Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for not buying ticket quickly enough in an ANPR car park
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Ian P
Hi All,

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

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

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

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

Do I have any chance of winning an appeal?



cabbyman
Have you disclosed the identity of the driver? What, exactly, did you write to them?
emanresu
QUOTE
nowhere does it state anything about a 10 minute grace period before purchasing a ticket


It's what the signs say. If the signs are silent, they have no case. It would be interesting though futile to appeal to both PPS and the IAS on this single point. The IAS interpretation of "silent clauses" on signs would be interesting.

If you cannot be bothered then just ignore or write back and say a) they have no case and b) remove the Keepers details from their database as continuing to process them is a breach of their KADOE contract.
Ian P
Good Morning,

Thank you for your responses.

Stupidly (as I can't remember the last time I received a parking ticket) I initially responded to them giving them my own name and address as driver (it's a company car) as I just assumed that because I had a valid parking ticket they'd made a mistake.

In my original email to them apart from disclosing my name and address I just set out the facts that I had a valid ticket for the times indicated. In their declining of my appeal they state

"Parking on this site is only for authorised users who have entered their details into the system on site (I DID). The signage at the site is very clear and easy to understand. The conditions of parking are clearly displayed on the signage on site (BUT NO MENTION OF GRACE PERIOD). As this vehicle was not authorised to park at this site between 11.24am and 11.43am we therefore uphold the PCN, the vehicle was parked on site for 19 minutes before a payment was made for parking on the day in question. Please note that we allow a 10 minute grace period to obtain a pay and display ticket or to make a payment via RingGo, therefore you were 9 minutes over the allowed grace period.

Blah blah blah







nigelbb
QUOTE (Ian P @ Mon, 5 Dec 2016 - 20:24) *
I've been back to the car park since and taken photographs of all the signage - nowhere does it state anything about a 10 minute grace period before purchasing a ticket however from what I've read this is now standard practice by law which concerns me as I now feel like I "should have known"

It's neither law nor standard practice. Some car parks monitored by ANPR cameras allow payment even after the car has departed. Payment of the correct sum for the time parked is the law not some attempt to trick the motorist by imposing an arbitrary time limit on when the ticket should be purchased. If there is no requirement to purchase the ticket within 10 minutes of entering the car park stated on the signs then it is not a term of the contract for parking.
Jlc
Indeed, if anything you were 'trespassing' prior to purchasing a ticket. Unfortunately, they are litigious so be prepared for that.

There was no loss and they are only trying to extract cash.

If they uphold the appeal they definitely won't be getting paid - they found something in their minds so kerching!

Pictures of the signs would be useful as there may be other angles.
nosferatu1001
Make sure you keep that ticket

It is trite law that unless clearly noted otherwise, a contract in a P&D car park starts when the ticket is purchased. The fact theyve chosen to use ANPR and are making up terms that are not on the signage is no concern of yours

State that you require access to ADR that meets Schedule 3 of "The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015" and you reject the IAS as being competent to hear this dispute, as it is well known they fail to meet even basic requirements of this scheme. You suggest the Ombudsmen Service as being comeptent, and you note this is a reasonable request.

You will under no circumstances make any payment to a debt collection company, so do not engage them as that will be your wasted costs to bear.
nigelbb
Is paying for a ticket in an ANPR controlled car park buying a fixed time slot i.e. 1 hour starting from entry to the car park or purchase of ticket? Alternatively is it buying 1 hour of the car stationary in the marked bay & could be purchased on-line in advance or after leaving the car park? ANPR allows for the latter scenario whereas the PPCs are trying to enforce the former regime that is only necessary if there is a parking attendant monitoring the car park rather than ANPR.
Gan
The parking companies use whichever interpretation suits them

ParkingEye argues (successfully) at POPLA that the ticket expires one hour after entry and not at the expiry time printed on it
I'm dealing with a claim at the moment where they're using this argument
Jlc
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 13:05) *
ParkingEye argues (successfully) at POPLA that the ticket expires one hour after entry and not at the expiry time printed on it

That is clearly absurd!

The ticket should print the correct exit time if that's the case. (Which is technically feasible)

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 12:59) *
Is paying for a ticket in an ANPR controlled car park buying a fixed time slot i.e. 1 hour starting from entry to the car park or purchase of ticket? Alternatively is it buying 1 hour of the car stationary in the marked bay & could be purchased on-line in advance or after leaving the car park? ANPR allows for the latter scenario whereas the PPCs are trying to enforce the former regime that is only necessary if there is a parking attendant monitoring the car park rather than ANPR.

I would argue a conditional licence is granted prior to the acceptance of the contract (paying). But context is everything - the car left well before the expiry so 'net net' there was no breach. (Only in arguing a way for the PPC to issue a charge as this is how they make their cash)
Ian P
Hi All,

I really appreciate all of your help so far but although I would be happy to post photos of the signage, I don't know how to! Any technical help would be appreciated
Jlc
QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 13:48) *
Any technical help would be appreciated

Here.
Ian P
Here are photos of the signage displayed at the site in question- I hope this works!
















