Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: muffingg1 on May 21, 2024, 05:53:14 pm
-
For advice on your own case please start a new thread.
-
Sigh… I’ve just had the same PCN from the same firm at the same car park for the same reason. I’ve mis understood and jumped straight in with an appeal saying I did pay through RingGo (absolutely no signal or my phone or my partners - had to go to the local swimming baths and join the WiFi to pay) so it took 20 minutes.
Any advice? how did this appeal go?
-
The Premier Inn is a good point of contact. Were you a patron of the Premier Inn at the time?
Land registry or enquire with the local council to find out who pays the rates for the car park are some other options.
Thanks, yes I was staying at the Premier Inn. I'll write an email to them as well as to Darlington Borough Council (Haven't looked into it in much detail, but assuming this is the correct council for the area)...
-
The Premier Inn is a good point of contact. Were you a patron of the Premier Inn at the time?
Land registry or enquire with the local council to find out who pays the rates for the car park are some other options.
-
Well, we discussed that the 5 minutes to pay is in fact a penalty and not allowed. In the Beavis case the Supreme Court held that when considering whether a contractual clause is a penalty “The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.”
It is an impossibility to enter the car park, find a parking space, find the signs, read the signs, download the app, set up the app and then purchase the permit in under 5 minutes. However, as long as the permit was purchased and covered the period of parking, Excel have no right in law to "punish" you for breaching an impossible term.
The CRA 2015 section 62 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2) also applies. An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. Also, a term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
You can pick loads of things from the CRA, have read of it.
As you are dealing with the intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs at Excel/VCS, I wouldn't put much more effort into it at this stage. What you have written is good enough. You could write War & Peace and throw in a ton of case history but you'd be wasting your time as they will reject it, no matter what.
You're just going through the motions to show that you have made an effort to engage. Send what you have written but don't hold your hopes up for a quick or easy resolution. this will eventually be won but you have to know what to expect. As long as you follow the advice you will win in the end.
Of course you should be complaining to the landowner. They are jointly and severally liable for the actions o their agent. You have paid for your parking but their agent is acting unlawfully by trying to charge you a penalty which, as pointed out above, is not allowed.
Thank you for the detailed response. How do I find out about who the landowner is? Is there some kind of registry I need to look? Do I need to contact the council? The Premier Inn itself?
-
Well, we discussed that the 5 minutes to pay is in fact a penalty and not allowed. In the Beavis case the Supreme Court held that when considering whether a contractual clause is a penalty “The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.”
It is an impossibility to enter the car park, find a parking space, find the signs, read the signs, download the app, set up the app and then purchase the permit in under 5 minutes. However, as long as the permit was purchased and covered the period of parking, Excel have no right in law to "punish" you for breaching an impossible term.
The CRA 2015 section 62 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2) also applies. An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. Also, a term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
You can pick loads of things from the CRA, have read of it.
As you are dealing with the intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs at Excel/VCS, I wouldn't put much more effort into it at this stage. What you have written is good enough. You could write War & Peace and throw in a ton of case history but you'd be wasting your time as they will reject it, no matter what.
You're just going through the motions to show that you have made an effort to engage. Send what you have written but don't hold your hopes up for a quick or easy resolution. this will eventually be won but you have to know what to expect. As long as you follow the advice you will win in the end.
Of course you should be complaining to the landowner. They are jointly and severally liable for the actions o their agent. You have paid for your parking but their agent is acting unlawfully by trying to charge you a penalty which, as pointed out above, is not allowed.
-
Sorry for taking so long to get back on this. I really appreciate all the help from you guys. Given that the appeal is likely to get rejected anyway, I'm wondering if the following would suffice for this stage?
--------------------START--------------------
Re: PCN Number [PCN Reference Number]
I dispute your 'parking charge' as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close-up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made—showing partial VRNs—and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.
