PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

1397 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 18:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


@ Redx, does this not cover the point:

the driver was in the process of complying with the requirements of the signs on site i.e. as they were a visitor* they weren't on a 'whitelist' but instead they were in the process of obtaining a VP from ***, the occupier of ***** a property on the estate. The IPC Code of Practice makes specific reference to this issue and for the benefit of its members makes it clear that the 'consideration period' takes on a broader meaning than simply reading a sign, it includes, as on this occasion, the reasonable time taken for a driver to comply. This cannot be distilled into a precise number of minutes because, as the code makes clear, circumstances on each site will differ. In this case the driver took no more time than was necessary to reach *** obtain the VP and return to the car where on this occasion the VP was then displayed.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812176 · Replies: 16 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 18:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


So the essence here is that as it's a free car park and the operator's timings relate to the elapsed time between a vehicle entering and leaving, then the operator considers that:

Once a driver has read the detailed sign, however long this takes, they must then estimate precisely the lapsed time since they entered the site and the time it took them to park despite not being aware of this requirement when they entered the site, and then look at their watch and then by subtraction calculate when the operator's clock started, and then count forward 150 minutes, add the operator's unknown allowance for a grace period then subtract the time taken to park(while making allowance for the fact that leaving should be quicker than parking) and then ensure that they return to their car by this time and hope that:

Their estimates were correct, and
Their maths is up to scratch, and
That there aren't any unforeseen problems between leaving the parking place and exiting.

If it was me, but it isn't and it's your money, I'd take them all the way and if necessary get a judge to express their contempt for the claimant and offer them a choice of pink or blue toothbrushes!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812174 · Replies: 8 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 17:39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Yes the driver can say truthfully that they were only away for x minutes.

Very enigmatic! And x is what? Given that this is likely to be the driver's defence then being opaque isn't likely to help.

Each resident has 2 VPs - presumably issued by this PPC or perhaps a building management company.

Let's see a VP pl.

The driver's defence is that there was no breach of contract. This arose because at the time the NTD was issued and parking charge allegedly incurred the driver was in the process of complying with the requirements of the signs on site i.e. as they were a visitor* they weren't on a 'whitelist' but instead they were in the process of obtaining a VP from ***, the occupier of ***** a property on the estate. The IPC Code of Practice makes specific reference to this issue and for the benefit of its members makes it clear that the 'consideration period' takes on a broader meaning than simply reading a sign, it includes, as on this occasion, the reasonable time taken for a driver to comply. This cannot be distilled into a precise number of minutes because, as the code makes clear, circumstances on each site will differ. In this case the driver took no more time than was necessary to reach *** obtain the VP and return to the car where on this occasion the VP was then displayed.
As the creditor is aware, each occupier is given 2 VPs which are reusable and valid simply based upon their display. When not being displayed, these have to be returned to the occupier. On this occasion the driver was on their way to *** to obtain the VP but this issue could just as easily have arisen at the end of a visit when a VP is being returned.
This is simply a matter of the attendant being at the car while the driver was in the process of complying with their contractual requirements.

Therefore there was no breach of contract and a parking charge is not owing.


But OP, if they claim that the attendant was at the vehicle for 2X minutes and had it in sight for further 3X then they'll reject the above.

Only the driver knows X, we can't help with this part of your account.

*- if they're a regular visitor why not get them put on a whitelist or is this reserved only to occupiers?

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812170 · Replies: 16 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



..but this shouldn't stop them trying...

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812162 · Replies: 7 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


I would start with a summary of events which leads them gently into the bullet points

On *** I found my car which immobilised on the highway at ****. The notice on my windscreen was to the effect that the car had been seized by **** who were executing a warrant obtained by *** council in respect of an outstanding penalty charge which arose from a PCN issued on *** in respect of a contravention which occurred on ****.

Prior to finding my car, of which I am the owner, I had no previous correspondence from either the council or ****(their enforcement agents).

The events which gave rise to this are as follows:

Then your bullet points as they apply.

Through no fault of the council all statutory notices, in particular the Order for Recovery, were sent to my old address and I was therefore unable to respond, I therefore respectfully ask that my request to submit a statutory declaration late be accepted.

As some thoughts.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1812161 · Replies: 8 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 15:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


They were not persuaded by your compelling reasons and they had the benefit of seeing 'confirmation attached', but we haven't.

