Hirer Notification - Excel Parking

Coupon-mad

The advice to appeal as driver was to ensure that Excel only write to you.

Currently, as it's been done this way, we wouldn't put it past them to decide to revert to the lease firm as the liable party. After all, they are saying they are not holding you liable and did not use the POFA.

I would agree with the suggested approach of  @ChirpyChicken and suggest you futilely appeal to the IAS, but this time as driver, which will prevent any chance of Excel writing to the lease firm ever again.

The appeal to the IAS will lose but it doesn't matter, it hooks this invoice only to you as long as you 'appeal' (LOL! - it's a farce) as the driver; assuming you were?

After all, that's how to honestly present yourself if it goes to court. Excel do take cases to hearings so begin that stance now.

paulh1983

Thank you, as always the time and effort is massively appreciated.  

I was the driver and will shape my appeal on those grounds.  My concern is that I'm trying to prove a negative.  I know I entered my details onto the system, but I can't prove it and nor can I prove that the system crashes etc. 

I suppose at some point the system will crash/fail again and that would be the opportunity to try and get a picture of it to prove it does happen.

  

Gr1pr

But its up to the claimant to prove their equipment was working OK,  as a defendant you don't have to prove anything at all, especially a negative  !

Your future Witness Statement is a sworn statement of truth,  you were there,  the only witness,  so thats taken as being correct,  adding weight to your defence 

It may not see a courtroom,  so don't get ahead of yourself 

Read what this recent victim has realised 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631360/parkingeye#latest

Meanwhile,  you definitely dont want the parking company going back to the hire or lease company 

paulh1983

Thank you. Will appeal accordingly and update.

paulh1983

Appeal made, response from IAS is (shock horror) still liable for the charge. 

Excel uploaded a load of photos from months before the incident of where parking banners are etc. Log of entrants onto the tablet based system before and after my entry/exit.   Comes back to me proving a negative. The machine works until it doesn't work...kangaroo court is a very good description of this.

Options are go back with my response or push it straight to arbitration (which I presume is another kangaroo court).  Responding with further information seems pointless as it's just a process. I'm also guessing it's not really arbitration either, least that route just speeds up the inevitable movement onto the debt collector letters etc. etc.?

The evidence also shows the lease firm moving liability to myself, which is good I guess. 

paulh1983

Interestingly (or perhaps not), the pictures as evidence that they uploaded are out of date.

One of which is a banner about parking inside the entrance area of the gym (before you go through one of the pod type entry points). Today I clocked that the banner is no longer there. Inside the actual gym there is a banner but it's definitely a different one, the original one detailed that failure to register may result in the issue of a parking charge - can't be certain but it doesn't appear to have such wording on the new one. It's also partly hidden by other promotional material.

Not even sure it's noteworthy but tempted to get a photo of the current set-up and use it as part of a response, if for nothing else just to build a case (if it does result in escalating to court).

Coupon-mad

Ignore the IAS but please can you copy & paste the decision into my IAS Decisions thread? I'm collecting evidence that it's a kangaroo court.

Otherwise, do nothing else yet!

paulh1983

Sure, see below - just to confirm ignore the option of either responding or refer straight to arbitration?

• - - - - - - - - - - -

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on XX/XX/XX XX:XX:XX.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.

ANPR/CCTV was used.

The Notice to Keeper was sent on xx/xx/xxxx.

A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.

The ticket was issued on xx/xx/xxxx.

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 St Mark's Retail Park East - Short Stay 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: ‘This is a pay on entry car park - Terms and Conditions Apply'; ‘You must purchase the required parking tariff by card at the meter(s) or by phone or online at www.PayByPhone.co.uk'and ‘You must ensure the FULL and ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment''. The signage makes it clear that any motorist contravening any of the terms and conditions will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

3. Site photographs supplied confirm that signs can be observed at the entrance and throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite, including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.

4. Pay by phone facilities are available at this car park as well as payment machines, which are clearly advertised.

5. 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 any vehicle that remains on the car park and fails to make a valid payment for the full and accurate VRM of the vehicle parked on site, covering the duration of parking is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

6. 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 xx:xx:xx and exited at xx:xx:xx; a duration of XXmin 43sec.

7. Members of the adjacent Pure Gym may enjoy up to 2 hours free parking when attending the gym as long as they enter their full and accurate VRM of their vehicle into a Touchscreen located at the gym, which is clearly advertised at the gym.

8. Payment and Gym Touchscreen data supplied shows that no valid payment or Gym Touchscreen entry was made for the appellant's vehicle at any point whilst the vehcile was onsite. The data shows that other motorists were correctly using the touchscreen (Zatkiosk) throughout the period when the appellant's vehicle was onsite.

9. The appellant confirms awareness of the system in place at the Gym. As the VRM of the vehicle on site was not entered into the Touchscreen they were required to pay for the whole duration of their parking.

10. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the appellant. If the appellant was at all unsure whether they had registered for the parking allowance, they had the option of contacting us for advice. Alternatively, the appellant may have made a payment to park.

11. The contract between the appellant and EPS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated that a valid payment for the required tariff must be made for the vehicle onsite; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice. The adjudicator will note that the appellant had the opportunity to leave the site if they could not comply with the terms and conditions.

12. It was the appellant's sole responsibility to ensure that a valid exemption was registered or payment made to cover their stay.

13. Any CCTV cameras located on the site are property of the landowner. If the appellant wishes to view any CCTV footage they may hold, the appellant would have to approach and request this from them themselves. Neither we nor the adjudicator have any investigatory power on the motorist's behalf.

14. The appellant's evidence of gym attendance does not nullify their liability for the charge.

15. We maintain that the terms and conditions were sufficiently brought to the appellant's attention at the time of the parking event.

16. The appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and Conditions displayed, by failing to pay to park whilst not exempt.

paulh1983

As a sidenote, I checked the 'new' banner at the gym today. It states how to claim free parking, it doesn't state failure will result in a parking charge. Think I'll grab a photo of such for evidence if needed.

Coupon-mad

…"arbitration" LOL! Jokers.

You'll lose anyway. Everyone does (well 95% who reach this point). You realise that's not a decision but you pretty much can't win at IAS. It doesn't matter.

When you get the template rejection please can you copy & paste the decision into my IAS Decisions thread?

As mentioned, I'm collecting evidence there, that it's a kangaroo court.