PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN for not buying ticket quickly enough in an ANPR car park
Ian P
post Mon, 5 Dec 2016 - 20:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Hi All,

I have been issued with a PCN by Premier Parking Solutions in Paignton. According to the ANPR camera I entered the car park at 11.24 but did not purchase a ticket until 11.43. The ticket was valid until 13.43 however I left the car park 45 minutes before expiry at 12.58.

I appealed the ticket however they are saying they allow a 10 minute grace period and it took 19 minutes to park and buy a ticket and have declined the appeal. For what it's worth I was actually ill after having been up all night with a sickness bug. Ironically, if they'd had a parking attendant he would have quite clearly seen this, however, I quite obviously can't now prove this fact!

I've been back to the car park since and taken photographs of all the signage - nowhere does it state anything about a 10 minute grace period before purchasing a ticket however from what I've read this is now standard practice by law which concerns me as I now feel like I "should have known"

They've offered me another opportunity to appeal via the quite pointless IAS route which I am not going to respond to. I have however written to them stating that I don't feel they have a case. I have my original parking ticket stating all the times in and out and time of purchase

Do I have any chance of winning an appeal?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 5 Dec 2016 - 20:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 08:22
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So you appear to have complied with all the meaningful conditions (noting that 1 and 12 in combination with payment by Ringo are contradictory).

Possible £750 DPA claim you have there.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:29
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 07:27) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 19:22) *
Condition number 12 seems to cover the OP quite nicely
QUOTE
12. FULL PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING SITE


They have evidence of him leaving site?

My interpretation of Condition 12 is that leaving the site refers to the vehicle not the driver.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:38
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 13:05) *
The parking companies use whichever interpretation suits them

ParkingEye argues (successfully) at POPLA that the ticket expires one hour after entry and not at the expiry time printed on it
I'm dealing with a claim at the moment where they're using this argument

If sure they do.

However, if a contract cannot be formed until an offer is made (and subsequently accepted), there is no logical possibility of the parking time beginning upon entry (abesent explicit language to that effect in the contractual terms). The driver must first enter, park and at least have the opportunity to read the terms of the offer.

In the context of this case, the PPC's argument is that, whilst the OP did purchase a ticket eventually, he did so after having already breached the contract. So the time printed on the ticket is irrelevant, as is the duration the vehicle was actually parked. The "grace period" is not law; it is simply the best way the parking operators' associations have determined to account for the necessary delay between entry into an ANPR-controlled car park and the motorist's interraction with the parking ticket machine/finding and leaving a parking space. In some cases, 10 mins will be enough to do this, but at other times (e.g., when the car park is full or busy) it will not.

The question is one of fact: did the OP have the opportunity to read and agree to the terms of the offer? The PPC will argue that 29 minutes was sufficient for this to occur. The OP will argue that, in this case, it was insufficient, due to circumstances beyond his control (did he mention his illness in his first appeal--if not, why not?), so he did not enter into a contract until he purchased a ticket at 11:43. It is impossible to say how a judge would view these facts. The fact that the OP did purchase a ticket and left well prior to its expiry could be enough to help a judge to decide that his account of incapacity was credible. But court is always a bit of a crap shoot.

A reasonable operator would, of course, take note of the circumstances and cancel the ticket, but PPCs are in a "special" class.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 10:14
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:38) *
But court is always a bit of a crap shoot.

A reasonable operator would, of course, take note of the circumstances and cancel the ticket, but PPCs are in a "special" class.

Indeed - an unfortunately this lot do take the occasional shot.

A reasonable operator would indeed cancel the ticket in the circumstances but nowadays (definitely pre-DCLG announcement) are grabbing everything they can.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:38) *
The PPC will argue that 29 minutes was sufficient for this to occur.

Fortunately (?) it was only 19 minutes. But what's 'reasonable'?

It can be argued that any contract wasn't formed (and the OP was using a licence and potentially 'trespassing' as I stated earlier) but alternatively if it could be argued that a contract was formed by conduct (parking) as they had the opportunity to read the many and visible signs etc. If so, then perhaps frustration comes into play?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 10:41
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



If the OP paid 80p & the vehicle was on site for under an hour then there was no breach of contract. The only condition of the contract on the time of payment is that it must be made before leaving the site. When the system is monitored by ANPR cameras it doesn't matter when payment is made as long as it is made while the vehicle is on site & payment can be matched up with entry & exit.

