PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private Car Park, PCN for parking in a private spot of interview
tomtomtom
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171



My mrs had a job interview and parked on the company's car park. The sign said that it was private parking, but she was told that this would be okay as long as once at reception she entered our registration num into a particular ipad. Prior to signing in the car, she was distracted by events relating to the interview and didn't get chance to sign in, then forgot she hadn't once the interview was over, and just drove off. Now we've received a PCN (from Civil Enforcement Ltd, a private parking company who doubtlessly won't be sympathetic). We rang the receptionist of the company she had an interview with, but she said we had to deal directly with Civil Enforcement Ltd. Any thoughts on our next move?

This post has been edited by tomtomtom: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 11)
Advertisement
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 14:51
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,287
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Post up the PCN received and if possible some pictures of the signs. Or give us the location and Google street maps can be referred to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 02:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171



The address is: Helly Hansen watersports centre, The Quays, Salford. I will post a picture of the PCN later when I get a better camera. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 08:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,287
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Is this the place?

The onmly sign I can see looks as though it says something like "authorised parking" or similar. I can't quite read it. I'm afraid you may have to go down there and take some photos of th signs. Did she go through the barrier?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 09:25
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171







Yes, she went through the barrier.

(Will go take a photo, not sure exactly when I can get down there, Wednesday at the latest but hopefully well in advance of that, thanks for helping)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 10:18
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,287
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Sorry to keep asking questions. Did the barrier raise for her, ie did she puch a button and someone raised the barrier.

The alleged breach was "Permit Holders Only" so those signs could be saying permit holders only and not odffering a contract to park for non permit holders. To claim otherwise is perverse. Yes, please get hold of pictures of the signs.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 06:16
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171









Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 08:34
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,287
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So the first sign says "Centre Users Only" , the Mrs was and therefore permitted to park.

Second sign said "Permit Holders Only" and made no offer to non permit holders. Only claim would be from the landholder for nominal trespass

Third sign contains instructions that were not on the other signs.

You could claim that if the barrier was initially closed and it was raised for your wife to enter then that is their permition for your wife to park.

As a consumer when there are conflicting signs then you you are entitled to use the most advantageous to you.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 16:09
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171



Thanks ostell. From what I can gather the barrier remains open throughout the working day. Certainly it was open when she arrived, so wasn't specifically raised for her. With this in mind, if the law is that a consumer is entitled to use the most advantageous sign (in this case 'For Centre Users only', which clearly she was) is it not enough to simply prove she was a centre user without any mention of the barrier being initially closed? And if so, is there a specific rule in law that she can quote? thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 19:35
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171



https://imageshack.com/i/plLpdkmjj

The mrs and I have been away on holiday visiting relatives for a couple of weeks and returned late last night, to the usual stack of letters. Today we opened a few, one of which was addressed to her ...it was an identical PCN to the one I original posted here, the only difference being that this time it was addressed to her not me. We just assumed that this was because when we appealed it online and gave the full account (she had a job interview at that building, so assumed she could park there because the first sign said she could). We responded to that ticket online before opening any other letters, assuming they were just following procedures the way the police do when you've been speeding (name first before they ask if you want to plead guilty), echoing our first response. It was only then that we opened more letters, which included the one I've just posted. Firstly, have we just appealed the decision and won't be given another go? Secondly, if not, how do we respond to this new letter? Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 20:01
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,800
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You've made the schoolboy error of telling the company who was driving
That's the one thing you must never do

If CEL has treated your letter as a driver-naming exercise and not an appeal, by definition your wife can appeal

The appeal will fail
So will the subsequent independent appeal to POPLA unless she's very fortunate with an argument about the inconspicuous £100 on the signs

The strategy where CEL is concerned is to ignore the letter chain from debt collectors and solicitors
Then defend the almost inevitable claim by focussing on the fake additional charges

CEL drops claims rather than explain its actions to a judge

If you had only kept stum about your wife, you could have told CEL where to stuff their extra charges
They can't recover them from the keeper and continuing to demand them from you would have left them in a hopeless position later

This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 20:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tomtomtom
post Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 03:28
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Member No.: 80,171



This has ended positively and the fine was cancelled. The mrs was given the following advice (asking the venue's manager to tell Civil Enforcement she had a right to park, which they did - after a visit and a few reminders, mind). Thanks everyone for your input.

The NTK fails to create ANY liability under the POFA so identifying yourself as driver has done you no harm but CEL won’t care about the niceties of the law and nor will POPLA. Did you get the job? If not then you have nothing to lose by having a go at the management of the leisure centre for failing to enter your details for you when you enquired at the desk. As far as contracts with CEL go, you were a user so any other bits don’t count, you were invited to be there and the reception offered terms that were superior to the signage as far as contracts go so CEL are on to a loser in the long run. I would be asking the senior manager at the place to intercede and make it clear that reception gave you the duff info when you asked so they carry the liability for getting CEL to cancel as you followed THEIR instruction. If they still won’t play ball then unusually I would suggest an appeal to POPLA, not because they will make the right decision but because it will cost CEL and they may decide not to fight the appeal anyways. Getting the place you visited to kick CEL is the main thing here. Anyways I bet that the landowner didn’t sign anything but some lesser management and that will undo CEL's authority to be there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Tuesday, 20th August 2019 - 13:37
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.