Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 9:45 AM
    • 122Posts
    • 91Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Appeal dismissed by IAS
    • #1
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:45 AM
    Appeal dismissed by IAS 13th Sep 17 at 9:45 AM


    The adjudicator made their decision on 12/09/2017 12:16:07.

    The Appellant argues that they should not be required to pay the parking charge, as the ticket machines on site were not working correctly. The Appellant appears to suggest that as the ticket machines on site did not appear to be accepting payment they left their vehicle parked with a note displayed and went about their business. A helpline number is provided by the Operator which the Appellant appears to accept that they did not use at the time of the parking event. The Operator disputes that all of the payment options on site were not available at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued and is able to suggest that payments were being made correctly at the time of the parking event. Even if all the machines on a particular site are not working this does not entitle the driver to free parking. The contractual terms require the driver to purchase and display a valid ticket (or make a valid online payment), otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If the driver cannot purchase and display a ticket (or make a valid online payment) they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. It is the driver!!!8217;s responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are adhered to. By parking without a valid ticket displayed (or having made a valid online payment), regardless of the reason for doing so, the Appellant agreed to pay a charge. I have noted the images provided of the site and I am satisfied that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the signage on display.

    Whilst having sympathy with the circumstances that the Appellant found themselves in they nevertheless chose to remain on site without purchasing or displaying a valid ticket (or making a valid online payment) and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

    Well as you told me my appeal has been dismissed by IAS. As I have mentioned on previous threads I would not have gone down this route if I had discovered this site first. I knew about MSE but did not realise that it covered so many topics.

    I will give some details about the scenario and ask if you consider that it is worth going the whole way or whether I should just cut my losses pay up and move on. If there is a 50/50 chance I will take it all the way.

    The facts of the case are as follows and I will keep as brief as I can.

    I was travelling to Burton on Trent to catch the train to Nottingham. On the way I suffered a migraine and had to stop for around 20 minutes, take some medication and wait for the aura to pass. It would not have been advisable to continue to drive as my vision is affected. I would have missed an earlier train and so I wanted to catch the 10.48 am train to Nottingham and arrived at the Derby Street car around 10.23 am which should have given me enough time to catch the train. I tried to obtain a ticket and the coins fell through the machine. Tried several times and I then noticed that the machine was displaying a sign which said that it was not operational.

    I did not just take a cursory look around but tried to find another machine but I could not find one and I walked over to some men that were working in the arches and asked them and they pointed to a machine belonging to another operator's car park.
    Contemplated moving the car but would may have missed the train (my ticket states that it was purchased at 10.39 am). I must have spent at least 10 minutes trying to obtain a ticket so I left a note on the dashboard and would have willingly paid.

    When I came back to my car later that day a ticket had been placed on my windscreen and this gave notice that I may receive a NTK in the post. I went on line immediately I got home and appealed which was rejected by Excel. The basis that they rejected my appeal was that I was not displaying a valid ticket. They also said that I could have paid by RingGo, telephoned them or moved my car. I do not possess a mobile phone or a smart phone and I had never heard of RingGo. If I had moved the car I would have missed the train and the tariff in the Station Car park is a much higher tariff and I certainly would have not been able to park in the main Station Car park as it fills up very early and I may have struggled to find a space on the Lower Station Car Park.

    With regard to the mobile phone issue I understand that Age UK have concerns about car parks that only use mobile applications as a means of payment as these disadvantage older people. There is a potential equality issue with regard to the use of a smart phone as only about one in five of my age group uses one. To offer RingGo as a means of payment when others are available is not indirect discrimination. To decline my appeal on the basis that I could use a mobile phone application when there was no other means of payment available may be indirect discrimination as it disadvantages my age group. If I had been in possession of a smart phone from all accounts it would have taken over 10 minutes to set up an account and pay.

    So Excel considered that I had three options available to me, move, pay by RingGo, or telephone them in which case they would have been able to sort something out? Excel never mentioned that I could have used another ticket machine and I had assumed that there was only one on the site as I could not find another.

    I appealed to IAS and when I saw the uploads of the site by Excel I noticed that there were other ticket machines. One by the fire door of the Travelodge and the other in the Lower Station car park where Excel have a few spaces. I went back and took some photo's of these and the one near the fire door is not signed at all. It is between two bins of the same colour and looks like a receptacle for cigarette butts. The fire door is often open and staff stand outside having a cigarette. I use the car park infrequently and have not noticed this machine before. The other machine is located at the rear of the Travelodge, is on another operator's car park and is only visible by walking the whole perimeter of the building which means entering another operator's car park. It's very ambiguous.

    There are a couple of cases that are similar to my circumstances 1) Link parking v Mr N, 2) Prendi v Camden.

    I realise that IAS are not that independent but I felt as they had not even bothered to read my comments and were totally on the side of the operator. They really are the !!!! end of the legal profession Whatever else I do I shall be writing to my MP.


    I have read the newbies and I will use the templates should I take this further. What I would really appreciate is thoughts on whether this is worth taking to court and any issues I may have missed such as size of signage. I would struggle a bit with some signage after having a migraine particularly high contrast lettering. I have to say though that I was more concerned with obtaining a ticket than anything else. Thank you.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 13-09-2017 at 9:52 AM.
Page 5
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Aug 18, 12:26 PM
    • 3,115 Posts
    • 3,834 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Just ask the council the specific question asked above. Dont guess. Dont assume.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 7th Aug 18, 12:36 PM
    • 122 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    The person that I spoke to said the car park must form part of the Travelodge as it is not listed separately.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Aug 18, 12:38 PM
    • 3,115 Posts
    • 3,834 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Which you didnt say above.
    So theyre the occupioer and are the only one that could have hired the PPC...
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 7th Aug 18, 12:44 PM
    • 122 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Sorry, if I confused the issue.

    The Travelodge are the occupier however they are not the original business that hired Excel. They trade under the name like a franchise. I have asked Excel for documents showing that they have the authority to pursue claims through the courts but nothing has been forthcoming and it has been over eight weeks now since my letter of the 7th June 2018.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 07-08-2018 at 1:02 PM.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 12th Aug 18, 1:31 AM
    • 122 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Update.

    I sent my rebuttal letter to the PCC on the 7/6/2018 within the timeframe. I requested information which they are required to supply within 30 days. No reply so I sent a second letter. Reply came dated 9/8/2018 which states that they are disappointed that we have not reached an amicable agreement in respect of their LBC and are giving me 14 days notice of their intentions to start court proceedings. None of the requested information has been provided including the authority from the landowner.

    I am not sure whether to just let them do their worst or whether to write back and make a third request for the information. I understand that if my request is not met I can stay any court action until it is provided. Not sure how I would go about this and whether it is worth doing. I have asked them twice for this information and if they have not got the authority from the landowner they will be wasting court time. This has been dragging on for over twelve months.

    I would stay any court action if it is a straightforward process and would not result in the possibility of missing a court deadline. I would like to see if they do come up with authority from the landowner.

    If they do pursue the claim through the courts it's most important that I stay focused on the main issues and defend my case in person and not by papers.

    I am finding it very hard now to remain polite to these people, which is why I am not using email.

    BTW I have been in touch with my MP.


    Thank you.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 12-08-2018 at 2:01 AM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Aug 18, 7:58 AM
    • 8,136 Posts
    • 10,675 Thanks
    beamerguy
    It is a shame that Excel think they are above the law.
    A judge will bring them crashing down to earth for
    non compliance of the new protocol.
    Excel are used to being whooped in court and the
    courts are also aware of their method of business, especially
    wasting the courts time.

    A final letter from you warning them if they do not
    comply with the law and continue to refuse to provide
    the information required, you will advise the court and
    ask for the case to be struck off

    As we know, Excel read this forum so no doubt such
    information will be read before they receive your letter

    Sooner or later one of these so called bright boys
    will have their collar felt by the courts for failure to
    comply with the new protocol and my guess, the first
    one will be Excel
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 12th Aug 18, 11:34 AM
    • 122 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Thank you Beamer. I was thinking along those lines of doing a final letter but that will be my last dialogue with them before they instigate court proceedings.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 12-08-2018 at 12:01 PM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Aug 18, 3:46 PM
    • 8,136 Posts
    • 10,675 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thank you Beamer. I was thinking along those lines of doing a final letter but that will be my last dialogue with them before they instigate court proceedings.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly
    If EXCEL cannot behave themselves, let the court whoop them,
    EXCEL are used to that now anyway
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 12th Aug 18, 4:00 PM
    • 122 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    You know the employees have to pay for parking on the business park. I wonder if they get ticketed? Most of them seem to be on a basic minimum wage the rest being made up by bonus. Says it all really. Once you start bringing in bonus schemes for meeting and exceeding targets you are asking for trouble in this kind of scenario. A number of complaints from employees about equipment and service vehicles breaking down.

    BTW they seem to be dealing with their own litigation now. I have not received anything from a 'low rent' solicitor so perhaps they are distancing themselves after the comments in Parliament about certain solicitors.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 12-08-2018 at 4:04 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Aug 18, 4:20 PM
    • 18,916 Posts
    • 29,789 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    BTW they seem to be dealing with their own litigation now. I have not received anything from a 'low rent' solicitor so perhaps they are distancing themselves after the comments in Parliament about certain solicitors.
    Maybe BW Legal have messed up too many cases, costing them a lot of money? Who knows!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Aug 18, 4:23 PM
    • 36,845 Posts
    • 20,983 Thanks
    Quentin
    You know the employees have to pay for parking on the business park. I wonder if they get ticketed? Most of them seem to be on a basic minimum wage the rest being made up by bonus. Says it all really. Once you start bringing in bonus schemes for meeting and exceeding targets you are asking for trouble in this kind of scenario. A number of complaints from employees about equipment and service vehicles breaking down.

    BTW they seem to be dealing with their own litigation now. I have not received anything from a 'low rent' solicitor so perhaps they are distancing themselves after the comments in Parliament about certain solicitors.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly

    Not unusual for employees to have to pay for parking at work


    Google the nurses parking charges at cardiff for a horrendous example
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,641Posts Today

7,712Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin