PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Need help with a parking charge notice from Excel
Gouki
post Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 18:32
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



Hi there just wanted to clarify where I stand with this. I received a parking charge notice for £60 from Excel parking. I was parked in Iceland doing shopping there. I received this notice because the contravention was I "parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit." On the letter they have a picture of the car in question entering the car park and half hour later exiting but no picture of the car parked there not showing a ticket being displayed.

I have used this Iceland regularly and never had to buy a parking ticket previously so I am assuming its something that has been recently been introduced.

Although I don't have have my receipt when I paid for my shopping I do have my credit card statement showing that I made a purchase there at that time.

Just want to know where I stand in terms of this. Any advice is appreciated.

Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 18:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Hellfire8
post Fri, 11 Jul 2014 - 19:05
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2 Apr 2014
From: Essex
Member No.: 69,831



They are probably not going to care for any legitimate circumstances but we can help out.

Firstly, DO NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY

When did the contravention occur?
When did you receive the ticket?

you'll do a soft appeal stating your reasons. something like... (Appeal as the keeper, not the driver)

QUOTE
Dear PCN

REF PCN: XXXXXXX

I have received your "Invoice" and reject your invitation to pay said charge.

I deny any contravention to the terms and conditions of parking and the Notice to the keeper does not provide any evidence a contravention took place or a permit was not displayed, it only shows my vehicle entering and exiting the car park.

Should you reject my appeal please provide my with a POPLA code so I can appeal to an independent adjudicator.

Regards


Registered Keeper


Let others confirm but I think this should work, once you have a POPLA code base an appeal on a GEPOL and win.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 06:35
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
I am assuming its something that has been recently been introduced.


Do a simple appeal as the Keeper saying that you are surprised that genuine customers as being treated like this and you demand that they cancel. If you do not cancel, you need a POPLA code so that you can appeal to an independent body.

When you have the code then do a "hard appeal" . See http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 13:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



So to confirm just write a simple appeal to Excel parking and await a response from them and ask for the POPLA code?

Thanks a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 13:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



You shouldn't have to ask for a POPLA code as they must issue one upon appeal rejection...


--------------------
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
Gan
post Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 14:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



They should send it but if you tell (not ask) them to provide the code it sends the message that they're not dealing with a soft target that will cave in when the rejection letter arrives
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Sun, 3 Aug 2014 - 15:38
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



Hi guys just to update what's going on I have received a response back and they rejected the appeal letter I sent as expected. I have been given the POPLA code so any help on how best to form my appeal is appreciated.

The letter from them towards the end, I felt was a little arsey claiming further costs may be incurred if they were to recover the outstanding charge using debt recovery/court action, which I am assuming is not the case?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Sun, 3 Aug 2014 - 16:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Completed case summaries is good hunting ground for winning POPLA appeals http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=17

Post it here for critique before sending, make sure GEPOL is in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 3 Aug 2014 - 17:02
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Gouki @ Sun, 3 Aug 2014 - 16:38) *
The letter from them towards the end, I felt was a little arsey claiming further costs may be incurred if they were to recover the outstanding charge using debt recovery/court action, which I am assuming is not the case?

....because they want you to pay instead of challenging...


--------------------
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
Gouki
post Tue, 5 Aug 2014 - 15:25
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



I need to go back to Iceland to check out the signage and see what is written exactly and the location of the signage etc. and I can then add more to my appeal pending what is on the signage. I have just drafted up the first bit of the appeal so far, thoughts? Anything I need to take out or add at this time?

"Dear POPLA,

I am making an appeal with regards to this charge notice. I have previously used this car park to park my car and to shop at the store.

Previously when parking it there I was not aware of having to pay £1 to park in the car park and consequently had always parked there without ever having to pay for a ticket. I was obviously unaware of this until I received the "invoice" by Excel Parking demanding I should pay £60.

Now I can understand Iceland wanting to stop people from using their car park and then wandering off to do other things and not use their store to make purchases. However I think its unreasonable to have a private company send out threatening letters demanding money from legitimate customers.

While they state the vehicle in question did not have a ticket all that was mentioned in the "invoice" that Excel Parking sent through was the car entering at **** hours and exiting the car park at **** hours. I had mentioned this in my appeal to Excel and their response was "We must advise that the pay & display machine works in conjunction with the ANPR cameras. When a ticket is purchased, the motorist is required to input the full VRM" They claimed they checked their records and couldn't find a match which resembles the VRM." This alleged accusation of "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" isn't valid as it was not mentioned by them in the first invoice letter sent by Excel Parking and all there is in terms of evidence is which they supplied to justify their invoice charge is two photo's one of the car entering and exiting.