I can confirm that a valid ticket (Reference: [12345678]) was purchased using the Connect Cashless Parking app to cover a period of 12 hours between 3 May 2024, 23:47, and 4 May 2024, 11:47. Therefore, the parking ticket claiming that the vehicle did not have a valid ticket for the period between 3 May 2024, 23:37:56, and 4 May 2024, 09:30:07, is incorrect.
Yours sincerely,
[FirstName LastName]
--------------------END--------------------
1. Does this sound fine? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
2. Where it talks about making a complaint to the landowner, by saying this, do I have to actually make the complaint as well or can I say this without actually making the complaint? If I should / have to do submit it, how do I find out who the landowner is?
Thanks in advance.
PS I have until 31 May to submit this.
-
My personal view would be the first angle (of the two you suggest).
As b789 notes, there's a good chance they'll reject either way, but the appeal provides you with an opportunity to demonstrate to them you are well informed, and not an easy target.
-
You would say that the driver paid for the parking. The burden of proof is on the operator to show that the driver didn't purchase parking. The sign does state that you can pay by downloading the App. It does not state that you should have the App already downloaded and ready to make payment. So, time how long it takes to read the whole sign, download the App, set up the method of payment in the App and then make the payment.
The point about it not being purchased within the time allowed is irrelevant as it is an unfair penalty clause and a private company cannot apply a penalty. Use the points I posted yesterday about it being an "Impossibility in a Contract" and an "Unfair Term" under the CRA 2015.
So, simply appeal as the keeper. No stating who was driving. Just use the Royal "we". Explain to them that the driver paid for the duration of parking and that they should cancel the PCN as the requirement to pay within 5 minutes is an impossibility and an unfair term under the CRA 2015. Also explain that they have failed PoFA 2012 in that their signs fail to adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge amount, in which case you are not obliged to disclose the identity of the driver and you will not be doing so.
I wouldn't worry too much about putting too much effort into this as you are dealing with an extremely unpleasant set of intellectually malnourished ex-clamper thugs whose unregulated private company is a member of the IPC. Their sole interest is in how much they can scam you for.
I'd place money on them rejecting any appeal and any secondary appeal to the IAS. Others may advise that you try the IAS but the choice is yours. You never know, you may be one of the less than 4% of appellants that succeeds with them. The most likely outcome is going to be count court clam from them where they will either discontinue or else get spanked by the judge for their vexatious and unreasonable behaviour.
Show us whet you plan on sending as your appeal before you do so.
-
One question I had was, should I write the appeal in the sense that I understand that I am being charged for not paying within the first 5min or should I write it being ignorant of the 5min rule?
In other words should I say
"The driver wasn't able to pay within the 5min because of this this and this"
or
"The 9.30am exit time is wrong because the driver does have a valid parking ticket covering this period"
-
Wow wow wow! What a motivational speech! Thank you and I'm really hyped up about this and really wanna take them on.
It is incredible to have such amazing people online who are willing to help out a stranger for absolutely nothing at all in return. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the help from you all and will be posting my appeal here and see what the feedback is. My deadline is 31 May, so there's still some time but I'll make sure to have my first draft complete by tomorrow or Friday at the very latest.
-
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question about templates. It often depends on which ATA the PPC belongs to. In this case it is Excel and they are members of the IPC. Herein, the problem lies with the various steps in the process of appealing and defending any claim.
I'm not sure if you were asked about the landowner of the car park. Is it a part of a hotel you stayed at? WE always advise victims to start with Plan A. Plan A requires you to find out who owns the car park (it is not Excel) or who manages the land that the car park is on (again, it is not excel). If it a hotel where you were a patron, then a complaint as high up the management food chain asking them to get the PCN cancelled is easiest. You can continue with Plan A all the way up the start of Plan D.
Plan B is the initial appeal to the operator (Excel). No need to rush this but don't miss the IPC 21 day deadline. This appeal is more likely than not going to be rejected no matter how well it is argued. You are not dealing with a customer service led organisation. You are dealing with ex-clamper thugs out to sea you for as much as they can.
Plan C can only be carried out if Plan B has been tried and failed. However, as Excel are members of the IPC, any appeal to them is also likely to fail, irrespective of how well you argue the facts. Some on here would advise that you try them anyway. Personally, I wouldn't bother but it is up top you whether you think you have a chance.
Plan D is when this is likely to finally be cancelled. Plan D is after a period of limbo after Plan C where you weather a storm of useless debt collector letters. They ay seem scary but they are really powerless to do anything. They are employed solely to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into pooping their pants and paying up the now inflated charge.
Once you have weathered all the useless debt collector letters, Excel may or may not engage a firm of roboclaim solicitors to send you a Letter of Claim and an actual claim. This is where you are most likely to win. Whilst they issue the claim, they really don't want a truly independent arbiter, a judge, to decide whether the debt they say you owe them is valid or not.
We would provide a robust defence template for you to use. You only need to edit two paragraphs. Eventually, they will either discontinue or you will have a judge decide. In any event, whatever they put in their claim, even if you lost, you'd pay less than the claim amount. There is no danger of a CCJ because as long as the amount is paid in full within 30 days there is no record of it on your credit file. That is a worst case scenario.
For now, have a go at what you think is a good appeal to Excel and show us. We will critique it and make suggestions as we go forward. You will learn a lot from this experience.
-
I will repeat here what I just posted on another thread and it is what I tell anyone who is concerned about the
bribe discount. Do not rush this as it is a steep learning curve.
You need to get into your understanding that the £40 "discount" is really a bribe to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to think they are getting a good deal and so pay the scammers without having to go though all the machinations required to appeal etc.
It is your money and it is up to you if you think you owe an unregulated private parking company anything at all. If you believe that they are acting in good faith and their "invoice" is fair and proportionate because you have heinously breached their terms and conditions, you are free to fund their extortion racket.
If you are not a "fool and their money" and believe that the PCN is unfair and are prepared to put up with a bit of a fight against intellectually malnourished ex-clampers and their Klingon roboclaim partners, then we will assist you all the way. There is never a 100% guarantee that you will win but there is a very good track record of the people who come here and over on MSE of winning these unfair PCNs. Between us, there is a huge amount of experience in dealing with these unfair PCNs.
If you do decide to fight an unfair PCN then you will gain a very useful life/leaning experience that will be useful to you and your friends and family in the future. Our education system doesn't teach anything about civil law and this is all about that.
These ex-clamper, unregulated private parking companies issue in excess of 30,000 PCNs a DAY! They rake in over £2 billion a year. They are still unregulated and make up their own rules. We are fighting these scammers and cowboys (Hansard). Unfortunately, the vast majority of victims either just pay up (bribed) or ignore and end up paying much more later when they get scared by their lack of knowledge on how to fight this. The majority of those we advise on who follow the advice and fight back end up not paying a penny.
The choice is yours. (And yes, I am biased)
-
Here is how you break down the unfairness of the 5 minute requirement in the "contract"
In this situation, the 5-minute requirement for payment can be considered both an unfair term and potentially an instance of impossibility, especially within the context of the CRA and principles of contract fairness. Here’s a detailed analysis:
Impossibility
1. Objective Impossibility: The requirement to pay within 5 minutes of entering the land can be argued as objectively impossible due to several factors:
- Physical Constraints: It often takes more than 5 minutes just to find a parking spot, locate a sign, and read and understand the terms and conditions.
- Practical Constraints: If the payment method involves downloading an app, setting up an account, and entering payment information, this process typically takes longer than 5 minutes.
2. Lack of Reasonable Opportunity: The terms were not presented in a manner that allowed the driver to comply within the stipulated timeframe, thus making compliance practically impossible under normal circumstances.
Unfair Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the following aspects make the 5-minute requirement potentially unfair:
1. Transparency and Clarity: Terms and conditions must be transparent and clearly communicated to consumers. A sign with tightly packed text and confusing information does not meet this standard. It should be reasonably readable and understandable at a glance.
2. Fair Dealing: Terms that place an undue burden on the consumer or are unreasonably advantageous to the business can be deemed unfair. The requirement to pay within 5 minutes, especially when it’s practically impossible to do so, constitutes an unfair term.
3. Good Faith: The principle of good faith requires that terms are not only clear but also fair and not misleading. The imposition of a heavy penalty for something that the consumer could not reasonably comply with violates this principle.
Legal Protections and Remedies
Given the circumstances, the driver has several potential legal arguments and protections:
1. Challenge the PCN: The driver can contest the parking charge notice, citing the impossibility of complying with the 5-minute payment rule due to the unclear signage and the practical time required to find a parking spot and understand the terms.
2. Unfair Terms Legislation: The driver can argue that the 5-minute rule is an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act protects consumers from unfair terms in contracts they have not had the opportunity to negotiate.
Conclusion
The 5-minute payment requirement appears to be both an impossibility and an unfair term. It imposes an unreasonable and practically unachievable condition on the driver, leading to an unfair penalty. Challenge the parking charge notice on these grounds, citing both the practical impossibility of compliance and the unfair nature of the term under applicable consumer protection laws.
The above is just on a single point. There are more.
Thanks to you and @DWMB2 for all your helpful comments. This is a lot of information to take in, so I'll need some time this evening to carefully re-read everything you guys mentioned and take things from there.
Is there a guide on how to appeal or templates on how to write the appeal letters? I'd like to start on that this evening as I only have until the 24th if I wanted to get the discounted charge (not thinking of paying them, but wondering if an appeal before then may be stronger?) or until the 31st (based on what the letter says is the deadline for the appeal)
-
It's the point I'd lead with, if it were me, as it's the most meritorious. Any others can be added on as additional points.
-
Here is how you break down the unfairness of the 5 minute requirement in the "contract"
In this situation, the 5-minute requirement for payment can be considered both an unfair term and potentially an instance of impossibility, especially within the context of the CRA and principles of contract fairness. Here’s a detailed analysis:
Impossibility
1. Objective Impossibility: The requirement to pay within 5 minutes of entering the land can be argued as objectively impossible due to several factors:
- Physical Constraints: It often takes more than 5 minutes just to find a parking spot, locate a sign, and read and understand the terms and conditions.
- Practical Constraints: If the payment method involves downloading an app, setting up an account, and entering payment information, this process typically takes longer than 5 minutes.
2. Lack of Reasonable Opportunity: The terms were not presented in a manner that allowed the driver to comply within the stipulated timeframe, thus making compliance practically impossible under normal circumstances.
Unfair Terms
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the following aspects make the 5-minute requirement potentially unfair:
1. Transparency and Clarity: Terms and conditions must be transparent and clearly communicated to consumers. A sign with tightly packed text and confusing information does not meet this standard. It should be reasonably readable and understandable at a glance.
2. Fair Dealing: Terms that place an undue burden on the consumer or are unreasonably advantageous to the business can be deemed unfair. The requirement to pay within 5 minutes, especially when it’s practically impossible to do so, constitutes an unfair term.
3. Good Faith: The principle of good faith requires that terms are not only clear but also fair and not misleading. The imposition of a heavy penalty for something that the consumer could not reasonably comply with violates this principle.
Legal Protections and Remedies
Given the circumstances, the driver has several potential legal arguments and protections:
1. Challenge the PCN: The driver can contest the parking charge notice, citing the impossibility of complying with the 5-minute payment rule due to the unclear signage and the practical time required to find a parking spot and understand the terms.
2. Unfair Terms Legislation: The driver can argue that the 5-minute rule is an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act protects consumers from unfair terms in contracts they have not had the opportunity to negotiate.
Conclusion
The 5-minute payment requirement appears to be both an impossibility and an unfair term. It imposes an unreasonable and practically unachievable condition on the driver, leading to an unfair penalty. Challenge the parking charge notice on these grounds, citing both the practical impossibility of compliance and the unfair nature of the term under applicable consumer protection laws.
The above is just on a single point. There are more.
-
The OP may be overthinking this. Not only are the arguments above by @DWMB2 all valid, there are a host of other breaches too. The Excel signs are terrible and have often been cited in cases that actually went to court and were thrown out because charge is not adequately brought to the attention of the driver.
Also, there's the CRA breaches of unfair terms in a contract. Section 62 states that an unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer.
It defines ‘unfair’ terms as those which put the consumer at a disadvantage, by limiting the consumer’s rights or disproportionately increasing their obligations as compared to the trader’s rights and obligations. Is the requirement to drive past the ANPR camera, locate a parking bay, find a terms sign and have to be able to read all of it before deciding whether to accept it and once accepting it having to download an app, set up a payment and then pay for the service 'fair' if it only gives you 5 minutes to do so, even if you already paid for the service?
There is so much more to it. The fact that an anonymous person claiming to be a barrister on some forum tells you that you have no chance is a bit galling. Between here and the MSE forum there is more knowledge and experience in dealing with these private parking matters than any other firm of lawyers.
The whole unregulated parking industry is run by ex-clamper thugs and is designed to get low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up at the first threat. We have been defeating these scammers for years and Excel is no stranger to that group of cowboys.
-
What you're saying is absolutely right, but would a judge think that way? Aren't they more focused on the facts
If the argument is presented to them well and thoroughly they should. The facts of your case are that it was impossible to comply with the terms on offer. The driver needed to first find a space and park. Then he needed to read the terms before even attempting to make payment, reading the terms took roughly _ minutes, then he had to make payment, which involved downloading and registering for an app, entering details etc. etc., then paying. A term that is impossible to comply with would seem to be clearly unfair.
You can also add in the point I mentioned about commercial justification - this links into the famous ParkingEye vs Beavis (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) case in the supreme court, which is the main basis for these £100 charges being allowed at all. Penalty clauses in contracts are normally forbidding, but the Beavis case stated that they are commercially justifiable where the parking company is protecting a legitimate interest. In this case, it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected by charging a motorist who pays in full, but takes longer than 5 minutes to do so. If this car park was patrolled on foot by wardens and one needed to display a ticket, it would make good sense that payment is required promptly and a ticket displayed, so that the wardens can tell who has paid. In a car park controlled entirely remotely by ANPR cameras, it's not clear that requiring payment within 5 minutes serves any legitimate aim*, other than increasing the number of charges Excel can issue.
*indeed, a lot of car parks that use ANPR allow payment to be made at any time before the motorist leaves, so that they don't have to guess in advance how long they'll be staying.
-
I don't have a picture of it, but yeah from Google Streetview it appears like a more summarised version of it, but it may still say it on there (although I can't say for sure).
What you're saying is absolutely right, but would a judge think that way? Aren't they more focused on the facts than saying "it would be farcical for Excel to claim that the driver is expected to have read the terms before entering (what is he supposed to do, stop in the entrance? Park elsewhere and walk to the car park to look at the signs?)" ?
I mean isn't this like accepting the T&Cs when signing up to a website? Nobody reads it but you still agree to them and SHOULD have read them.
-
Do they display them outside of the car park? From what I can see on Google Street View, they are displayed just inside the entrance next to the payment machine, with a smaller sign by the entrance presumably providing a short summary (do you have a photo of this?).
It would be farcical for Excel to claim that the driver is expected to have read the terms before entering (what is he supposed to do, stop in the entrance? Park elsewhere and walk to the car park to look at the signs?)
-
I (obviously) completely agree with what you're saying, but playing devil's advocate, wouldn't they argue the following:
"We clearly displayed the parking terms outside the car park, so the driver should've read these before entering the car park. The fact they entered means they already agree to them, so they are in the wrong for entering the car park either not having read them or having read and not followed the terms"
Also, wouldn't the barrister just say: "What you're saying is correct but in courts, the law works with facts and it is a fact that you went against the terms which you agreed when entering the car park" and every minute counts, so it'll be difficult to argue it took you 10min to pay when all you mentioned can be done much quicker, especially as the car park was relatively empty and you didn't need time to find a space.
-
Perhaps that barrister would like to explain what the commercial justification is for requiring payment within 5 minutes, and charging a motorist £100 for taking 10 minutes to pay.
I think Excel would (or should) struggle to convince a judge that 5 minutes is a reasonable time period to enter a car park, find a space, park, read all of the terms and conditions of parking, accept them, and then make payment.
See how long it takes you to read all of the terms and conditions detailed on the sign, for example... A motorist must be given sufficient time to read the terms he is agreeing to before making payment.
-
The signs do clearly indicate that you need to pay within the first 5min. And I just spoke to a barrister on justanswer.co.uk as well and they think 5min should've been enough to pay even if it required downloading the app. I'm starting to think I have no chance of winning this...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipOXXhGI9hFl-m0svDWjiGtQGdOwbY1vPIguOXQl=s2880-w2880-h1514)
What you're saying is correct. They do say 9.30 is the contravention time, but I believe their argument will just be "You didn't pay within the first 5min, so your entire parking stay doesn't count" or some BS like that.
Do I have nay chance of winning this or shall I just give in to these scammers and pay £60 (for which the deadline is in 2 days by the way)
-
There is nothing there that justifies the issuance of an NtK. Your evidence shows that the driver paid for parking at 23:47 on 3rd May. The Ntk shows that the driver entered the car park at 23:37 on 3rd May.
Payment receipt shows that the permit was valid for 12 hours until 11:47 on 4th May. The NtK shows that the vehicle left at 09:30 on the 4th May.
The NtK says that the alleged contravention is that the driver failed to purchase a permit or did not do so within the time permitted. The receipt shows that a permit was purchased. Therefore the only conclusion can be is that Excel are trying to con you out of £100 because they deem the driver did not purchase the permit quickly enough.
Is there any mention in the terms signage that a permit must be purchased within a set time?
Also, it says the contravention time was 09:30 on the 4th May. If the vehicle had not contravened any of the permint terms before that time, how can there have been any contravention? The photo evidences the car leaving the car park at that time.
-
Thanks, I just messaged you but for some reason I can't see it in my sent items. Could you please confirm that you received it? If not, I'll re-send it.
Many Thanks
-
Send me a direct message with what you want your post to say and I'll edit it for you.
-
Thanks for the reply. I'm struggling to figure out how to edit my post (or even delete and create a new post). Sorry if this is supposed to be very simple but for the life of me I just can't figure it out and I spent around 10min searching for it on my profile as well as on the post, even logging out and back in etc.
I have uploaded the documents to imgur, so could attach them but just can't figure out how to edit an existing post. Any help on this is greatly appreciated!
-
To help us help you, read the following thread and provide as much of the information it asks for that you are able to. In particular, edit your post to not reveal who was driving, as per the guide, and provide the NTK
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
-
I recently received a parking charge notice for a car park next to a Premier Inn in Darlington (Feethams Leisure Centre Car Park). The driver entered the car park, parked up and went straight to the paying machine which only accepted coins.
They use a really poor app called Connect Cashless Parking and the network connection in the car park was not good, the app was very slow, the driver had to register from scratch, and it rejected the first 2 cards the driver tried to pay with. meaning it took them between 10 and 11 minutes until they had paid for the parking.
Now, I received a NTK and PCN dated 10th May and I only returned from my holiday today so couldn't act on it earlier.
This looks like a clear rip-off because the driver have paid for the parking and stayed 2h less than what they paid for. Is there anything that can be done about this? There are dozens of other reviews on Google from people in similar situations. How can this be allowed?
Images are attached for the front and back of the notice as well as the proof of payment
(https://i.imgur.com/MXhAudz.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/6CxURHP.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hdTLEwb.jpeg)