Sorry, but in the absence of any evidence and we haven't seen any e.g. your GP's confirmation regarding the type of and time of appt(and the time you phoned them), the hospital's record etc. IMO your case is simply that you turned up too late for an appointment - which we have no evidence was either an emergency or made at such short notice - and felt compelled to park close to the hospital where you weren't entitled.

You need to beef up any reps, focus on key matters and provide evidence where this is available.

Had you been to this hospital before?
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1812156 · Replies: 9 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 14:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I went to see a patient living in a block of retirement flats - by appointment as part of your employment?

Usually I display a badge and there has never been a problem with parking, - including here or was this the first time?

Your vehicle was captured by CCTV, so badge or not would have made no difference because the process is simple:

Recorded VRM = matching VRM entered into the terminal - result happiness;
Recorded VRM not matching VRM entered into terminal - result, potential misery.

You are running a great risk in not complying with such procedures and I am surprised that this has not happened before given the preponderance of CCTV v attendant-patrolled sites.

Anyway, pl confirm the events were by appointment or otherwise as directed by your employer and that you have evidence in support.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812147 · Replies: 7 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 14:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Everything apart from the date of issue has been redacted

Why?

A Notice to Driver is one of only two notices which are prescribed under the relevant legislation, we need to see everything pl, including the printed wording- you can delete the charge number and VRM if you wish.

The driver can truthfully say that they were away from their car for only *** minutes?

How is the VP filled out/displayed if it can be used on multiple occasions?

The driver put the completed VP in the car after finding the PCN?

Can you post photos of the signs pl.

I don't see how a consideration period would be involved here, the driver was a frequent flyer and knew the ropes. I would focus on the *** minutes during which they were away from the car obtaining the permit. By all means compare this to being no longer than would be allowed a new driver as regards consideration, but don't be tempted to invent matters that did not occur.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812144 · Replies: 16 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The WF website is slow with my internet speed so I cannot check the following:

Were there suspension signs o/s 18/20 and 32/34 - where the traffic signs are located?
Was there room within what looks to be a continuous parking place between 18 and 48 for your car to have been moved?

The first question relates to adequate signing, the second as to whether, given that you were displaying a visitor's permit, they could/should have moved you car - at no additional cost to you - as opposed to removing it?

We need to see the back of the PCN and the representations info provided to you at the pound pl.

And the PCN is slightly wrong - it's not a 'shared use bay' but I doubt this is a winning argument on its own. However, as you've paid all there is and you lose nothing by making reps and ultimately appealing to the adjudicator.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1812126 · Replies: 2 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 11:15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


You ignored all previous communications whether procedural (the Notoce to Keeper) or not('reminder' letters).

This behaviour would be considered unreasonable by a court and could leave you liable for higher costs, as I understand it whether you were to win or lose (but others with more experience could hopefully add to this).

Clearly you are going go court unless you pay. So, what are your options?

Pay now at the lowest cost to you;
Don't pay and force the creditor to issue proceedings (the claim from the court which would give you another opportunity to pay) and thence you would either win or lose.

What defence(s) do you have?

As regards the parking charge, what are the times in the photos in the NTK and where was the driver when these were taken? If your argument is that ' I stopped for two mins to drop off a disabled person.' then you or they would be in the photo, surely. Or are you saying that you escorted them somewhere? If so, where, and if local then why weren't they aware of this controlled land?

As the NTK appears to comply with PoFA, then there's no benefit in not identifying the driver in any defence.

But you must give us more facts, hopefully ones which are supported or could be corroborated, before you can press us for your options.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812116 · Replies: 10 · Views: 80

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, pl repost the Notice to Driver dated 23 March.

We cannot tell which parts the driver has redacted and which were never input in the first place!

And pl let's not dance around this with what ifs.

The driver went to the address to get a permit. So they either knew the procedure or they didn't and if they didn't and had to read the signs to realise that a permit was required then how would they know where to obtain one?

So let's be clear on this point pl. The driver parked at the location and immediately left the car in order to obtain a visitor's permit from ***, the occupier of ***** which was approx. *** minutes away whom they were meeting and from whom they had arranged to obtain a permit. The driver returned to the vehicle at approx. ****. This was a process which they had carried out numerous times previously. In this case the attendant must have appeared immediately after the driver left the vehicle.

