PCN - Wells next the sea - All day rate paid for, PCN - Wells next the sea - All day rate paid for |
PCN - Wells next the sea - All day rate paid for, PCN - Wells next the sea - All day rate paid for |
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 09:39
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,007 |
Hi
I have already made the first appeal which was unsuccessful but wondering if i even have a chance of POPLA over turning it or if i should just take my medicine and the £60 hit. So the details are as follows: - The driver entered the car park and the camera clocked the driver in - Took the driver about 6 minutes to find a space and then get into it (not the best bay but the driver took it because not much else available) - Went to machine and go to pay but didnt have the £4.50 required - Girlfriend went to get change from a tenner and i have a scrounge around in my car for coins - Girlfriend comes back and i pay for the ticket. Now i am not sure if i am just being bias as im not sure if the driver really done anything wrong here/too blind to see it. The parking charge is a single daily rate of £4.50 and nothing else. If you are there from 9am-10am it is £4.50, if you are there from 9am to 10pm it is £4.50. So regardless of the fact that i did not pay for my ticket within the 10 minute window (which is stated on the PCN) i don't see what difference it makes, i have still payed exactly the same amount as i would have done if the driver left the car park, got change and then re-entered. Alternatively, what does the car park miss out on by me paying after 20 minutes instead of 10, they still got my £4.50 and i didnt gain any advantage by waiting an extra 10 minutes as its £4.50 regardless! I kept my ticket and have a picture of it, not sure if it is of any use besides proving i paid for a ticket (albeit outside of the 10 minute window) I really dont understand the rational here but would be grateful if anyone could tell me to bother formally appealing or just stop whinging and pay my £60 and forget about it but as it stands i really dont think the driver deserves to be charged in this case. I would get it if i came back in 20 minutes and paid for an hourly rate as i would have essentially stolen free time from the car park, but in this case no matter when i arrive or left i would be paying the same (did i mention it was £4.50?) Thanks for reading and any comments would be appreciated. Thanks This post has been edited by pringles: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 11:53 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 09:39
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 09:46
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
This seems like a Private Parking Ticket
I've asked mods to move to correct forum. |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 10:04
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,007 |
oops, apologies
Thanks for your help |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 11:12
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
The rationale behind them charging you regardless of the fact you would have paid £4.50 at any time, is that they rely on these charges (the 'fines' - even though technically they aren't actually fines) for their revenue, so they will find any way they can to extort money from people.
You need to edit your post so as not to imply who was driving. Simply refer to the driver as 'the driver'. Although did you provide the information as to who was driving in your appeal to them? If so, you've lost a very valuable appeal point. Then tell us who the parking company is. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:16
Post
#5
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,007 |
Thanks Manx, i have edited my post accordingly.
Why should the driver not be implied? I think this information may have been given in the initial appeal. i am not sure who the parking company is. I have a letter saying the driver was parked at "port of well car park, the quay, well-next-the-sea, NR23 1AT. Another letter saying the appeal was unsuccessful was from Civil Enforcement Ltd. Many thanks |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:27
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 19 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,509 |
Thanks Manx, i have edited my post accordingly. Why should the driver not be implied? I think this information may have been given in the initial appeal. i am not sure who the parking company is. I have a letter saying the driver was parked at "port of well car park, the quay, well-next-the-sea, NR23 1AT. Another letter saying the appeal was unsuccessful was from Civil Enforcement Ltd. Many thanks Looking at the images available on Street View, the signage suggests that the car park is operated by Wells Harbour Commissioners. I can't get at the signage by the ticket machine, but the sign at the entrance makes no warning about fines: https://goo.gl/maps/hctdjWHAykt Likewise, from what I can see from the road, there doesn't appear to be any signage in the car park itself other than by the machine. This post has been edited by uefacup81: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:29 |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:51
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 262 Joined: 7 Sep 2013 Member No.: 65,032 |
Why should the driver not be implied? I think this information may have been given in the initial appeal. You don't disclose the identity of the driver so they have to rely on abiding with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act which enables them to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. Many times they do not meet the requirements. |
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 13:58
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Is it within an area covered by byelaws?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1440/made If so, no RK liability under PoFA, not relevant land. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 14:13
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
OK it is CEL trying to enforce. That sign at the entrance says, as you said, £4.50 per day therefore you are not in any breach of the conditions. It is the harbour commissioner offering the contract that you accepted and not CEL. Where are the CEL signs, if any? As a consumer you are entitled to use the conditions most advantageous to you. If you haven't identified the driver then there can be no claim against the keeper because it is not relevant land.
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 14:31
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Is it within an area covered by byelaws? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1440/made If so, no RK liability under PoFA, not relevant land. Having been to Wells-Next-The-Sea before and if it's the car park I'm thinking about, this is what I was going towards. I suspect there is a risk that the driver was outed in the initial appeal but can the OP confirm this is the case or not? -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 14:55
Post
#11
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,007 |
Hi Manx,
i think that may be the case, terms such as 'the driver' were not used in the initial appeal and it was written from a first person perspective Is there any point in proceeding or was the PoFa the only saviour here? Does common sense count for nothing in these cases and the formal appeal will also be unsuccessful based on an honest account of events? I definitely recall a sign saying pay within 10 minutes so it sounds like the driver is done for! Cheers |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:29 |