Moving on, in the time the car was parked for the duration between the hours mentioned, a purchase was made in store at Iceland for £16.73 as proved by the credit card statement which backs this claim on the day of the alleged contravention.

The charge as mentioned for parking at this particular store costs £1, however Iceland have a policy whereby if you spend £5 or more in store you will be entitled to a refund of £1 which Iceland give back to you in the store.

The £60 parking charge ticket or invoice is an inappropriate amount for the fact that a purchase was made at the store. Iceland refund your £1 ticket when making a purchase in store so what loss has been made? I would like to point out that Excel Parking has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
farmerboy
post Tue, 5 Aug 2014 - 15:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,235
Joined: 8 Nov 2013
From: an alternate dimension
Member No.: 66,580



If you're going to Iceland anyways then I would also go in the store and speak to the manager (not an employee) and ask them why you have received a ticket and as a customer what are going to do about it. Take ticket and bank statement.If they're not particularly cooperative or try to fob you off then raising your voice and reminding them that there's always Lidls may spur them into action.
For more anti parking enforcement fun if you're so inclined you could do this after you've submitted your POPLA appeal so this will cost Excel and they will be told to cancel by Iceland. laugh.gif You could see it as righteous justice.

This post has been edited by farmerboy: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 - 15:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 16:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



QUOTE (farmerboy @ Tue, 5 Aug 2014 - 16:53) *
If you're going to Iceland anyways then I would also go in the store and speak to the manager (not an employee) and ask them why you have received a ticket and as a customer what are going to do about it. Take ticket and bank statement.If they're not particularly cooperative or try to fob you off then raising your voice and reminding them that there's always Lidls may spur them into action.
For more anti parking enforcement fun if you're so inclined you could do this after you've submitted your POPLA appeal so this will cost Excel and they will be told to cancel by Iceland. laugh.gif You could see it as righteous justice.


Probably wouldn't go that far lol. I just want fight my corner with regards to it. sleep.gif

Ok I have just added some more and also got pictures of the signage as well which also doesn't comply correctly.

Also looked at a comparator case whereby POPLA ruled in favour:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82285&st=0

Here is my draft for critique anything that needs to be added or removed/opinions before I submit is appreciated.

Dear POPLA,

I am making an appeal with regards to this charge notice. I have previously used Iceland Car Park in to park my car and to shop at the store.

Previously when parking it there I was not aware of having to pay £1 to park in the car park and consequently had always parked there without ever having to pay for a ticket. I was obviously unaware of this until I received the "invoice" by Excel Parking demanding I should pay £60.

I can understand the Iceland wanting to stop people from using their car park and then wandering off to do other things and not use their store to make purchases and essentially park for nothing. However I think its unreasonable to have a private company send out threatening letters demanding money from legitimate customers.

While they state the vehicle in question did not have a ticket all that was mentioned in the "invoice" that Excel Parking sent through was the car entering at 1159 hours and exiting the car park at 1221 hours. I had mentioned this in my appeal to Excel and their response was "We must advise that the pay & display machine works in conjunction with the ANPR cameras. When a ticket is purchased, the motorist is required to input the full VRM" They claimed they checked their records and couldn't find a match which resembles the VRM." This alleged accusation of "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" isn't valid as it was not mentioned by them in the first invoice letter sent by Excel Parking and all there is in terms of evidence is which they supplied to justify their invoice charge is two photo's one of the car entering and exiting.

It states on their pay and display board that a parking attendant "is monitored by parking attendants for customer service and enforcement purposes" There is also a notice on the ticket machine which states the car park is patrolled by Parking Wardens. Which if really is the case where is the evidence of the car not displaying a ticket irrespective of their only proof being the ANPR cameras? Secondly if by using the ticket machine you are required to enter the VRM what happens to people who may have inadvertently entered it incorrectly but still paid for their ticket? Thirdly there is no parking attendants present at this car park so the information on the board is misleading and false as another sign states by Iceland that "This car park is not supervised"

I would also like to bring to the attention of the ticket machine run by Excel Parking which I would like to point out is a bit discriminatory towards the elderly and disabled. The machine only accepts coins and there is no option to use a credit card or debit card. If an elderly person or disabled who has entered this car park to do their shopping from the store, how do you expect them to pay for a ticket if they don't carry cash/coins with them? The nearest cash point within the vicinity is not easily accessible for these people but also a cash machine does not issue out coinage. This I find is very unreasonable to the elderly, disabled and vulnerable and shows no customer care from Excel Parking nor from Iceland to make reasonable adjustments for these group of people and in my view goes against the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 19 paragraph 1

"Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.

