worked out, that for various reasons in my particular case they would need to present more than ten witnesses whose names they have failed to disclose. They will be requested to provide those names in my response to the Letter of Claim. Some will be very reluctant to appear in court.

Needless to say, but in my case, it is going to cost them rather a lot of money and time if they want to pursue the matter in court based upon deficient entrance signage.

My case also involves numerous non-compliances with the IPC Code. Due to Excel failures to correctly follow the appeal processes and premature commencement of debt recovery, abuse of process has occurred. Further, due to contradictory supervening correspondence that has been issued by Excel, the issued Letter of Claim has been improperly issued, there has been untruthfulness and the Pre-action protocol indicates that this may be an act of contempt for which proceedings.may occur. That will be addressed in my response to the Letter of Claim.

Given your experience, my experience, and that of many others in internet reviews, it seems to me that at best their only legal entitlement was to use IPC Code Section 18 to request payment of the tariff that their chosen unfit for purpose payment app not only failed to process, but could not even compliantly process without hidden unfair contract term fees 

A lot for you to digest there, but there maybe something that you can make your own decision to use to help you get rid of these scammers.

I have never had a problem at any other car park, including using other payment apps. They certainly won't be getting any future business from me or anybody that I make aware of their shameless payment app scam. Our nearby MP is already taking action due to the same unfit for purpose payment app scam at Feetham's, Darlington. I am in communication with her have told her that the Private Parking Code of Practice needs finalising and enacting urgently by her Government to end the scams.

RogerW_3

Apols, last comment was intended for the attention of SniffyRabbit

Le_Kirk

RogerW_3 said:

Apols, last comment was intended for the attention of SniffyRabbit

You have enough time and posts under your belt to be able to edit your own posts, so could put right your mistake.

1505grandad

Phew!  -  thought I was being told how to suck eggs as well as being petty.

RogerW_3

No point appealing to the IAS. Will Hurley deliberately hides the names of the adjudicators to protect them from the legal consequences of their baseless appeal rejections - they will either be friends of the parking operators or may not even exist. It may be just Hurley writing the rejections - avoidance of names creates that possibility. I have been involved in many arbitrations, mediations, dispute resolution. The names of adjudicators etc are never hidden and the adjudicators are fully accountable for their actions. Hiding names is a very big red flag.

According to Excel's last filed Financial Report on the Companies House website, Renshaw-Smith boasted:

“The Group Managing Director holds a position on the IPC Board, ensuring that standards within the industry are continually monitored, reviewed and raised. The Board continue to work on the long awaited industry single Code of Practice which currently remains under Government review.” 

The Companies House website also traces the ultimate owner and administrator of the IAS, Will Hurley.

(IAS is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd (formerly known as Independent Parking Committee - IPC for short - sound familiar?) which is in turn owned by Will Hurley Ltd, which is 100% owned by Will Hurley)

Hurley is the co-founder and CEO of the IPC (International Parking Community) and a board member.

The close IPC Board relationship between Renshaw-Smith and Hurley is a very obvious and significant conflict of interest.

Further the IPC website falsely claims that it administers the IAS, when in fact it is instead administered by Hurley (the sole ultimate owner) for his personal profit. Hurley probably administers the IPC, so combined it is probably Hurley Inc. and funds his lifestyle.

More reasons for the Government to urgently finalise the Private Parking Code of Practice to end parking charge and conflict of interest falsified appeal rejection scams and close down the Hurley Inc. charade.

Coupon-mad

I think the IAS adjudicators are real and are likely to be some of the same solicitors and barristers who represent parking firms later on, in court.

I believe it's the LPC Law lot. I reckon the evidence suggests this strongly.

They are usually rookie barristers without a pupillage who work for a reported £85 at hearings, therefore they would work for (say) £15 a case decision with a KPI set to spend a max ten minutes in each one.

The above are guesstimates but it's educated guesstimates. Other lawyers wouldn't get out of bed for that rate.

I see familiarities in the wording sometimes when they stray off-template, with use of the favoured chestnut Elliot v Loake, every decision is a joke: clearly not impartial IMHO.

You cannot have an appeals service where the adjudicators are anonymous and have (I think) a likely vested interest in consumers losing.