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
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 7th Dec 17, 1:05 AM
    • 7Posts
    • 5Thanks
    TrimbL315
    Parking Solutions 24 - appeal refused
    • #1
    • 7th Dec 17, 1:05 AM
    Parking Solutions 24 - appeal refused 7th Dec 17 at 1:05 AM
    Hi all

    Looking for some advice on a recent parking fine. I recently received a PCN whilst parked outside my University from company ParkingSolutions24, despite the fact that I’d paid for and displayed a ticket, and was still well within the time paid for. I realised that as I’d closed my car door the ticket had been blown down onto the passenger seat, but was still clearly visible. Anyway, I appealed the decision through the company and unsurprisingly it was refused, so I am now at the stage of going to POPLA so was wondering if there is any advice as to how I should go about this, before I send off the appeal. Incidentally, the refusal notice came from a company named PCN Parking Solutions and not ParkingSolutions 24 who issued the fine. I also have dash cam footage of the ticket being blown from the windscreen, which the parking company were not interested in. Another issue I have is that according to the wording of the invoice which was stuck to my windscreen my breach of contract was ‘No P&D Ticket’, I did (and still do) have a ticket so can I argue that I have not actually breached the contract? at no point does it mention that I had failed to display a ticket. Any help with this will be greatly appreciated

    Thanks
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Dec 17, 1:49 AM
    • 7,216 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 1:49 AM
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 1:49 AM
    Your best bet is to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread.

    That post is full of good ideas on how to win at PoPLA.

    Have you already admitted to the PPC that you are the driver?

    If not, you would be best advised to remove all clues as to the driver's identity from your post above.

    Have a look here to see what you are up against:

    You will see that they have not yet taken anyone to court - but of course that may change.
    .
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 7th Dec 17, 9:05 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:05 AM
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:05 AM
    Thank you for your response.Yes I made the mistake of admitting to being the driver in my initial appeal, should have done more research first . Someone I know has been booked on this car park before and has never heard anything beyond the standard threat letters. Thanks for the info on court hearings, very useful
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 21st Dec 17, 5:36 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315
    • #4
    • 21st Dec 17, 5:36 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Dec 17, 5:36 PM
    So after reading the Newbies forum, and researching numerous similar ticket fluttering stories on the forums, I have drafted up the letter which I intend to send off to POPLA.

    As mentioned previously, I have already referred to myself as the driver in my initial appeal, hence I have continued this within my POPLA appeal letter.

    Any pointers regarding this response, i.e. anything to add, remove or restructure, will be greatly appreciated, I will also attempt to upload the images I refer to within the letter to the forums, as the response is heavily focused around these images.

    POPLA Appeal

    Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXX
    PCN Reference: XXXXXXXX
    POPLA Code: XXXXXXXX
    Issuer: Parking Solutions 24 Limited

    As the driver of the above-named vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge issued by Parking Solutions 24 Limited. I appeal against the charge on the following grounds:
    1) A valid ticket was paid for and placed inside the vehicle
    2) Signage was inadequate, therefore a valid contract was not formed
    3) The alleged contravention listed on the parking invoice, did not occur
    4) Photographs taken as evidence by ParkingSolutions24 are unclear and illegible

    1) A valid ticket was paid for and placed inside the vehicle
    A valid ticket was purchased on 23/11/2017 for a total duration of six hours between 8:54 and 14:54, please see attached ‘Image 1’ of this ticket. This ticket was displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle, however as the driver’s door was closed, the ticket was blown from the dashboard onto the front passenger seat, face-upwards. Please refer to the first piece of attached dashboard camera footage, in which the sound of the door closing is clearly audible, followed by the ticket leaving the dashboard, as can be seen in the upper right-hand corner of the footage. Upon my return to the vehicle, I discovered a PCN affixed to the windscreen, and noticed that the ticket had been blown onto the front passenger seat, the ticket was then promptly replaced on the dashboard, please refer to the second piece of dashboard camera footage for evidence of this. The parking charge which I had received was for £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, this was not the contract which I had believed I had entered into, bringing me to my second point.