(1)It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person—

(a)in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;

(b)in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service"

Also I feel that Section 21 paragraph 1 also applies to this as there is no reasonable adjustments made for these people that may be affected by this:

21 Duty of providers of services to make adjustments.

(1)Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect.

The sign states "failure to comply" with said terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice being issued. The parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge. Excel Parking has not provided any evidence as to how and why
the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss in both the first letter demanding the £60 nor in the second letter where the appeal was declined by Excel Parking.

The signage also breaches the BPA code of practice Section 14 misrepresentation of authority, paragraph 14.3.
"The abbreviation ‘PCN’ is also used to mean a ‘penalty charge notice’ in the regulated environment. Unless you have previously defined a PCN as a ‘parking charge notice’ on your signs and notices, you must avoid using the term ‘PCN’ to avoid confusing drivers about the nature of your parking enforcement."

There is an abbreviation of PCN on the sign but the term PCN has not been clearly defined anywhere on the sign or as to what that stands for.

The signage colours are also not in my view clear and could fall under Appendix B of the BPA code of practice whereby:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations
such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision."

Only some of the signage has black text on a white background and the overall colour scheme of the sign being an orange/red can be confused with the colours Iceland use for their logos so is therefore not very clear. The signage also has sections blanked out by use of clear tape.

The signage states that "This site may be monitored by ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the car park by Excel Parking Services ltd."

This breaches Section 21 paragraph 21.1:
" You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for."

This is not the case with the signage and no information was given as to what the data that has been gathered by the ANPR cameras were going to be used for.

Moving on, in the time the car was parked for the duration between the hours mentioned, a purchase was made in store at Iceland for £16.73 as proved by the credit card statement which backs this claim on the day of the alleged contravention.

The charge as mentioned for parking at this particular store costs £1, however Iceland have a policy whereby if you spend £5 or more in store you will be entitled to a refund of £1 which Iceland give back to you in the store. This was confirmed by speaking to the store in question and also their customer services.

The £60 parking charge ticket or invoice is an inappropriate amount for the fact that food purchases was made at the store. Iceland refund your £1 ticket when making a purchase in store so what loss has been made? I would like to point out that Excel Parking has not provided any justification for the excessive charge and the reasons they feel it is justified. Furthermore by shopping at Iceland and using the parking facilities, by getting your £1 ticket refunded that technically makes the parking at Iceland free.

To sum this up, the signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a ‘failure to comply’ with the terms of parking. This wording clearly indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty and Excel Parking has not provided any evidence as to how and why this parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. Previous POPLA cases have shown that running costs for the business cannot be classed as a pre estimate of loss.

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the signage at the site is inadequate. As mentioned there is tape over parts of the wording, and the sign itself doesn't fully conform to Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice.

There is no breach of the advertised terms and conditions The signage upon which Excel Parking wishes to rely on fails to meet the standard required by
Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and as such it cannot be relied upon to demand a Parking Charge. I would invite POPLA to read the sign and consider just what infringement actually causes a “Parking Charge” liability to arise?

The sign states that “Failure to comply with the following will result in a parking charge..” It then lists 9 acts that must be undertaken for that charge to arise”. If the Respondent wishes to rely on just one of those acts to impose a Parking Charge then the sign should say “Failure to comply with any one of the following will result in a parking charge..” POPLA will be aware that if there is any doubt as to the written terms of a contract then their interpretation will be one that is “most favourable to the consumer” under those Regulations contract. I am requesting that this appeal is upheld.

The pics:




This post has been edited by Gouki: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 17:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Wed, 6 Aug 2014 - 17:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



Just to add I also found out that Iceland don't own the land they operate out from and that the building as well as the car park is one piece of land that they take out on a lease. So is it fair to say that they have no right to demand money and send out PCN to people?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 06:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
out on a lease


They are occupiers and likely have parking rights - but they can cancel as leaseholders. Go at them again and again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 12:36
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



OK cool, before I submit this, is what I have drafted ok and give me good stead to win?

QUOTE (kommando @ Sun, 3 Aug 2014 - 17:54) *
Post it here for critique before sending, make sure GEPOL is in it.


And what is GEPOL???



