Ticket for not parking in marked bay - Have a Nice Car Park Ltd

Paul-T951

Hi all, I’d appreciate some advice before I submit an appeal against a private parking charge - I'm not new to this and have contested many tickets in the past, I've read the Newbie thread.

The PCN alleges "Out of marked bay.” The car was parked for around 16 minutes in an area of the car park next to a betting shop. This area has a “Staff Parking Only” sign and is routinely used by betting-shop staff, but importantly there are no individually marked bays in that area and no signage to indicate specific restrictions for this area. Elsewhere in the car park, including the surgery spaces, the bays are clearly marked and signage exists relating specifically to these businesses.

The PCN evidence I've been given appears to consist only of ANPR photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park – nothing showing the vehicle actually parked.

I’ve also tried to establish who controls that part of the car park. The surgery told me they only deal with their own designated spaces and that the other areas are dealt with business-by-business. I then spoke to the betting-shop manager, who told me the opposite – that parking is nothing to do with them and has to go through the surgery.

My proposed appeal therefore focuses on:

• the ambiguity between the general “park within a marked bay” condition and a designated staff parking area that has no marked bays or specific contractual signage;
• the ANPR evidence apparently not demonstrating the alleged contravention;
• the contradictory information about who controls this part of the site; and
• asking the operator to demonstrate its authority to enforce restrictions in that specific area.

I’m not intending to argue that the vehicle was actually within a marked bay – clearly it wasn't – or that being in the staff area was automatically permitted.

Does this sound like the right approach, or am I inadvertently weakening my position by saying too much? I have a full draft appeal ready but wanted to run the strategy past the experts here before submitting it.

Thanks!

Proposed appeal:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle and I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
I am writing as the registered keeper to appeal the above Parking Charge Notice, issued for the alleged contravention “not parked within a marked bay.”

I request that the charge is cancelled for the reasons set out below.

1. The parking arrangements and signage at this site are unclear
   Having revisited the site and examined the layout and signage, it is apparent that different areas of the car park operate under different parking arrangements.
   The surgery has clearly delineated individual bays, while the area adjacent to the betting shop is designated “Staff Parking Only” but does not contain clearly delineated individual bays. That area is nevertheless routinely used for parking by staff.
   There is therefore an apparent conflict between the general requirement to park within a marked bay and the existence of a designated staff parking area in which vehicles are permitted to park despite there being no individually marked bays.
   It is consequently unclear from the physical layout and signage precisely how the general “marked bay” requirement applies to this particular part of the site and what contractual terms the operator says govern it.
2. The businesses themselves have given contradictory information about responsibility for this area
   I have made reasonable attempts to establish the parking arrangements directly with the businesses at the site.
   Kippax Hall Surgery advised me by telephone that it only deals with parking matters relating to its own designated spaces and that the other areas of the car park are dealt with on a business-by-business basis.
   I subsequently spoke in person to the manager of the betting shop adjacent to the area concerned. She gave the opposite information, stating that parking management was nothing to do with the betting shop and that the matter would have to be dealt with through the surgery.
   There is therefore no apparent clarity even between the businesses occupying the site as to who is responsible for this particular parking area.
   I ask the operator to identify the landholder or client responsible for this area and demonstrate that it has authority to enforce the particular parking restriction relied upon there.
3. The ANPR evidence does not establish the alleged contravention
   The evidence supplied with the Parking Charge Notice consists of ANPR photographs showing the vehicle entering and leaving the site, recording a total period of approximately 16 minutes.
   Those photographs establish the vehicle's presence within the wider car park but do not show where the vehicle was parked.
   As the alleged contravention is specifically “not parked within a marked bay,” evidence of entry and exit alone cannot establish that contravention.
   If additional photographic, CCTV, attendant or other evidence has been relied upon to determine the vehicle's parking position, please provide it.
4. Evidence requested if this appeal is rejected
   If you do not agree to cancel the Parking Charge Notice, please provide:

• All photographs, CCTV images, attendant records or other evidence showing the vehicle's actual parking position at the time of the alleged contravention.
• An explanation of how the operator established that the vehicle was not within a marked bay if its evidence consists only of ANPR entry and exit images.
• A site plan identifying the different parking areas, all marked bays and the precise location where the vehicle is alleged to have been parked.
• Photographs showing the signs applicable specifically to that location as they appeared on the date of the alleged contravention.
• The specific contractual term relied upon and an explanation of how that term applies to the “Staff Parking Only” area, given that this designated parking area does not contain individually marked bays.
  Identification of the landholder/client responsible for this particular area of the car park and confirmation of the operator's authority to enforce parking restrictions there.