    2) Signage was inadequate, therefore a valid contract was not formed
    Upon receipt of my PCN, I was directed to an online page containing the evidence images collected by the ParkingSolutions24 enforcement officer, further details of these images will be discussed later. One image taken by the enforcement officer shows the alleged contractual agreement set out between the driver and ParkingSolutions24 when using this car park, please refer to attached ‘Image 2’, however this image does not show the sign’s actual location relative to where my vehicle was parked. Please note my own image (Image 3) which shows the exact location of this sign (highlighted in red), as referenced by the large brick structure behind, visible in both images. This sign is in fact located well above eye-level on a lamp post, and is not easily readable when parking or exiting the vehicle, therefore it does not comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Section 18.3 which states that signs must be ‘easy to see, read and understand.’
    The most prominent and largest sign within this car park is located next to the parking meter, it was this sign which was seen and noted upon the arrival at the car park. Please refer to the attached ‘Image 4’ of this sign, it is also inadequate and misleading. According to the contract set out on this sign, ‘A £60 parking charge notice will be issued to any vehicle which fails to display a valid pay and display ticket’, the exact contravention which I believe to have occurred in this case. There is no mention within this contract of an increase from £60 to £100 if the charge is not paid within 14 days, £100 is the current amount demanded from myself by ParkingSolutions24. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Solutions 24 Limited did not provide the site with adequate signage as to the full terms and conditions of the charges applicable to a breach of the parking contract, as the charges listed on their signs do not reflect those issued to me in the PCN, whilst the outline of the contract itself is also inadequate on the most prominent sign.

    3) The alleged contravention listed on the parking invoice, did not occur
    By referring to the attached image of the PCN received by my vehicle (Image 5), it can be seen that the ‘Reason’ for which my vehicle has been issued with the PCN is ‘No P&D Ticket.’ However, this reason is inaccurate, as I have already outlined in my first point, I was in possession of a Pay and Display Ticket which was placed on the inside of the vehicle. The failure ‘to display’ a ticket is outlined on the car park signage as a breach which will result in a PCN being issued, this is the breach of contract which I believe occurred. However, the PCN does not reflect this, and lists the reason for it’s issue as ‘NO P&D Ticket’, which is incorrect. As a result, I contest that I owe the PCN which has been issued, as the breach of contract which is listed did not occur.

    4) Photographs taken by ParkingSolutions24 are unclear and illegible
    Of the images taken by the ParkingSolutions24 enforcement officer, very few are of a good quality and do not give a clear view of the interior of my vehicle. According to BPA Code of Practice Section 20.5, ‘All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible’, however many of these images fail to meet this standard and suffer from glare and overall poor quality. Referring to the first image taken by the enforcement officer(Image 6), this image showing my vehicle dashboard is of very poor image quality, demonstrated by the fact that the words ‘parking charge notice’ written on the PCN attached to my vehicle are completely illegible.
    The second attached image (7) taken by the enforcement officer once again attempts to show the dashboard of my vehicle. However, in this image, the dashboard of the vehicle is completely obscured as a result of the glare on the windscreen of the building adjacent to my vehicle, meaning that once again a clear picture of the interior of my vehicle is not represented. Further images taken are of the same poor quality, and do not conform to the standards set out in BPA Section 20.5, as a result of this lack of clear imagery, the displaced ticket on the passenger seat of my vehicle cannot be seen.

    This concludes my POPLA appeal
    Yours Faithfully
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Dec 17, 8:37 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,078 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 21st Dec 17, 8:37 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Dec 17, 8:37 PM
    What about the usual long template points in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread, with pictures? The idea is to hit them with such a detailed appeal that the PPC give up.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 22nd Dec 17, 12:37 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315
    • #6
    • 22nd Dec 17, 12:37 PM
    • #6
    • 22nd Dec 17, 12:37 PM
    Thank you, there are some very useful points in these templates which I will now incorporate into my letter. However, with regards to the NTK point, it has not yet been 56 days since the contravention occured, and I only have 5 more days to appeal at POPLA since I cocked up with the time I appealed, so I presume that I cannot use this as a point?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 22nd Dec 17, 12:44 PM
    • 36,633 Posts
    • 82,984 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #7
    • 22nd Dec 17, 12:44 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Dec 17, 12:44 PM
    The 56 days is irrelevant, and you won't get a NTK as you admitted to being the driver.

    Do use all of the long signage point from the NEWBIES, but embed the images rather than using a web link. That way the assessor will see the images whereas they may not bother to follow the link, or it may not work etcetera.