And the crunch point - they had already completed the visitor's permit and proceeded to display this in the car and here it is? They wouldn't throw it away would they, they could see a NTD on the windscreen!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812110 · Replies: 16 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


We need photos of the signs pl.

Also, did the driver enter their registration number when purchasing the ticket?

I won't go into the ramifications of this until you've posted the signs, clarified the above and dealt with Dave65's point regarding how the process works in practice.

And the really have made a mess of the mandatory warning!

The NTK states:
Parking Charge Date: 4 March;


'..if after a period of 28 days (beginning on the day after this Parking Charge is given) the amount requested in this Parking Charge has not been paid ....you, the registered keeper will, ...be liable to pay the unpaid parking charge.

Nonsense.

Another creditor which does not understand the distinction between a Parking Charge and a Parking Charge Notice! The Parking Charge was dated 4 March however, the dates in the mandatory warning relate to the date the Parking Charge Notice is given which as the notice is dated 7 March 'given' means 11th March and the day after means 12th.
What the hell, it's only 8 days!

And PoFA states:
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

'Will be liable' is not 'have the right to recover'... It can't be because PoFA also provides:

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.


The keeper cannot be 'liable' until the creditor has relieved the driver of liability which occurs ONLY when they begin 'proceedings' against the keeper i.e. to exercise their right to hold the keeper liable. Until this point only the driver could be liable.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812104 · Replies: 3 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 10:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


What a good result.

Resonates with me if this was the reason:

@Jlc, Someone eager on the CCTV has typed in the wrong information on the NtK. The period of parking is clearly incorrect and I'd argue they've failed PoFA because of it.


When one uses this reasoning in another place(FTLA) one gets shouted down or banned!

And to elaborate, it is not just that the notice fails PoFA it is that they have not presented any evidence of the driver's liability in the first place because in order to do so they need evidence as to when the vehicle left the site. Assessors or a court would accept that unless it could be argued and proved that the vehicle was not on the site between those times then the CCTV would be accepted as proof that it was.

But without an 'exit' there was no time on site beyond potentially a consideration period. IMO, this is not proof to the standard required by a civil court, or one would hope an IAS.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812101 · Replies: 10 · Views: 148

hcandersen
Posted on: Yesterday, 09:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


I don't want to hold you up unnecessarily, but I do feel it's time that NTKs and the whole process were looked at afresh: there are too many inaccuracies in current received wisdom, and apologies to fellow posters because no criticism is meant.

You, as keeper, have been sent a Parking Charge NOTICE. Its purpose is to do exactly what it says: to give you NOTICE.

Of what?

The driver's liability to a parking charge (not parking charge notice as you'll see if you read the NTK, but a parking charge) which became owing immediately the driver breached the 'contract'. No written demand was made of the driver because the site is not patrolled(there is a procedural alternative where an attendant can issue a Notice to Driver to the vehicle or driver on site).

The NTK is the creditor's notice to you - the only person they know having obtained your details from DVLA - and states that:
The driver is liable but they don't know who they are;
The parking charge remains outstanding and needs to be paid(by whom at this stage they do not care);
That if it's not paid then they reserve the right to hold you, the keeper, liable for the charge. This is NOT a demand for payment from you* but a statement that as they have complied with Sch 4 to PoFA they would be entitled to hold you liable in the event of the charge not being paid.

So, what could you as keeper put in an 'appeal'?

There are two distinct strands:
1. Whether there was a penalty charge owing in the first place i.e. was there a breach?
2. Whether, if there was, they could prospectively hold you liable for this charge?

1. Is about facts e.g. creditor's legal right to demand a charge, signs on site and compliance with their ATA's Code of Practice in this regard etc.
2. Is about procedure i.e. have they complied with the requirements of Sch 4 in order to hold you liable at some stage?

IMO, appeals should be structured as above i.e. to address 1 and 2 separately and clearly.

So, what is your appeal throwing into the mix? Your points 1 and 2 relate to your prospective liability(i.e. my point 2) and are therefore out of place. You need to decide which points fall under the creditor's claim against the driver and which against you.

Dear Sir,
POPLA Case *****

I am appealing against the above as keeper as I was not the driver. As regards those matters which I am raising in respect of the creditor's right to hold the driver liable for the parking charge, I have obtained this information from the Notice to Keeper and other investigations which I have carried out subsequently using information in the public realm e.g. planning status, Google Street View etc.

