Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Goatzie1234 on January 17, 2024, 05:05:13 pm
-
Ok thanks!
-
Well, your MP is a bit of a thicko. Wise is an IPC member, not a BPA member so all that waffle is useless.
You must make sure that your PALS complaint goes as high as possible up the food chain. Anything that does not involve getting them to get Wise to cancel the PCN is useless. Some lowly minion saying that they will liaise with Wise is not going to get you anywhere. Your escalation up to the Trust CEO is your best bet.
If Plan A fails, do not bother with Plan C (appeal to the kangaroo court that is the IAS). You move on to Plan D which to weather all subsequent reminders and debt collector letters. You wait for if/when they decide to issue a letter of claim and you respond to that robustly. If/when they issue a claim, you can include the Jopson v Homeguard appeal in your defence.
Stopping for a short duration to attend to a small vicissitude is not parking. In your case, dealing with an emergency medical issue to unload and assist the patient into the hospital before returning to park the car was precisely that.
20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.
21. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.
The above appeal is persuasive and any reasonable district judge would likely consider this in this case. You can read the whole transcript of Jopson v Homeguard here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ezhkj6epu66l1r/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?dl=0
-
Hi all,
I have some updates.
PALS route - PALS escalated my issue to Wise (with my consent)- however, unfortunately, at that time my complaint named me as the driver. I hope this doesnt blow my case.
They came back with the 'nothing we can do' routine so I pushed back and now it has been escalated to their 'Head of Security', however its been a while now and I havent heard anything further.
Wise appeal route - I appealed to Wise with just the text provided here (thanks for that!) - They rejected the appeal, but did not respond to any of the points made on my appeal, instead, they seem to be responding to the points I made to PALS which they escalated to them.
This appeal has been considered in
conjunction with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show that the notice was correctly
issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.
The signage on site clearly states that you must park wholly within the confines of a single marked bay.
Unfortunately you did not adhere to these terms so the parking charge was issued correctly.
For parking to work on site careful consideration has been made to where cars can park, and these areas have
been marked with bays to show where the parking may happen. Anyone outside of these marked bays can cause
an obstruction to the other users of the site. Although you feel that where you parked was not an obstruction, the
trust has put a lot of thought into how to line their car parks. We do ask you to consider that this is a hospital where
many old and unwell people need to visit, some feeling quite poorly, some with less than perfect eyesight, some
with poor reactions or spatial awareness.
When the area determined for them to turn a corner or progress down a roadway is blocked, even partly by a
vehicle parked where it should not be (as with your car where it was), it means that the experience of some is
greatly challenged. This is the reason there are no spaces where you parked, as it is intended to be kept clear to
allow for all users the car park, not just the more able with keen senses.
Consequently, after careful consideration your representation has been declined.
MP route - My MP responded with this:
I was very sorry to learn of your experience parking at the Queen Elizabeth and appreciate fully your frustration with how the case has been handled by Wise Parking. I appreciate fully that this occurred at an already stressful and emotional time in light of your partner’s condition. I trust your partner is recovering well.
I continue to press the British Parking Association (BPA) to do more to hold Wise Parking and other parking companies to the industry’s code of conduct, to which it is a signatory.
The BPA has its own code of practice and appeal procedures to which they expect their members to adhere. If a private parking company does not follow these codes responsibly, they risk being banned from accessing DVLA data and will be unable to issue parking charges.
I would therefore encourage you to make a complaint directly to the BPA. Enquiries to the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme can be made via the following site: www.britishparking.co.uk/Contact-AOS
In terms of reforming the current arrangement, Parliament already passed into law in March 2019 the Parking (Code of Practice) Act, which provided for a mandatory code of practice for operators of private car parks.
However, the Government has dragged its heels and we are still waiting for the new Parking Code of Practice to be fully implemented. The Code was temporarily withdrawn in June 2022 “pending review of the levels of private parking charges and additional fees”, according to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
I have long pressed successive Secretaries of State for Transport to bring forward the new Code as a matter of urgency so people have better protection against private companies, like Wise Parking, and will continue to do so.
I trust the above makes clear my thinking on the issues your case raises and that the suggested lines of enquiry you might pursue are of use to you.
NHS Trust CEO route - still waiting on a response.
Thanks :)
-
As part of your “Plan A” find the name of the CEO of the NHS Trust that operates the hospital and email him/her with a complaint about this. If you are getting nowhere with PALS, this is another way to get this moving in the right direction.
You should also email your MP and raise this issue and ask for their intervention in the matter. Too many victims of these unregulated private parking companies never even attempt Plan A and if they do, put far too little effort into it when, in fact, this is probably the easiest way to get these cancelled.
-
So sorry for the radio silence. I didnt get an alert about your response so im only seeing it now. I will raise the appeal as advised and let you know the outcome.