Given the unclear and apparently differing parking arrangements across the site, the contradictory information provided by the businesses regarding responsibility for the area, and the absence from the Parking Charge Notice of photographic evidence demonstrating the alleged parking contravention itself, I request that the charge is cancelled.
If the appeal is rejected, please provide the information required to refer the matter to the relevant independent appeals service.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

"The PCN evidence I've been given appears to consist only of ANPR photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park – nothing showing the vehicle actually parked."

There must be, for this contravention.

Go online 'as if to pay' but obviously don't pay. Show us all their photos.

Paul-T951

Good shout, why didn't I think of that?! Yes they do have these photos - mine is the civic on the right.

The bays to the right of the leftmost 2 cars are free to park in for the co-op. Further down that row are spaces specifically for the surgery (you enter your reg in the reception to avoid charges).

Some other photos for context:

This is the sign as you enter the car park

This is the sign relating to the surgery spaces and mentions 'all other bays', however there are further bays associated with another business that have their own specific signage.

Close up of the area - i was parked where the blue Passat is.

Finally this is looking back from the area I was parked - the sign over on the left is the closest one, it's the one pictured in close up above.

Paul-T951

So basically another car was already parked on the left side of this area, with the spaces to the right being occupied. I just thought this was a space I could park in, I didn't see there were no bay markings due to the other car parked there.

Paul-T951

Rewritten appeal:

I am writing as the registered keeper to appeal this Parking Charge Notice, issued for “not parked within a marked bay.”

The area in which the vehicle was parked is specifically designated “Staff Parking Only” and is routinely used for parking by staff. However, that entire staff parking area contains no individually marked bays.

This creates an unclear and contradictory position. The general signage requires vehicles to park within marked bays, while the more specific signage designates an area for staff parking in which no marked bays exist.

The PCN has not been issued for unauthorised use of a staff parking area. It has specifically been issued for “not parked within a marked bay.” If the restriction applicable to this area is that only authorised staff may park there, that is a different restriction from the one alleged on the PCN.

There is further uncertainty over the status of this area. Kippax Hall Surgery advised me that it only deals with its own designated spaces and that other areas are dealt with business-by-business. The manager of the adjacent betting shop subsequently told me the opposite: that the parking area is nothing to do with the betting shop and parking matters must be dealt with by the surgery.

I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled.

If you reject this appeal, please provide:

1. The specific contractual term relied upon for the alleged contravention.
2. An explanation of how the requirement to park within a marked bay applies to a designated staff parking area containing no marked bays.
3. Identification of the landholder/client responsible for this specific area and confirmation of your authority to enforce parking restrictions there.

Please also provide the necessary details for an independent appeal if the charge is not cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

James_Poisson

It isn't ANPR obviously it is all done with CCTV and the fact they are doing it is hidden in minute print buried in a word sandwich on the signage, that to me is covert CCTV.

They cannot have timed and dated images of the signage at the time of the alleged contravention those images show nothing they will evidence office masters which are not dated evidence

Paul-T951

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82116780#Comment_82116780

Thanks - just to clarify, the first two images above are from their PCN evidence, the rest are photos taken by me. I've rewritten the appeal to remove this request.

James_Poisson

The first two images show absolutely nothing and if that is all they have they are stuffed, do what @Coupon-mad suggests go on line and see if they have any other evidence, don't give anything away in your appeal, use the Newbies template.

Paul-T951

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82117164#Comment_82117164

sorry that wasn’t all of them, also these. There’s a few more but just variations on a theme

Coupon-mad

I'd bin that wordy appeal and just say:

I am appealing as registered keeper and will not be naming the driver.

This site has various businesses with various parking areas and conflicting signs. Not all parking areas at this location are marked out as bays but as far as I can see from your photographs, the car was parked in an area allowed for staff. It is my position that your CCTV images haven't evidenced a contravention. The sign on the wall says 'staff only' and has no t&cs in that area and no bay lines. You are put to strict proof that the driver wasn't Co-op staff properly parked in the staff only area.

Paul-T951

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82117558#Comment_82117558

thank you CM, that’s great. One question on the last sentence, is that putting the burden of proof on them that I wasn’t staff (at the betting shop not the co-op) as it seems trivially easy to find that out?