Excel Parking (yet again)

deejim

I parked in a carpark run by Excel parking, found a machine out of order, tried to pay with the parking app on their alternative payment instructions which failed due to a confirmation SMS (which arrived 22 hours later), tried their helpline, got transferred to an "automated payment system" which told me a number I couldn't retain and then hung up. I eventually paid for parking after I got home using the website on my laptop. Unsurprisingly they've rejected my appeal & now I'm using the Independent Appeals Service.

My appeal there

The systems the operator have in place to facilitate payment were non functional at the time I parked. The machine I first looked at was out of order, the smartphone app they use for payment took 28 hours to supply me with a verification code to even log in, I couldn't understand their website on my phone and, even when I used the website from a laptop later, the facility to pay late had no option to select the specific car park where I had parked. I therefore simply paid for 2 hours parking on the normal website expecting that this would be accepted as having made best effort to pay.

I did in fact make considerable effort to pay - downloading the app, phoning the helpline, phoning the pay by phone number and using the website none of which proved functional at the time of parking. I paid for parking but simply late because the methods available at the time did not work. I attach my original appeal containing images of signs, the app, the late verification text messages and a screenshot of the message I received after finally making payment 

Their response is this

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/02/2025 14:09:07.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 08/01/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 08/01/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

1. The Feethams Leisure Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.

2. Site signage clearly states ‘After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 5 minutes is allowed to purchase a valid ticket or make payment by phone or online'.

3. The supplied site map shows that there are 3 P&D machines at this car park and payment can also be made online/by phone/by app using Connect Cashless Parking (CCP) or RingGo. These apps are third party software for which EPS is not responsible.

4. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and through the Pay By Phone system. Any motorist whose vehicle remains on the car park for 5 minutes after entry without making a valid payment, or remains onsite for 10 minutes after the expiry of a purchased ticket or pay by phone session is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and exit from the car park and the images supplied show that the appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 16:09:10 and exited at 17:08:22; a parking duration of 59min & 12sec.

6. Payment data supplied shows that no valid payment was made for the appellant's full accurate vehicle registration during the 5 minutes consideration period given upon entry or at any point whilst the vehicle was onsite. This is not disputed by the appellant who confirms “I gave up and purchased a ticket when I returned home”.

7. The data shows that at least 2 of the 3 ticket machines onsite were working and used by other motorists on the afternoon in question, including during the appellant's vehicle's stay onsite, as were the online/by phone facilities.

8. We refer the adjudicator to Annex B of the Single Code of Practice (SCOP) which states “The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises”. The SCOP further states ‘It is important to stress that the consideration period is the amount of time a driver has to decide whether or not to park, including the time needed to find an available parking space. Should the driver decide to do so within the consideration period […] or there is evidence that the driver has left the location […] the consideration period is deemed to have expired, other than for pay-on-exit premises”. As such, the charge was issued correctly and in accordance with the SCOP.

9. The circumstances cited by the appellant do not warrant grounds for the cancellation of this charge. As stated, other motorists were successfully paying at the machines and online/by phone during the appellant's consideration period. However, if for any reason a motorist is unable to make payment at one of the machines, or either of the online methods, they have the option to call the helpline for assistance or find alternative parking within the consideration period. The appellant had no cause to believe they could leave their vehicle parked without payment for almost 1 hour, and make a payment after returning home. Their late payment does not nullify their liability for the charge.

10. While the appellant states they did call the helpline, no evidence of this has been supplied. However, they state they were transferred through to the automated payment line, which is correct. If they were still unable to make payment using this alternative method, they could have called the helpline back for assistance or found alternative parking. The adjudicator will appreciate that no motorist is entitled to park for free, even if they believe payment is not possible, particularly when alternative options are available.

11. No indication is given that retrospective payments made after a vehicle has left the car park would be deemed valid. The appellant's subsequent payment does not negate their liability for the charge incurred on failing to make a valid payment within 5 minutes of entering the car park or at any point whilst on site. While Connect and RingGo are third party software for which we are not responsible, we can confirm that the car park did not show on the ‘late payment' option as late payments are not accepted, which we reiterate is not implied on any signage.

12. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite, including its, size, wording and positioning (which includes the requirement to pay within 5 minutes of entry) has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.

13. The appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed for parking without making a valid payment within the time allowed.

This all appears to be a long winded way of saying that because I didn't pay within 5 minutes that I owe them £100 because they have a sign. I think this should probably qualify as unfair contract terms given the difficulty in actually paying within 5 minutes. I'm unsure of the response I should make now, could anyone possibly advise? I have until 10/02/2025 23:59 to respond here.

 

Coupon-mad

Respond with the email from Lola McEvoy MP yesterday, which confirms that the 5 minute rule has been exposed as a scam and has now been abolished and Simon Renshaw-Smith is well aware of this after Will Hurley was in discussions with Darlington MP Lola McEvoy last month:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/consumer/excel-parking-mp-slams-sheffield-firm-over-shocking-treatment-of-drivers-4795103

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6586172/news-on-the-5-minute-rule

Lola's email dated yesterday says:

"This means any “five minute rule” fine from a fixed camera car park that has not yet been paid, regardless of when it was issued, can immediately be appealed to the industry’s Independent Appeals Service and that appeal should be upheld. Details on how to appeal can be found on https://www.theias.org/ and in any correspondence you have received."

deejim

Unsurprisingly  my appeal was rejected by the Independent appeals service. I said this

The latest information from my MP is that a new parking code which bans late payment charges is now in force and appeals against PCNs currently in progress for this reason should be immediately upheld.This 5 minute time limit for making payment is clearly an unfair term due to the the impossibility of complying given an out of order meter and delays with the alternative methods noted on the signage. As such any contract is therefore not binding on the consumer under the Consumer Rights Act, section 62.

The IAS replied with this

The adjudicator made their decision on 20/02/2025 14:29:10.It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment prior to leaving the site as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. I note that the Operator is able to show that payment systems were in working order on the date of the parking event.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

I have since had a letter from a debt collection company asking for £170 which I suppose I should respond to in some manner but I have zero intention of paying this. What do I do next? Dispute the debt, inform the debt collectors I won't pay?

Gr1pr

Neither,  just ignore the powerless  collectors letters , as explained in post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Looks like weasel Will was economical with the truth   !

Coupon-mad

deejim said:

My appeal to the IAS:

The systems the operator have in place to facilitate payment were non functional at the time I parked. The machine I first looked at was out of order, the smartphone app they use for payment took 28 hours to supply me with a verification code to even log in, I couldn't understand their website on my phone and, even when I used the website from a laptop later, the facility to pay late had no option to select the specific car park where I had parked. I therefore simply paid for 2 hours parking on the normal website expecting that this would be accepted as having made best effort to pay.

I did in fact make considerable effort to pay - downloading the app, phoning the helpline, phoning the pay by phone number and using the website none of which proved functional at the time of parking. I paid for parking but simply late because the methods available at the time did not work. I attach my original appeal containing images of signs, the app, the late verification text messages and a screenshot of the message I received after finally making payment 

Their response is this

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/02/2025 14:09:07.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 08/01/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 08/01/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

1. The Feethams Leisure Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.

2. Site signage clearly states ‘After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 5 minutes is allowed to purchase a valid ticket or make payment by phone or online'.

3. The supplied site map shows that there are 3 P&D machines at this car park and payment can also be made online/by phone/by app using Connect Cashless Parking (CCP) or RingGo. These apps are third party software for which EPS is not responsible.

4. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines and through the Pay By Phone system. Any motorist whose vehicle remains on the car park for 5 minutes after entry without making a valid payment, or remains onsite for 10 minutes after the expiry of a purchased ticket or pay by phone session is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and exit from the car park and the images supplied show that the appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 16:09:10 and exited at 17:08:22; a parking duration of 59min & 12sec.

6. Payment data supplied shows that no valid payment was made for the appellant's full accurate vehicle registration during the 5 minutes consideration period given upon entry or at any point whilst the vehicle was onsite. This is not disputed by the appellant who confirms “I gave up and purchased a ticket when I returned home”.

7. The data shows that at least 2 of the 3 ticket machines onsite were working and used by other motorists on the afternoon in question, including during the appellant's vehicle's stay onsite, as were the online/by phone facilities.