This post has been edited by Gouki: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 12:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 12:47
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



GPEOL even. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. (The amount of losses incurred because of the breach of contract, i.e. the remedy to put the injured party back into the position they were if the breach had not occurred)


--------------------
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
Gouki
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 12:57
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:47) *
GPEOL even. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. (The amount of losses incurred because of the breach of contract, i.e. the remedy to put the injured party back into the position they were if the breach had not occurred)


Ahh got you that I have mentioned in my appeal what do you think JLC all good to submit, obviously I'll go over any grammar, spelling and punctuations etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:09
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Gouki @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:47) *
GPEOL even. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. (The amount of losses incurred because of the breach of contract, i.e. the remedy to put the injured party back into the position they were if the breach had not occurred)


Ahh got you that I have mentioned in my appeal what do you think JLC all good to submit, obviously I'll go over any grammar, spelling and punctuations etc.

Personally I'd lose the DDA bit (which has now been replaced by the Equality Act 2010). It's not discriminatory for those with protected characteristics to carry coins.

You have a mention of GPEOL but I think it needs bolstering up and earlier in the appeal. You must stress that the amount requested at the time of the alleged breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Operational costs that would be incurred regardless of the breach cannot be included and if they justify the amount by including the time taken to produce a POPLA appeal then this proves the amount originally requested was not a GPEOL.


--------------------
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
Gouki
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 14:19
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 14:09) *
QUOTE (Gouki @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 13:47) *
GPEOL even. Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. (The amount of losses incurred because of the breach of contract, i.e. the remedy to put the injured party back into the position they were if the breach had not occurred)


Ahh got you that I have mentioned in my appeal what do you think JLC all good to submit, obviously I'll go over any grammar, spelling and punctuations etc.

Personally I'd lose the DDA bit (which has now been replaced by the Equality Act 2010). It's not discriminatory for those with protected characteristics to carry coins.

You have a mention of GPEOL but I think it needs bolstering up and earlier in the appeal. You must stress that the amount requested at the time of the alleged breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of their loss. Operational costs that would be incurred regardless of the breach cannot be included and if they justify the amount by including the time taken to produce a POPLA appeal then this proves the amount originally requested was not a GPEOL.


Hi JLC ok I dropped that bit, not sure what else I can add to the GPEOL but have it mentioned in earlier in the appeal in 2 paragraphs and again the GPEOL is talked about in my summing up, I've highlighted in bold and underline what I added/edited, thoughts or what else I could add?

Dear POPLA,

I am making an appeal with regards to this charge notice. I have previously used Iceland Car Park in Kingsbury to park my car and to shop at the store.

Previously when parking it there I was not aware of having to pay £1 to park in the car park and consequently had always parked there without ever having to pay for a ticket. I was obviously unaware of this until I received the "invoice" by Excel Parking demanding I should pay £100 reduced down to £60 if paid within 14 days.

I can understand the Iceland wanting to stop people from using their car park and then wandering off to do other things and not use their store to make purchases and essentially park for nothing. However I think its unreasonable to have a private company send out threatening letters demanding money from legitimate customers.

While they state the vehicle in question did not have a ticket all that was mentioned in the "invoice" that Excel Parking sent through was the car entering at 1159 hours and exiting the car park at 1221 hours. I had mentioned this in my appeal to Excel and their response was "We must advise that the pay & display machine works in conjunction with the ANPR cameras. When a ticket is purchased, the motorist is required to input the full VRM" They claimed they checked their records and couldn't find a match which resembles the VRM." This alleged accusation of "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" isn't valid as it was not mentioned by them in the first invoice letter sent by Excel Parking and all there is in terms of evidence is which they supplied to justify their invoice charge is two photo's one of the car entering and exiting.

It states on their pay and display board that a parking attendant "is monitored by parking attendants for customer service and enforcement purposes" There is also a notice on the ticket machine which states the car park is patrolled by Parking Wardens. Which if really is the case where is the evidence of the car not displaying a ticket irrespective of their only proof being the ANPR cameras? Secondly if by using the ticket machine you are required to enter the VRM what happens to people who may have inadvertently entered it incorrectly but still paid for their ticket? Thirdly there is no parking attendants present at this car park so the information on the board is misleading and false as another sign states by Iceland that "This car park is not supervised"

The sign states "failure to comply" with said terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice being issued. The parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge. Excel Parking has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss in both the first letter demanding the £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days nor in the second letter where the appeal was declined by Excel Parking.

The landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because food purchases were made in store.

