Time sensitive appeal - please help

Brie

Can you post a copy of the correspondence received so we have more details? Please ensure personal info is blocked.

casinolady

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82109253#Comment_82109253

[Image removed by Forum Team]

[Image removed by Forum Team]

I've posted in the main query thread too. Intend to follow the newbie steps but can't find landowner to complain to first

Gr1pr

You need to keep it all in the original thread, so i suggest that you report this thread for merging with your original thread, by using the red report button in the first post above, thank you

MSE_ForumTeam5

We've merged the two threads

casinolady

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82109284#Comment_82109284

Oops sorry, must have uploaded the wrong image. Thanks for merging too

Coupon-mad

I already said exactly what your son says in his appeal!

🙂

casinolady

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82108673#Comment_82108673

Revisited and wandered round the site - there are indeed signs stating the £100 charge…. but these are attached behind the signs I shared before, on the opposite side of the same lamppost.

I would not think of looking behind this sign to see if there's another with further details - Just want to park and shop.

The other sign doesn't state to look on the other side to see the T&C's incl charges.

Would you say this complies with BPA signage rules? Is it still a good point of appeal?

Will still be using the entrance sign not visible when turning right into the site, and even if you did see it theres no mention of the charge

Below is view of the one of 2 signs visible to drivers parked in the first row of bays , with no mention of charges. Unless you realise you need to walk around that lamppost and read the back of this sign.

casinolady

Bumping to hopefully get a response.

@Coupon-mad kindly worded the basis of what the appeal should state, but further signs were since discovered that do state further T&Cs and the £100 charge.

I would appreciate help with how to word the appeal now this new info changes the argument.

These further signs are attached to the reverse of the signs the driver did see - why would anyone think there might be others signs on the reverse of those visible when parking and leaving?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82110667#Comment_82110667

sh44ggy

I would not think of looking behind this sign to see if there's another with further details - Just want to park and shop.

The other sign doesn't state to look on the other side to see the T&C's incl charges.

Would you say this complies with BPA signage rules? Is it still a good point of appeal?

From my understanding

You can use
Section 3.1.3 of the Code
a) together with NOTE 1, f) h), i), and j)
also if you claim signs are ambiguous you quote 3.1.5 combined with the 3.1.3 above and section 68 of CRA legislation and CMA37 making an argument about ambiguity and fair opportunity to reach informed decision without presenting TC on the same side of the tarriff.

They will 100% counter that it is driver's responsibility to look at 'all signs' but at the same time, they have obligations to present terms of parking clearly. This point you can merge with Mobility route @Coupon-mad mentioned. Read Section 4 of the Code and appeal on this basis as well.

MrJenkinsEsq

I had a go at installing the NexusPay app which, if the claim of a contract concluded by parking is correct, necessitates a breach of GDPR.

The signs made the offer and parking concluded it. The app, as the only payment method available (is that true? Were there other payment options?), must only operate as a till. You don't give your personal details to a shopkeeper. Yet NexusPay demands phone number and email at registration, before showing any privacy notice or terms. The ANPR captured the reg already, so all payment needs is the location code and reg.

That's a breach of Article 13 UK GDPR, which requires the controller's identity and purposes at the point of collection, and it demands data that Article 6(1)(b) makes unnecessary for payment.

A person may reasonably refuse to engage with the app. I don't actually know where one stands in this circumstance.

Edit: Android app, to clarify. Using the Aurora Store not the Play Store.