    For your point 4, state that the images do not prove that there was no ticket displayed. If there is no image of your ticket on the seat, don't mention it being there. State that there is no evidence the ticket was not visible inside the windscreen, and put them to strict proof that it was otherwise. What do the signs say about placement of tickets?

    Include this information about judges comments concerning deliberately unfit for purpose tickets.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/gladstones-pick-link-parkings-pocket.html

    Point out that if the PPC used fit for purpose tickets that would actually stick to the windscreen then there wouldn't be a problem. Parking companies are supposed to mitigate their loss but have failed to do so in this instance by deliberately using inferior type tickets.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 22-12-2017 at 12:55 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 22nd Dec 17, 4:02 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315
    • #8
    • 22nd Dec 17, 4:02 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Dec 17, 4:02 PM
    Thank you for your advice, I'll edit the letter again. With regards to the signs, the info about displaying tickets is fairly sparse, this is what the boldly written conditions are on the small signs which are barely noticeable, everything else on these signs is small print:
    'VEHICLES DISPLAYING A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET WHILST PARKED IN A DESIGNATED BAY'

    On the other sign which is beside the parking it simply says:

    A £60 parking charge notice will be issued to any vehicle which: fail to display a pay and display ticket
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 12th Jan 18, 9:40 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 9:40 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 9:40 AM
    SUCCESS


    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

    Parking Solutions 24 have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely
    POPLA Team

    After almost three weeks of dragging their heels with POPLA, the parking company have given up. To anyone who receives a PCN from this so called company, I would suggest completely ignoring it, as I should have initially. Having since spoken to others who have been booked by these idiots, they never take it further than the threat letters stage, as reflected in their 0% Court Hearings Record. Thank you to all those who have assisted me on the forums throughout this appeal
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 12th Jan 18, 9:55 AM
    • 560 Posts
    • 653 Thanks
    claxtome
    Great another successful POPLA appeal
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Jan 18, 10:39 AM
    • 17,615 Posts
    • 27,826 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    To anyone who receives a PCN from this so called company, I would suggest completely ignoring it, as I should have initially.
    Well done on getting shut of this, as that is what you have done, it’s gone, completely.

    If you’d have ignored it, you would have had the aggravation of months of debt collector letters (ignorable, a nuisance, but frightening for many people) and at any time in the following six years you would be wide open for legal proceedings to be served. You might be comfortable with it, but many who come here are often worried about the prospect of a ‘Sword of Damocles’.

    they never take it further than the threat letters stage, as reflected in their 0% Court Hearings Record.
    Until around 4 years ago, almost every PPC had a 0% Court Hearings Record - including ParkingEye, who, within 12 months were issuing 25,000 - 30,000 court proceedings a year. And right now, there are some of the bottom feeders reeling in old ‘ignore’ cases from late 2012 as a last chance saloon bid to get payment by issuing court claims.

    Our advice since 2012 is not to ignore a PPC (unless you understand and are prepared to take the risks) but to engage in the process of appeal, especially BPA members where, via POPLA, there’s every chance of killing it - for good.
    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.
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 12th Jan 18, 11:18 AM
    • 2,616 Posts
    • 3,270 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    well done ....

    can you please take a few mins ... to read through and visit the link below ....

    this is a forum campaign to help prevent abuse like you have suffered ...




    Call for Action - submit evidence of private parking rip-offs Which? Magazine now! WHICH are asking again for consumer problems

    https://whichcouk.bsd.net/page/s/which-taking-on-2018

    Which are pretty good at hitting the government with
    consumer problems.
    No harm in them hearing from you, I have done it for
    the great parking scam and their dodgly solicitors

    Only takes a couple of mins



    Ralph
    • TrimbL315
    • By TrimbL315 14th Jan 18, 3:12 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    TrimbL315

    Until around 4 years ago, almost every PPC had a 0% Court Hearings Record - including ParkingEye, who, within 12 months were issuing 25,000 - 30,000 court proceedings a year. And right now, there are some of the bottom feeders reeling in old ‘ignore’ cases from late 2012 as a last chance saloon bid to get payment by issuing court claims.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Interesting, I had no idea that the scumbags had now resorted to dredging up old cases. Like I said I know people who have previously been ticketed here and have simply ignored it, here's hoping they don't fall foul to this new tactic.
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

2,155Posts Today

7,626Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin