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
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Dec 18, 6:14 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 5Thanks
    jaytee69
    Covered Terms on Sign
    • #1
    • 13th Dec 18, 6:14 PM
    Covered Terms on Sign 13th Dec 18 at 6:14 PM
    Hi all,

    Appeal has been sent over to ECP, with thanks to the template you've provided. Going through evidence, there's a printed sheet of new tariffs covering the small print. I'm guessing this is very naughty on ECPs behalf and will be in favour of the consumer?
    Just to add, this was noticed on a number of signs on the site.

    Kind regards
    J
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Dec 18, 7:12 PM
    • 12,139 Posts
    • 12,887 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:12 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:12 PM
    Take pictures of those signs now before they have a chance to change them. Those pictures may come in handy later.
    .
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Dec 18, 7:24 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    • #3
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:24 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:24 PM
    Thanks Keith.
    Photos have been taken.

    Here's an example of one that was seen.
    I've had to masquerade the URL due to restrictions on the forum.

    hxxps://i.imgur.com/JazocIv.jpg
    • peter_the_piper
    • By peter_the_piper 13th Dec 18, 7:27 PM
    • 26,659 Posts
    • 36,417 Thanks
    peter_the_piper
    • #4
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:27 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:27 PM
    How on earth do they expect people to see this addition?
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    • 12,139 Posts
    • 12,887 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    http://i.imgur.com/JazocIv.jpg

    Yes, definitely a useful picture.

    There is no way anyone can possibly agree with those Terms & Conditions that are covered by that other notice.
    .
    • daveyjp
    • By daveyjp 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    • 7,828 Posts
    • 6,401 Thanks
    daveyjp
    • #6
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:29 PM
    https://i.imgur.com/JazocIv.jpg
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Dec 18, 7:38 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    • #7
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:38 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Dec 18, 7:38 PM
    Thank you very much all.
    The driver insists they'll be staying on the competitors car park in future, which is a barrier entry and exit car park.
    Additionally it was a 20 minute overstay as cross checked via the ANPR and window ticket.
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 11th Jan 19, 10:11 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    • #8
    • 11th Jan 19, 10:11 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jan 19, 10:11 PM
    Hello again,

    Appeal was rejected this week and POPLA code now given.
    Keeper has been shown a sign in lieu of the paper covering the ant sized terms, so the keeper will use this in the appeal.
    Going by researching other threads, it appears that the £100 penalty notice is also not clear enough versus the rest of the text, is that still true in this case?

    ECPs PDF attached to the appeal included CCTV images of the driver entering and leaving the car park albeit very blurry in entrance image. Exit image is clear however.
    Timestamps attached to each image.

    This is what ECP has stated:

    The car park is operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Cameras capture an image of vehicles entering and leaving the car park and calculate their length of stay on site.

    Signage is clear drivers must purchase a valid pay and display ticket for the full duration of their stay.

    A pay and display ticket matching your vehicle registration was purchased for £xxx - this would have entitled your vehicle to park for up to X Hours according to the clearly displayed tariff.

    Your vehicle entered at X and exited at xxxx, a total stay of X hours and XX minutes.

    The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking and therefore the notice has been issued correctly and will remain payable.

    The keeper will start writing an appeal in due course.

    Thanks all
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 11th Jan 19, 10:56 PM
    • 38,579 Posts
    • 86,486 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #9
    • 11th Jan 19, 10:56 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jan 19, 10:56 PM
    Do you have any images of the signs but without the stuck on notice that probably fell off due to inclement weather, *cough* as well as an image of the full sign so we can see what it actually says.

    Inadequate signage would include the charge buried in small print.

    It wouldn't hurt to show us the NTK/ANPR images, suitably redacted.

    Use as many template appeal points from post 3 of the NEWBIES that are relevant.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 11-01-2019 at 10:59 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
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 11th Jan 19, 11:32 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Thanks for getting back to me.

    There's the full sign as supplied in the document from ECP. Would that be okay to post, or too risky?
    It would be possible to get a non ECP taken copy of the sign, but will need to ask someone on keeper's behalf (carpark not local, but local to someone they know).

    Images from ANPR
    hxxps://i.imgur.com/DwZFIbj.jpg

    NTK
    hxxps://i.imgur.com/EiGEnZL.jpg

    Many thanks again
    Last edited by jaytee69; 11-01-2019 at 11:47 PM.
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Jan 19, 9:41 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Hello again,

    Sorry I've not had chance to draft an appeal yet due to the flu striking me this weekend.
    I've been researching and can immediately see that I should be able to argue on the sign, as well as landowner authority?
    Is there anything else that jumps out as being meaningful in this case?

    Many thanks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Jan 19, 9:50 AM
    • 11,540 Posts
    • 11,625 Thanks
    The Deep
    The small print at the bottom surely could not form part of a contract, it is too wordy and too small, read this

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/motorist-wins-18-month-ticket-battle-870812
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Jan 19, 10:13 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Very interesting article!
    So not only is it too small, it's also covered so there's definitely no way that an agreement could be made.
    I presume the £100 is too small as well as it's not prominent versus the parking charges which are bold and of a larger font size.
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Jan 19, 10:54 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Some fresh photos have been taken today.
    It appears that they still have paper covering the terms albeit one of the papers have shifted position.
    The photo that ECP provided had no paper at all.

    hxxps://i.imgur.com/2HmAJjL.jpg
    Last edited by jaytee69; 13-01-2019 at 10:56 AM.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 13th Jan 19, 10:56 AM
    • 3,735 Posts
    • 2,797 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    Your link made live: -

    https://i.imgur.com/2HmAJjL.jpg
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Jan 19, 12:04 PM
    • 11,540 Posts
    • 11,625 Thanks
    The Deep
    I presume the £100 is too small as well as it's not prominent versus the parking charges which are bold and of a larger font size.

    I agree, I suggest that you complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

    Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

    Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

    All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Jan 19, 1:31 PM
    • 38,579 Posts
    • 86,486 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Thanks for getting back to me.

    There's the full sign as supplied in the document from ECP. Would that be okay to post, or too risky?
    It would be possible to get a non ECP taken copy of the sign, but will need to ask someone on keeper's behalf (carpark not local, but local to someone they know).

    Images from ANPR
    hxxps://i.imgur.com/DwZFIbj.jpg

    NTK
    hxxps://i.imgur.com/EiGEnZL.jpg

    Many thanks again
    Originally posted by jaytee69
    Images from ANPR
    https://i.imgur.com/DwZFIbj.jpg

    NTK
    https://i.imgur.com/EiGEnZL.jpg

    Compare the wording of the NTK with the wording in the PoFA 2012 to see if it complies with the strict requirements.

    You should get your own pics of the signs if possible. With regard to the one in your previous post, it is pretty damning having the new charges stuck on with a bit o laminated paper. I would also be querying when the previous charges were amended. It is quite possible that an operative modified the sign with the bit pop-riveted on after the Driver had parked. You want then to prove it was like it on the day of the alleged event.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 13-01-2019 at 1:38 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
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 13th Jan 19, 8:33 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Thank you both.
    Will fire a message off to my MP tomorrow.

    Fresh photos of the signs were taken today.
    Two sets, one of which is a night time capture of the signs which resembles the time of parking (and was taken many weeks ago) The second set includes one that was shown recently in this post, but daylight (taken today). Both sets have the laminate, with the dark photos having the laminate in a central position and covering terms. The latter being one in the centre and one on the side, but still covering terms in both.
    ECP provided a photo in daylight, but with no laminate to be seen (naughty!)

    In light of your feedback, I'll aim to get a rough draft completed by tomorrow and will share it with you all.
    • jaytee69
    • By jaytee69 14th Jan 19, 1:13 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    jaytee69
    Just thought I'd mention this too;
    There are no signs that can be clearly made outside of the site, so to read any of the signs you do have to drive onto the property, as you are unable to park up beforehand due to double yellows, plus it's a very busy road at all times of day due to train station pickup/departure.

    Will this be of help if I include this in my POPLA appeal?



    Image is taken from Google StreetView (slightly old as it's been resurfaced since)
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 14th Jan 19, 1:40 PM
    • 38,579 Posts
    • 86,486 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I would take pics amongst other things as if a motorist was approaching from the right. They wouldn't see the P & D sign or the others on the same pole as they would be on the back of the signs from the driver's perspective.

    Immediately on entry the driver needs to turn right, so wouldn't be looking anywhere other than where they were going.

    All these things, plus the problems with the laminate notice, that could have been put there by anyone, need pointing out.
    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
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

765Posts Today

6,947Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's twitter poll: Should motorists be taxed more or less? It has been reported 10 councils are considering work? https://t.co/anFmUlSTYz

  • Yes MONSOON IS WRONG. Even with sales items you've 14 days to notify of returns & 14 days after that to return 'em? https://t.co/ZCBrcy3pe7

  • RT @paullewismoney: People who were students 1990-97 are being offered the chance to pay off half their unpaid student loan and the other h?

  • Follow Martin