If the system is monitored by a parking attendant issuing windscreen tickets rather than ANPR cameras it makes sense that payment & display of the ticket should be as soon as is practical after arrival so the attendant can confirm whether payment has been made before issuing a ticket. With ANPR there is no such need. If the PPC want to enforce a condition that payment be made with 10 minutes of arrival in order to catch out motorists & generate income then they must explicitly state the condition on their signs.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 11:16
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Clause 1 says 'all vehicles must display a valid ticket or permit in the front windscreen or on the vehicle's dash board at all times'.

Clearly impossible and contradicts with the clause 12. And indeed what's 'leaving the site'? The driver or the vehicle?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 12:23
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Indeed, however the OP has pointed out that with respect to condition 12 neither left site, so its an irrelevance which interpretation you use.

As the site uses Ringo, its an physical impossibility anyway and it's contradicted by condition 12, condition 1 is a nullity.

So the OP breached no conditions.



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 19:15
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Thanks for all your help so far everyone. I'll let you know how this progresses.

In the meantime if anyone comes up with any more ideas or tips please let me know

Best wishes

IP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 19:16
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 10:14) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:38) *
But court is always a bit of a crap shoot.

A reasonable operator would, of course, take note of the circumstances and cancel the ticket, but PPCs are in a "special" class.

Indeed - an unfortunately this lot do take the occasional shot.

A reasonable operator would indeed cancel the ticket in the circumstances but nowadays (definitely pre-DCLG announcement) are grabbing everything they can.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 09:38) *
The PPC will argue that 29 minutes was sufficient for this to occur.

Fortunately (?) it was only 19 minutes. But what's 'reasonable'?

It can be argued that any contract wasn't formed (and the OP was using a licence and potentially 'trespassing' as I stated earlier) but alternatively if it could be argued that a contract was formed by conduct (parking) as they had the opportunity to read the many and visible signs etc. If so, then perhaps frustration comes into play?

Apologies, yes, I meant 19 minutes. Frustration is not often relied upon, as it depends on a court setting aside an otherwise valid contract. But I don't see that the purpose of the contract had been frustrated, in that the OP did actually park and complete his shopping trip. But it might be something he could raise as well.

I don't see why conditions 1 and 12 are necessarily contradictory; compliance with 1 would mean compliance with 12. But 12 is ambiguous and its purpose is unclear. I suspect a court would ignore it, rather than throw out the entire case because of its presence. As we already know, the OP was not misled in any way--he bought and displayed a ticket.

Given the facts establishing that the OP did everything right, apart from the "excessive" 9 minutes spent dealing with health issues beyond his control, if the OP is a credible witness I think any PPC appearing in court on this would have a very rough time of it.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 20:03
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 19:16) *
I think any PPC appearing in court on this would have a very rough time of it.

I agree, but we do see some wacky judgments...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 20:09
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Thanks for the response Churchmouse.

I was actually in Paignton on business and as I genuinely didn't think I'd be there long, as I always do (ironically so that I don't get a ticket!) I always pay over the odds just in case I'm held up for any reason.

In my initial appeal to PPS I didn't mention that I was ill as I didn't think it relevant due to the fact that I had a valid ticket in my possession and that they'd made a genuine mistake!

I know we can all claim that we "aren't guilty m'lud", but the one thing that I genuinely didn't, and couldn't have, known whilst being in that car park and reading the signs displayed, was that there was a minimum period allowed between parking a car and buying a valid ticket that was going to cost £100 and it is this point that absolutely floors me. I didn't "pop-out" to do some crafty shopping for 20 minutes in the hope that I wouldn't get caught for not buying a ticket, I didn't want to be ill (although as I've already said I cannot prove this fact) and I most certainly didn't intend to deliberately defraud anyone in!