I have been exchanging emails with PALS but havent got very far to be honest!
-
DWMB2 is absolutely right. I had the wrong document open on my screen when I posted my previous reply which I have deleted!
I still think the notice fails to comply with the statutory procedure for keeper liability, but not so blatantly that the biased so called "Independent Appeals Service" (IAS) will definitely allow the appeal. It's worth appealing as IAS decisions are not binding on motorists so even if the IAS appeal goes the wrong way, Wise Parking would need to take the case to court in order to enforce the charge and if OP has the will and temerity to play the long game according to the rules, they should be able to defeat the PCN.
So here is my updated advice. OP should either pay the PCN for a quiet life or play the long game starting with an online appeal to Wise Parking. If OP is up for the fight, here's what I suggest
1. OP amend their initial post to remove any clue as to who was driving.
2. Appeal online to Wise Parking as follows:
I appeal as keeper. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver's liability (if any) to me as keeper because your PCN does not satisfy the conditions for keeper liability set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") and it is now too late for you to deliver a POFA-compliant notice to keeper. Specifically (and without limitation) the PCN does not specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates" as required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) - "N/A - N/A" is not a period. I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my personal information from your database.
Do not click any drop down menu items or state anything that might indicate who was driving. If the online system tries to insist on driver details, come back for further advice.
I expect Wise Parking will reject the appeal and offer you the opportunity of a further appeal to IAS. Come back for more advice if that happens.
-
The notice does claim that they have a right to recover the charge from the keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA.
That doesn't make it compliant, granted, but do you reckon there's enough there for the IAS to agree?
-
I'd assume any parking outside marked bays thrown own might be where wheels are on dividing bay lines etc? In the image you posted the car isn't anywhere near a bay so de Minimus might be a reach!!
-
Fair enough
-
I read on another thread that judges tend to throw out cases of not parking wholly in bays as they are often deemed de minimis. Have you heard this?
Which thread is that?
The concept of de minimis non curat lex is that the courts are not concerned with trifling matters (for example where any alleged contravention is so small as to be insignificant). Where this is applied to marked bay scenarios is generally where a parking operator has issued a charge because, as an example, one tyre is slightly brushing the white line of the bay the driver has parked in, with no discernible impact on anybody. I think you would struggle to argue that a case where the vehicle is entirely outside a bay altogether is de minimis.
-
Thank you.
Sadly, yes, the sign does specify parking within bays.
I will contact PALS.
I read on another thread that judges tend to throw out cases of not parking wholly in bays as they are often deemed de minimis. Have you heard this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sorry to hear about the medical situation - hope your partner and baby are well.
Looking at the contravention, you may be 'bang to rights', assuming the signs make clear that vehicles must be wholly within marked bays.
Regarding your specific queries:
- There is no grace period for parking outside of marked bays. There's what is often referred to as a 'consideration period' - the minimum time for this is not specifically defined by the IPC's Code of Practice (it is in the BPA's: 5 minutes), but it essentially means that a motorist must be allowed sufficient time to consider the terms of the contract on offer and decide whether or not he accepts it, before he can be deemed to be bound by the contract and thus liable for charges. The issue here will be that you chose not to consider the terms on offer, and instead went straight into the hospital (this is entirely understandable given the situation of course), and could therefore be deemed to have accepted the contract by conduct.
- You won't be able to claim back the cost of the parking already paid for
A good first step would be to speak to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) at the hospital in question, explaining the situation and asking if they can intervene. Parking enforcement in NHS car parks is supposed to deter misuse, not penalise patients. Admittedly in this case your parking might fall into the category of what might be considered 'misuse', but you can try and appeal to PALS' good nature here.
-
Sorry about that
-
It's a Parking Charge Notice (private) rather than a Penalty Charge Notice (Council).
Ive asked a mod to move to https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/
-
Ah, sorry.
This is Queen Elizabeth hospital in South East London.
From what i understand, the NHS contract Wise Parking to manage carparks at some of their hospitals.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Are you sure it's not a private parking ticket?
Please post up all sides of the PCN - at the moment we do't even know which of the many Q.E.Hospitals this is.
-
Hi all,
just received a PCN from Wise Parking for 'not parking wholly within a single marked bay'.
On that day the driver had an emergency as the driver's partner was having medical issues. The driver parked outside of a bay temporarily while the driver helped the driver's partner into the hospital before returning to the car and parking it in a bay. This process took less than 10 minutes and the vehicle was not causing an obstruction. The driver was able to pay for parking while the driver did this, and for the extra hours the driver and the driver's partner then spent in A&E.
The driver was wondering if there was a grace period for parking outside of a bay?
Also, could the driver claim back what I had paid for parking during this period?
This PCN did not come from ANPR, it must have been an inspector, however, no ticket was left on the car. The just took pictures and recorded the time by the looks of it.
Thanks!
Lee