As a preliminary matter which is a condition precedent in respect of the creditor's right to operate on the land and offer contracts they will need to present and the assessor examine those authorities e.g. landowner authority, membership of relevant Accredited Trade Association etc.
Similarly, I shall be able to scrutinise and comment upon this evidence when it is submitted by the creditor as they are required to do.

Driver liability for the parking charge
*****

Keeper prospective liability for the parking charge
******

Just some thoughts...

*- I know I can bang on about this point, but it's fundamental. The NTK cannot be a demand on you as keeper because if it was then it would say that the creditor has relieved the driver of their liability and passed this to you. But it doesn't. It still asks you for the driver's details so that they can pursue the driver for what they owe. They cannot be demanding payment of the charge from you and the driver simultaneously because this would an attempt at double recovery.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812096 · Replies: 15 · Views: 435

hcandersen
Posted on: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 - 12:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


now i am looking at my options to fight back or to prepare myself for hearing. i got whole bundle but it is 24MB and max single upload allowed is less than 1MB.

The host externally and link here pl.

We must see their evidence.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1812006 · Replies: 37 · Views: 2,049

hcandersen
Posted on: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 - 18:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Wish I'd asked earlier, IMO it changes the emphasis.*

Build up..why you were there..parked at approx. 15.58 for a 4pm appointment - see enclosed. I displayed my dad's blue badge out of habit and proceeded to escort him to his appointment as his condition means he's unable to walk any distance unaided or to negotiate stairs etc.
we could only have just missed the CEO when they observed the car and as we were a couple of minutes late I estimate that at the time of the contravention we had only just reached the department's reception area something of which the CEO was unaware.

I understand that in these circumstances the contravention did not occur as assisted alighting is an exemption to the waiting restriction - the additional loading restriction not being relevant in this instance...l

Try a draft yourself and post here.

*- based upon what you've told us.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811968 · Replies: 20 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 - 17:35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Providing you're sure of your facts vis a vis installation of meters, requirement to pay and refund then fine.

I would lose 'deliberately difficult to understand', you gain nothing by insinuating that either Excel or their 'partner' Iceland have deliberately erected signs which are difficult to understand!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1811965 · Replies: 15 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 - 17:25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, you have misunderstood the law...if you can be bothered to look at the CEO's Handbook after the event then why not get it straight from the horse's mouth and review the law itself!


(3)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

(d)for the purpose of loading or unloading goods [F6for a period not exceeding 20 minutes or such longer period as the council may permit], and—

(i)the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and

(ii)the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked.


So even if the car was being used for the purposes of unloading when the PCN was served, which seems unlikely(it might have been some time earlier, but not then) then you fail on (i) and (ii) anyway. Of course it could have been parked elsewhere in the road and did not need to be 'so parked' and it was unattended.

Don't risk the discount unless all you're hoping for is to try and trip up the authority procedurally and are prepared to lose the discount in consequence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811964 · Replies: 8 · Views: 52

hcandersen
Posted on: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 - 17:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



A diligent driver would have noticed, but the authority won't get the 'warts and all' version you've given us.

For reasons of simplicity and ease of co-ordination, just go with Incandescent's suggestion. You don't need to go into detail of directions etc. etc. for each PCN in your reps, I would just explain that you drove through what you now know to be a restricted road both on your way to and from work not just on **, the date of the first PCN, but a further ** times making total penalties of £****. You were following your Satnav(brcause you were unfamiliar with the route from ** to ** having only been in the area since *****(something about the temp nature of your work perhaps) but suspect this is not a defence, you would also add that there was nothing so obvious about the signs' siting which made them stand out. In any event you received the first PCN on *** for the contravention on *** but unfortunately the damage had already been done and a further *** were received subsequently for **,**,** - list the dates.
You hope that the authority would accept that the total amounting to £*** is disproportionate when they are all based upon a single set of motoring facts and you would ask that the authority exercise discretion in this matter.


Draft your own words and post them here for review.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811962 · Replies: 18 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 - 16:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Today I get a letter forwarded from my previous address (Which I moved from in June 2021) which was addressed to:

My Name,
The Company I work for (obviously not actually listed at any address ive ever lived at)
My Old Address.

This was from a debt collection agency working to recover a charge that TFL have said was for a box junction offence in April 2023.