The charge as mentioned for parking at this particular store costs £1, however Iceland have a policy whereby if you spend £5 or more in store you will be entitled to a refund of £1 which Iceland give back to you in the store. This was confirmed by speaking to the store in question and also their customer services.


The £100 parking charge ticket or invoice reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days is an inappropriate amount for the fact that food purchases was made at the store. Iceland refund your £1 ticket when making a purchase in store so what loss has been made? Furthermore by shopping at Iceland and using the parking facilities, by getting your £1 ticket refunded that technically makes the parking at Iceland free.

In the time the car was parked for the duration between the hours mentioned, purchases was made in store at Iceland for £16.73 as proved by the credit card statement which backs this claim on the day of the alleged contravention.

The amount requested at the time of the alleged breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of their loss which has not been provided by Excel Parking. There is nothing provided to myself from Excel Parking that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach. Operational costs that would be incurred regardless of the breach cannot be included.

The sign for the car park, and the parking charge notice received, state that the charge is for not complying with the conditions set out, so the operator must prove that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage also breaches the BPA code of practice Section 14 misrepresentation of authority, paragraph 14.3.

"The abbreviation ‘PCN’ is also used to mean a ‘penalty charge notice’ in the regulated environment. Unless you have previously defined a PCN as a ‘parking charge notice’ on your signs and notices, you must avoid using the term ‘PCN’ to avoid confusing drivers about the nature of your parking enforcement."

There is an abbreviation of PCN on the sign but the term PCN has not been clearly defined anywhere on the sign or as to what it stands for.

The signage colours are also not in my view clear and could fall under Appendix B of the BPA code of practice whereby:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations
such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision."

Only some of the signage has black text on a white background and the overall colour scheme of the sign being an orange/red can be confused with the colours Iceland use for their logos so is therefore not very clear. The signage also has sections blanked out by use of clear tape.

The signage states that "This site may be monitored by ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the car park by Excel Parking Services ltd."

This breaches Section 21 paragraph 21.1:
" You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for."

This is not the case with the signage and no information was given as to what data that has been gathered by the ANPR cameras were going to be used for.

If Excel Parking ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims the car duration of stay was for 22 minutes. However, the time stamped photos only show my vehicle entering and exiting the car park – they do not account for actual time parked. The BPA Code of Practice Section 13 says that the operator must allow a grace period for a driver to read the signs and decide whether to stay, also a reasonable period to leave at the end of parking which Excel have failed to account for.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. Excel Parking have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. The signage does not demonstrate that ANPR is in use at all time and only states it "may be in use" which is ambiguous as to whether its there or not. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.


In addition I question the entire reliability of the system specially as they state on their signs that it may be in use which means that its not always used. I require that Excel present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Excel Parking to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Excel Parking to strict proof to the contrary and to show how these camera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.

To sum this up, the signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a ‘failure to comply’ with the terms of parking. This wording clearly indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty and Excel Parking has not provided any evidence as to how and why this parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Previous POPLA cases have shown that running costs for the business cannot be classed as a pre estimate of loss.

Excel Parking cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach.


The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs, such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks.

Given that Excel Parking charge the same lump sum for staying 22 minutes as they would for 1 hour, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. I therefore think the charges are punitive.


Furthermore, it is my opinion that the signage at the site is inadequate. As mentioned there is tape over parts of the wording, and the sign itself doesn't fully conform to the BPA Code of Practice as pointed out.

There is no breach of the advertised terms and conditions The signage upon which Excel Parking wishes to rely on fails to meet the standard required by Regulation 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and as such it cannot be relied upon to demand a Parking Charge. I would invite POPLA to read the sign and consider just what infringement actually causes a “Parking Charge” liability to arise?

The charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."

Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

I believe that the presented charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred, which in this case is zero therefore contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.


The sign states that “Failure to comply with the following will result in a parking charge..” It then lists 9 acts that must be undertaken for that charge to arise”. If the Respondent wishes to rely on just one of those acts to impose a Parking Charge then the sign should say “Failure to comply with any one of the following will result in a parking charge..” POPLA will be aware that if there is any doubt as to the written terms of a contract then their interpretation will be one that is “most favourable to the consumer” under those Regulations contract. I am requesting that this appeal is upheld.

This post has been edited by Gouki: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 15:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gouki
post Thu, 7 Aug 2014 - 15:37
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jul 2014
Member No.: 71,817



I've also added a bit more now to it and questioned their ANPR cameras
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:17
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