PCN - Napier Parking at Station Hill , Chippenham

Coupon-mad

Yes, give the futile 'appeals' farce a go, partly to get us another useless IAS Decision to show the government! Do show the final decision here but no paying.

lily10

Hi - so I have an update on my Napier Parking charge.

I appealed to Napier Parking ( not the IAS yet -  and won't bother with that now that I have read this forum)
I advised them that I had informed my local MP, added the link to the local newspaper citing other parking tickets in the car park ( talking about the confusing signage) and I submitted my own images of the confusing signage.
I expected it to be rejected and it was.

Here is their rather bizarre response (see 2nd para):

Thank you for your appeal received on XXXXXX regarding the above detailed Parking Charge.

We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made, together with the evidence that

we are holding. Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the

clearly displayed Terms and Conditions of Parking.

Firstly we note that this is not the first time you visited our car park, you also visited on XXXXXX. Two days prior to this event, although at that time you did not exceed the consideration period so no Charge was issued. However this shows that you should most certainly have been aware of the clearly signed terms and conditions. This evidence will be submitted to Court if required.

Please find enclosed images of the signs that are in situ. There are many signs and entrance signs in place. The

car park is also split with bollards to designated the different areas.

When parking in our car park you had ample time to read the signs. Payment of the tariff was required even for a

short visit such as the one you made.

We are therefore unable to cancel the Charge as it was issued correctly, however In accordance with the Private

Parking Single Code of Practice, we would like to offer you a reduced settlement rate. Your options now are as

follows;

They then offer to REDUCE the parking charge to £30 and give me 14 days to do this otherwise it rises to £100.

My initial response was - I have no idea if the person driving 2 days previously was the same person ( how would they know unless they identify on the camera that it is the same person - can they use this in court or not?). And even if it was I fail to understand why that is even relevant!

The fact that they have reduced the £60 to £30 suggests to me that they are on a losing footing and they hope that I will pay them something rather than nothing.

I would be really interested to get your feedback on this!
Thanks

kryten3000

lily10 said:

Hi - so I have an update on my Napier Parking charge.

Firstly we note that this is not the first time you visited our car park, you also visited on XXXXXX. Two days prior to this event, although at that time you did not exceed the consideration period so no Charge was issued. However this shows that you should most certainly have been aware of the clearly signed terms and conditions. This evidence will be submitted to Court if required.

My initial response was - I have no idea if the person driving 2 days previously was the same person ( how would they know unless they identify on the camera that it is the same person - can they use this in court or not?). And even if it was I fail to understand why that is even relevant!

The fact that they have reduced the £60 to £30 suggests to me that they are on a losing footing and they hope that I will pay them something rather than nothing.

I would be really interested to get your feedback on this!
Thanks

Absolutely they have no proof that the same driver visited the site previously.   None whatsoever.
If the vehicle did not exceed the consideration period, why have they retained this data?

You are also correct that they are hoping you'll pay them £30 to get rid of them.  

lily10

Just to clarify then from my last point ...if this went to court are they allowed to identify the driver on both occasions from images to bolster their argument?

Not that I think it is relevant actually as the same person could be confused by the signs twice anyway - it's not a question of not having had time to read the signage. If you enter the car park the first time and assume from the initial signage that you have 45 mins free parking I don't see how visiting it twice means that this assumption is lessened!

We genuinely do not know who the driver was on either occasion as more than one of us drive the vehicle.

kryten3000

They might have potentially incriminating images, but it is much more likely they do not. 

lily10

kryten3000 said:

They might have potentially incriminating images, but it is much more likely they do not. 

But are they allowed to identify the person or persons driving from the images - or can they only use the Number Plate Recognition info? As said previously we aren't even sure who was driving ourselves on the 2 occasions they cite.

kryten3000

Remember this is an unregulated industry so they will do what they think will make them the most amount of money. This includes their refusal to improve the signage despite the fact that it is inadequate and confusing at present as well as use of CCTV, but don't overthink it.  Napier aren't known for using CCTV evidence.

This is the sort of thing that the Government Code is supposed to deal with, identifying "hot spots" and ensuring that issues are rectified.

James_Poisson

lily10 said:

kryten3000 said:

They might have potentially incriminating images, but it is much more likely they do not. 

But are they allowed to identify the person or persons driving from the images - or can they only use the Number Plate Recognition info? As said previously we aren't even sure who was driving ourselves on the 2 occasions they cite.

They cannot identify anyone from a VRN and this statement is clearly utter rubbish I could have been driving the car for all they know:

Firstly we note that this is not the first time you visited our car park, you also visited on XXXXXX. Two days prior to this event, although at that time you did not exceed the consideration period so no Charge was issued. However this shows that you should most certainly have been aware of the clearly signed terms and conditions

GreenFraggle

lily10 said:

@GreenFraggle

Seeing as you have the same experience in the same carpark ...just to let you know....I initially contacted the MP for Chippenham ( where this carpark is located) ; She said she has already dealt with a number of interesting cases re Napier. However, she couldn't deal personally with my case as my address is outside of her constituency. I then contacted my own MP and got a really positive response to say that he will liaise with her and her team (which she agreed to) to find out what her experience has been. 

So she might be worth contacting.

Thank you lily10 !!
Napier have eventually come back to me and emailed me a copy of the original PCN.  You can't tell from the photos who was driving the vehicle, and there isn't a photo of the vehicle in an actual parking space.
I will contact my MP and will be submitting an appeal to Napier.

Jigglypuff_12

In light of my IAS appeal. I have won and Napier have conceded the PCN 🥳