Post this letter NOW.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811961 · Replies: 9 · Views: 140

hcandersen
Posted on: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 - 17:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Thanks.

This suggests that your account is correct. But does raise the question why, if there were road works which blocked, as opposed to simply delayed traffic on, the road why were these not signposted.

On the one hand we have a short clip which shows multiple drivers contravening a prohibition whose presence is signed clearly in advance and on the other that in the short clip there's no evidence of a tail-back or road works.

Serial offenders not registered with DVLA or lemmings or what?

How did the road block appear to you? For example, there are lights at the end of the one-way stretch and how did you know that it wasn't these(perhaps bad phasing) as opposed to a road block?

So what should happen at the council?

The CCTV for the full period during which multiple vehicles were recorded entering the zone should be examined by a senior manager.


It cannot be the case that a PCN was issued to you only and in your reps you should say that before responding to your reps all other reps from the minimum of ** cars seen contravening the prohibition within the ** seconds of your clip should be reviewed and indeed all reps from PCNs issued for what were multiple contraventions.



  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811941 · Replies: 20 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 - 17:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, so that we put the issue of assisted alighting to bed...

The issue is what you were doing at the time of the contravention(and arguably in the immediately preceding period) not what you then did. We know the PCN contravention time but not the time of your dad's appointment nor how long it took to escort him to the appointed location within the hospital. For example, the PCN was issued at 16.04 so:

If your dad's appointment was at, say, 4pm, then you have a defence to put forward but if 3.30pm then I would say not.

The CEO didn't know when you returned and didn't care so where and what you did in the immediate aftermath of its service is not the issue.

  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811937 · Replies: 20 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 - 15:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


OP, us viewing the video is essential, and this is yours to resolve IMO.

At least one of our regular posters seems to have assumed that every word you wrote in your first post is accurate and it might well be, but until I see the video then I'd be loathe to offer any advice.

I cannot see anything in the single photo which supports your account, but then again it's a still and we need to see how the vehicles are moving. What we know from the photo is that there's no evident tail-back.

I would add that GSV shows a clear advanced warning sign in Crownhill and therefore, setting aside for one moment the issue of a road block, what might otherwise be regarded as defective siting of the gateway signs is not an argument you could pursue successfully IMO.
  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811931 · Replies: 20 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 - 18:07


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551


Thanks for the close-up....ironic that you've hosted with Tinypic which just about sums up the size of the font!

So the procedure is:
Pay at machine, obtain ticket which has a tear-off portion which on presentation to the cashier* can be redeemed for £1.

There is no stipulation as far as I can see about when payment should be made. So in principle the cashier should prompt customers for their ticket (because it's an incentive of the store) and, if one's presented, credit £1 to the bill and if one's not then to prompt the customer to purchase one before leaving the car park.

You started this thread by saying that your dad was unaware of the requirement to pay £1. We have to take this at face value but in support in any letter to Iceland then you'd need to explain why e.g. new to the area, first time there, somebody else normally does the shopping etc.

I think you should submit a challenge to Excel as required setting out the facts as above and apologising for the mistake. Don't complain, explain.

Similarly, I think you should write to Iceland, explain that you've received a parking charge for £100 for not buying a £1 ticket when shopping at their store in ***. You have submitted a challenge to Excel, but from what you've read on this subject you do not expect too much assistance from them. However, you are more hopeful as regards Iceland because the sign in the car park states clearly 'Iceland in Partnership etc....' and you would hope that the disproportionate charge in the context of a customer who spent more than twice the threshold amount in the store would see the Iceland partner exercise discretion.

The facts of the case are.........

As a final point, you would suggest that it would seem reasonable for every cashier to ask customers 'do you have a car park receipt' (or checkout machine to carry the same message) and if not to remind them of the scheme, which is very generous, and alert them to the fact that they should purchase a ticket before exiting the car park. This might already be standard practice and this incident a very rare slip, you would leave the matter with Iceland to investigate.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1811873 · Replies: 15 · Views: 0

hcandersen
Posted on: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 - 17:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Have you put this to the authority and if so how did they respond?

Step by step, not making claims but asking them, in the form of representations if necessary. They need to be taken through the decision process e.g. do the authority agree that your car falls within class ** of col (b) to Table 1 of Annex 3 to the Charging Order 2002 etc. etc.

  Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #1811870 · Replies: 18 · Views: 0

1397 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:08
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.