In answer to your question, yes, I would consider myself an extremely credible witness, I am an eloquent professional person who deals with clients on a daily basis plus I'm used to speaking in front of, and with company directors, business owners etc in a calm and polite manner so I would actually see a court appearance as enjoyable (probably the wrong word!) rather than terrifying.

This is absolute madness

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 20:45
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Ian P @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 20:09) *
This is absolute madness

Welcome to the world of private parking. It's all about the benjamins.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 14:32
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Hi All,

I wrote back to PPS on 5th December informing them that I have been back to the site in question, taken photographs of all the relevant signage, would not be taking up their kind offer of using the IAS and that quite frankly they didn't have a leg to stand on. They obviously didn't agree with me as this afternoon I've received the email as detailed below.

What would you suggest my next course of action is now?

"Further to your email received 05/12/2016, we have answered all the salient points regarding this matter in our reply to your first appeal.
As outlined in the letter we sent you dated 29/11/2016, the vehicle was not authorised to park at this site between 11:24am and 11:43am we therefore uphold the Parking Charge Notice, the vehicle was parked on site for 19 minutes before a payment was made for parking on the day in question
As you were previously informed you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure, details of how to appeal further were provided within our reply to your first appeal.
Yours sincerely,
PPS Ltd."

This post has been edited by Ian P: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 14:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 18:44
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



What was your actual wording in your refusal to consider IAS? Did you suggest the alternatives in accordance with ADR regulations?

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 18:45


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:08
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Hi Cabbyman,

My reply (below) after a particularly trying day was a little more succinct and I didn't suggest an alternative but appealed to their better nature which obviously hasn't worked so I'm wondering what to do next

Please note that as the Gladstones Solicitors run IAS don't appear to have
much of a success rate in overturning fraudulent parking charges levied by
dodgy car-parking operators, I would urge you to reconsider your decision
not to cancel the charge

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:32
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Poor wording, Gladstines have a poor success rate in ENFORCING fraudulent parking charges.

However the bigger issue is if it does go to court that will be shown to the judge and doesn't set the right tone.

I would consider an Section ten notice doubling up as an LBA (if they don't cease to chase you) for the DPA breach as that shows you to be a 'strong' case.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:47
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:08) *
Hi Cabbyman,

My reply (below) after a particularly trying day was a little more succinct and I didn't suggest an alternative but appealed to their better nature which obviously hasn't worked so I'm wondering what to do next

Please note that as the Gladstones Solicitors run IAS don't appear to have
much of a success rate in overturning fraudulent parking charges levied by
dodgy car-parking operators, I would urge you to reconsider your decision
not to cancel the charge


Ah, that's a shame; you can't really put that in front of a judge! Nosferatu told you what to put in post #7. It would have made them look unreasonable in the event of a court hearing. Now it makes you look unreasonable!

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:50


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:48
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Hi The Rookie,

I absolutely agree with you regarding the wording and I should have known better but I let my ire get the better of me.

With regards to your last line - how would I go about this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ian P
post Wed, 14 Dec 2016 - 06:19
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,776



Morning all,

I appreciate that I probably messed up with my off the cuff reply to PPS and am suitably embarrassed as you've been very helpful so far. I have now written a reply to their last email which hopefully helps. It states:

"Further to your email of 13th December, please note that I require access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution that meets Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and
Information) Regulations 2015. As previously stated, I reject the IAS as being competent to hear this dispute - it is well known that they fail to meet even the basic requirements of this scheme. I do however suggest that the Ombudsman Service are competent and that given the circumstances I feel that this is a reasonable request.

I have previously stated that the signage in the car-park in question does not mention anywhere that there is a time limit on purchasing a ticket. The fact that you have chosen to use an ANPR system and are now making up your own terms is of no concern of mine.

I will not under any circumstances make any payment to a debt collection company so do not engage them as that will be your wasted costs to bear"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 14 Dec 2016 - 09:31
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:48) *
Hi The Rookie,

I absolutely agree with you regarding the wording and I should have known better but I let my ire get the better of me.

With regards to your last line - how would I go about this?

My initial reaction was, why is he emailing them? Too informal. And too easy to go off half-cocked...

Use post (and proof of postage).

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 19:09
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here