As you will (hopefully!) see, there is no indication of "grace periods" and these pictures are from the entrance to the car park to the levelI was on. The parking meter is on the floor up from where I parked



The Rookie
Condition number 1 appears to you out, clearly the ticket wasn't displayed, while there must clearly be some grace on that (unless you buy a ticket without stopping the car), it is however complete hogwash as they allow payment by Ringo where no ticket can ever be displayed!

So by there own T&C's you can't use Ringo yet the machine says you can.
nosferatu1001
And "complete hogwash" means the contract as offered must be ambiguous, so the most favourable to the consumer interpretation must be used.

AS they do not define a time to park ad purchase a ticket, theyre SoL on it.

Your contract started frmo when you purchased the ticket, and expired at the point the ticket states.
nigelbb
Condition number 12 seems to cover the OP quite nicely
QUOTE
12. FULL PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING SITE
ostell
And of course they have shown that the clock in the ticket machine is in sync with the anpr system clock ??
The Rookie
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 19:22) *
Condition number 12 seems to cover the OP quite nicely
QUOTE
12. FULL PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING SITE


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


They have evidence of him leaving site?


Hi The Rookie,

They have ANPR photographic evidence of me leaving the site in my car at 12.58 however if they use the CCTV cameras clearly seen in one of the photos they will note that I didn't leave the site before I paid for my parking ticket. What they would see however is a man by a car feeling very unwell!
kommando
They wont have access to the CCTV.
The Rookie
So you appear to have complied with all the meaningful conditions (noting that 1 and 12 in combination with payment by Ringo are contradictory).

Possible £750 DPA claim you have there.
nigelbb
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Dec 2016 - 07:27) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 19:22) *
Condition number 12 seems to cover the OP quite nicely
QUOTE
12. FULL PAYMENT MUST BE MADE BEFORE LEAVING SITE


They have evidence of him leaving site?

My interpretation of Condition 12 is that leaving the site refers to the vehicle not the driver.
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 6 Dec 2016 - 13:05) *
The parking companies use whichever interpretation suits them

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

If sure they do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It can be argued that any contract wasn't formed (and the OP was using a licence and potentially 'trespassing' as I stated earlier) but alternatively if it could be argued that a contract was formed by conduct (parking) as they had the opportunity to read the many and visible signs etc. If so, then perhaps frustration comes into play?
nigelbb
If the OP paid 80p & the vehicle was on site for under an hour then there was no breach of contract. The only condition of the contract on the time of payment is that it must be made before leaving the site. When the system is monitored by ANPR cameras it doesn't matter when payment is made as long as it is made while the vehicle is on site & payment can be matched up with entry & exit.

If the system is monitored by a parking attendant issuing windscreen tickets rather than ANPR cameras it makes sense that payment & display of the ticket should be as soon as is practical after arrival so the attendant can confirm whether payment has been made before issuing a ticket. With ANPR there is no such need. If the PPC want to enforce a condition that payment be made with 10 minutes of arrival in order to catch out motorists & generate income then they must explicitly state the condition on their signs.
Jlc
Clause 1 says 'all vehicles must display a valid ticket or permit in the front windscreen or on the vehicle's dash board at all times'.

Clearly impossible and contradicts with the clause 12. And indeed what's 'leaving the site'? The driver or the vehicle?
The Rookie
Indeed, however the OP has pointed out that with respect to condition 12 neither left site, so its an irrelevance which interpretation you use.

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

So the OP breached no conditions.

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

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

Best wishes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, but we do see some wacky judgments...
Ian P
Thanks for the response Churchmouse.

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

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

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

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

This is absolute madness

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

Welcome to the world of private parking. It's all about the benjamins.
Ian P
Hi All,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would consider an Section ten notice doubling up as an LBA (if they don't cease to chase you) for the DPA breach as that shows you to be a 'strong' case.
cabbyman
QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:08) *
Hi Cabbyman,

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

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


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

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

With regards to your last line - how would I go about this?
Ian P
Morning all,

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

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

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

I will not under any circumstances make any payment to a debt collection company so do not engage them as that will be your wasted costs to bear"
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 13 Dec 2016 - 19:48) *
Hi The Rookie,

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

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

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

Use post (and proof of postage).

--Churchmouse
Ian P
Hi All,

Further to my previous post (39) I have now had yet another response from PPS which reads:

"We have answered all the salient points regarding this matter in our reply to your first appeal.
If you wish to appeal further you have until the 20/12/2016, to appeal towards the IAS otherwise you will
be out of time.
As you were previously informed you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure,
details of how to appeal further were provided within our reply to your first appeal"

Obviously the 20th is tomorrow and I still have no intention of paying this PCN - what are my alternatives as they've obviously completely blanked my request for ADR

many thanks in advance
cabbyman
As expected. Bear in mind that you are not always writing to the recipient of the letter, you are writing to the judge, as well. They have refused your reasonable request for competent ADR which won't look good in court.

Sit tight and await their next move.
Ian P
Given that the date for final submission of an appeal to IAS is today, I have replied once more to them reiterating my request for an ADR
Lynnzer
Just a quick throwaway remark here.
Don't have to read the full thread again so it might have been mentioned already but if you search for "waiting isn't parking Fistral Beach" you may get some indication of how a judge sees things.

Ah, found it. Use this to state your case.
Ian P
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 20 Dec 2016 - 12:15) *
Just a quick throwaway remark here.
Don't have to read the full thread again so it might have been mentioned already but if you search for "waiting isn't parking Fistral Beach" you may get some indication of how a judge sees things.

Ah, found it. Use this to state your case.



Thank you so much for this information Lynnzer - it does pretty much sum up (apart from the snakes.....) how I'm hoping a judge would view this case
hcandersen
For fear of stepping out of line by giving this a rethink...

You had parked and were not waiting to park, or so it would seem. Therefore the relevance of the decision to your circumstances escapes me.

I entered the car park at 11.24; I parked; I bought a ticket for 2 hours' parking; I left the car park at 12.58 after parking for less than 2 hours.

Is it any more complex than this? IMO, the OP confuses matters with when the ticket was bought and when it expired: you tendered the sum of £1.60 for 2 hours' parking and you were parked for no more than 2 hours.

Piff poof to whether you bought it after 10 minutes, this is not a case of purchasing permission to park after having received a notice for not paying, is it?

IMO, sometimes these matters get overanalysed and can't see the wood for the trees.

Flak jacket on.☺️
Ian P
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Dec 2016 - 16:26) *
For fear of stepping out of line by giving this a rethink...

You had parked and were not waiting to park, or so it would seem. Therefore the relevance of the decision to your circumstances escapes me.

I entered the car park at 11.24; I parked; I bought a ticket for 2 hours' parking; I left the car park at 12.58 after parking for less than 2 hours.

Is it any more complex than this? IMO, the OP confuses matters with when the ticket was bought and when it expired: you tendered the sum of £1.60 for 2 hours' parking and you were parked for no more than 2 hours.

Piff poof to whether you bought it after 10 minutes, this is not a case of purchasing permission to park after having received a notice for not paying, is it?

IMO, sometimes these matters get overanalysed and can't see the wood for the trees.

Flak jacket on.☺️


No flak jacket required from me HC - I'm just looking for all angles and cannot honestly believe that PPS are going down this route for the sake of the 19 minutes it took for me to buy a ticket (or put another way, they are chasing me for £100 for 26 minutes that I am actually owed by them for leaving the car-park early!)

As already stated (and I haven't mentioned this is any correspondence with PPS because I didn't feel the need to), I parked, I was unwell (if they had an attendant patrolling the car-park he would have seen this, however this is unprovable from my point of view), I purchased a ticket as soon as I was able for a time exceeding my stay (I always overestimate how long I'm likely to be in an appointment - again, unprovable and irrelevant, but a fact nonetheless) and left the car-park without the slightest notion I'd done anything wrong! The signage (as can be seen in my photos - proveable) certainly doesn't indicate I'd contravened any "law" as there is no mention whatsoever regarding "grace periods" etc
hcandersen
I would still just focus on: I parked for ....; I bought a ticket for this length of time; neither of these facts is in dispute.

They're not for turning, so don't beat yourself up about it and don't look for ever-more obscure argument: if they don't respond to the b*****n obvious, why should they respond to the obscure?

IMO, no adjudicator or judge would find in their favour based on the key facts.
nigelbb
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 20 Dec 2016 - 16:26) *
For fear of stepping out of line by giving this a rethink...

You had parked and were not waiting to park, or so it would seem. Therefore the relevance of the decision to your circumstances escapes me.

I entered the car park at 11.24; I parked; I bought a ticket for 2 hours' parking; I left the car park at 12.58 after parking for less than 2 hours.

Is it any more complex than this? IMO, the OP confuses matters with when the ticket was bought and when it expired: you tendered the sum of £1.60 for 2 hours' parking and you were parked for no more than 2 hours.

Piff poof to whether you bought it after 10 minutes, this is not a case of purchasing permission to park after having received a notice for not paying, is it?

IMO, sometimes these matters get overanalysed and can't see the wood for the trees.

Flak jacket on.☺️

I agree 100% & this is pretty much the point that I made in #25. As per the signs there is no requirement to pay within x minutes of arrival. The only condition regarding payment is that it must be made before leaving which was the case.

I am amazed that the PPC is pursuing this other than for the normal PPC reason that they are cheats & bullies only interested in raking in as much money as possible not in fairly managing car parks.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (Ian P @ Tue, 20 Dec 2016 - 17:04) *
As already stated (and I haven't mentioned this is any correspondence with PPS because I didn't feel the need to), I parked, I was unwell (if they had an attendant patrolling the car-park he would have seen this, however this is unprovable from my point of view), I purchased a ticket as soon as I was able for a time exceeding my stay (I always overestimate how long I'm likely to be in an appointment - again, unprovable and irrelevant, but a fact nonetheless) and left the car-park without the slightest notion I'd done anything wrong! The signage (as can be seen in my photos - proveable) certainly doesn't indicate I'd contravened any "law" as there is no mention whatsoever regarding "grace periods" etc

And so you state just that in your Witness Statement.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.