8. We refer the adjudicator to Annex B of the Single Code of Practice (SCOP) which states “The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises”. The SCOP further states ‘It is important to stress that the consideration period is the amount of time a driver has to decide whether or not to park, including the time needed to find an available parking space. Should the driver decide to do so within the consideration period […] or there is evidence that the driver has left the location […] the consideration period is deemed to have expired, other than for pay-on-exit premises”. As such, the charge was issued correctly and in accordance with the SCOP.

9. The circumstances cited by the appellant do not warrant grounds for the cancellation of this charge. As stated, other motorists were successfully paying at the machines and online/by phone during the appellant's consideration period. However, if for any reason a motorist is unable to make payment at one of the machines, or either of the online methods, they have the option to call the helpline for assistance or find alternative parking within the consideration period. The appellant had no cause to believe they could leave their vehicle parked without payment for almost 1 hour, and make a payment after returning home. Their late payment does not nullify their liability for the charge.

10. While the appellant states they did call the helpline, no evidence of this has been supplied. However, they state they were transferred through to the automated payment line, which is correct. If they were still unable to make payment using this alternative method, they could have called the helpline back for assistance or found alternative parking. The adjudicator will appreciate that no motorist is entitled to park for free, even if they believe payment is not possible, particularly when alternative options are available.

11. No indication is given that retrospective payments made after a vehicle has left the car park would be deemed valid. The appellant's subsequent payment does not negate their liability for the charge incurred on failing to make a valid payment within 5 minutes of entering the car park or at any point whilst on site. While Connect and RingGo are third party software for which we are not responsible, we can confirm that the car park did not show on the ‘late payment' option as late payments are not accepted, which we reiterate is not implied on any signage.

12. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite, including its, size, wording and positioning (which includes the requirement to pay within 5 minutes of entry) has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.

13. The appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed for parking without making a valid payment within the time allowed.

This all appears to be a long winded way of saying that because I didn't pay within 5 minutes that I owe them £100 because they have a sign. I think this should probably qualify as unfair contract terms given the difficulty in actually paying within 5 minutes. 

................................

Coupon-mad said:

Respond with the email from Lola McEvoy MP yesterday, which confirms that the 5 minute rule has been exposed as a scam and has now been abolished and Simon Renshaw-Smith is well aware of this after Will Hurley was in discussions with Darlington MP Lola McEvoy last month:

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/consumer/excel-parking-mp-slams-sheffield-firm-over-shocking-treatment-of-drivers-4795103

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6586172/news-on-the-5-minute-rule

Lola's email dated yesterday says:

"This means any “five minute rule” fine from a fixed camera car park that has not yet been paid, regardless of when it was issued, can immediately be appealed to the industry’s Independent Appeals Service and that appeal should be upheld."

deejim said:

Unsurprisingly  my appeal was rejected by the Independent appeals service. I said this

The latest information from my MP is that a new parking code which bans late payment charges is now in force and appeals against PCNs currently in progress for this reason should be immediately upheld.This 5 minute time limit for making payment is clearly an unfair term due to the the impossibility of complying given an out of order meter and delays with the alternative methods noted on the signage. As such any contract is therefore not binding on the consumer under the Consumer Rights Act, section 62.

The IAS replied with this

The adjudicator made their decision on 20/02/2025 14:29:10.It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment prior to leaving the site as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. I note that the Operator is able to show that payment systems were in working order on the date of the parking event.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

I have since had a letter from a debt collection company asking for £170 which I suppose I should respond to in some manner but I have zero intention of paying this. 

What do I do next? Dispute the debt, inform the debt collectors I won't pay?

Put in a complaint to the IPC that the IAS has failed to cancel a '5 minute rule case' where the driver paid in full (if they did).  Therefore tell the IPC that it looks like Will Hurley lied to MPs when he reportedly told them that cases could be appealed to the IAS and outstanding cases would be cancelled.

Say you require a substantive reply from the IPC to explain themselves, given that both the IPC and IAS are/were owned by Will Hurley Ltd, and given that this case has been alerted to the MHCLG.