Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: MO1974 on December 29, 2024, 09:12:52 pm

Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on May 17, 2025, 08:40:01 am
Thank you, I thought that might be the case but was optimistically hoping that it was over.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on May 16, 2025, 04:40:40 pm
You don't know exactly on what date the CNBC sent a copy of your defence was sent to Excel. Just be patient.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on May 16, 2025, 06:39:44 am
Morning,  I received a letter on the 16th April stating that the documents are being submitted and Excel have 28 days from the date of submission to come back to me regarding proceeding to court. The 14th May is 28 days from the date of the letter. Does anyone know how long it takes to submit the documents or if I go from the date of the letter as it isn't clear.

Many thanks

 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on April 10, 2025, 08:50:36 am
DO not fill in any of the forms that came with the claim. Do not overthink this. Send your defence by email as advised.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on April 09, 2025, 09:19:05 pm
Thank you very much for this, it is much appreciated.  I received several forms that I could fill in or, alternatively, respond online.  Looking at the claim form, responding via email isn't offered as an alternative so I wanted to check that this will be viewed as acceptable. 

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on April 01, 2025, 07:22:48 pm
You need to redact the Claim number and the MCOL password!!!!!!!

With an issue date of 28th March, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 16th April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 30th April to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Excel Parking Services Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on April 01, 2025, 07:10:15 pm
Photos attached...[attach=2]
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on April 01, 2025, 06:52:09 pm
Please tell us how we can advise if we have not seen the letter?
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on April 01, 2025, 06:39:23 pm
Good evening,

I've received a court letter.  I wondered if anyone can offer advice on how to best proceed?

Thank you.

Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: DWMB2 on January 31, 2025, 07:19:11 pm
Yes - it is a letter of claim or a claim form from the court you are looking out for.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 31, 2025, 07:16:48 pm
Hello,

I've received a letter from a debt collection agency.  Is your advice that I should I sit tight and not respond?  It states that if I don't respond their next step will be to recommend legal action.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 07, 2025, 04:03:09 pm
Thank you both so much for the time you've taken to reply. It's very reassuring to read your responses. As you have said, it's an eye opening opening experience. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on January 07, 2025, 03:16:36 pm
Quote from: MO1974 on January 06, 2025, 08:16:01 pm
No I don't think it is fair and I don't feel I owe Excel any money, I paid, just late due to an oversight.  That said, the thought of waiting for letters and threats does make me feel a bit nervous!

Why would you feel nervous about receiving useless debt collector letters? What are you nervous about? The debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver and cannot do anything. They rely on the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and unjustified fear.

We advise on this process day and day out. It is, for most people, an eye opening experience where they learn a lot about the civil legal process and why they should not fear it.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: H C Andersen on January 07, 2025, 09:21:55 am
'..due to an oversight..'??

'The driver went into Derby with their daughter who felt off colour on the way.  They got to Copeland Street car park and looked around for a space.  It too a few minutes.  They both got out of the car and the daughter stumbled and fell.  She hurt her hands and the driver comforted her for a few minutes.'

This isn't an 'oversight', it's a practical example of what's been posted i.e. the impracticality of complying with the key clause in the 'contract'. In the above the driver could not have complied.

Read the entrance sign;
Find a space;
Park;
Secure vehicle, its load and passengers;
Find Ts and Cs board;
Find payment method;
Pay.

All in no more than 5 minutes.

Each case turns on its own facts i.e. a frequent user parking their vehicle in a practically empty car park and not having any responsibilities other than themselves is not a first-time user with a young and vulnerable passenger parking in a practically full car park.

Whether the driver paid after 6 or 66 minutes makes no difference to the creditor.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 06, 2025, 08:16:01 pm
No I don't think it is fair and I don't feel I owe Excel any money, I paid, just late due to an oversight.  That said, the thought of waiting for letters and threats does make me feel a bit nervous!
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on January 06, 2025, 12:20:47 am
What do you mean “should be paid by tomorrow”? Are you tempted by the “mugs discount” to pay the invoice? Do you feel that the invoice you received is fair and you owe Excel the money they are demanding?
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 05, 2025, 09:18:14 pm
My PCN should be paid for by tomorrow.  Would your advice be to sit tight and wait to hear from them?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on January 01, 2025, 06:54:03 pm
With respect to @H C Andersen, the central issue is whether the 5 minute clause in the contractual sign is enforceable. Whilst the judge and I disagreed on whether it is an unlawful penalty clause or, in their opinion simply a clause that penalises someone if they breach it, may come down to semantics.

The judge considers the facts only. As far as this judge is concerned, if the clause is in the contractual sign, then it is simply a clause. If you were to argue that it is impossible to comply with the clause and the clause is central to the performance of the contract, then the whole contract is void.

As far as this contract is concerned, it is central to the performance of the contract and therefore the whole contracts void. That is how this judge thinks. Other judges (judge bingo) may approach it differently.

The leading case in English law is Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. These cases establish that a clause is not a penalty if it protects a legitimate business interest of the non-breaching party, and is not out of proportion to that legitimate interest.

In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court held that a parking charge was not a penalty because it served a legitimate interest (e.g., managing parking spaces) and was proportionate. However, if the charge is excessive, arbitrary, or does not reflect a legitimate interest, it should be considered a penalty and therefore unenforceable.

I would argue that a clause that penalises someone for breaching it can only be a penalty clause. Maybe it's semantics but you must look at whether the clause aims to deter breach or punish the breaching party. If so, it can only be deemed a penalty clause.

The judge's reasoning, to me and many others, appears contradictory and, as far as I'm concerned reflects a misunderstanding of the legal principles surrounding penalty clauses and I intend to argue it further with him when we next meet.

Under English law, a penalty clause is one that imposes a detriment on a party for breaching a contract, where that detriment is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss or is disproportionate to any legitimate interest of the other party. Because the judge stated that the clause "penalises the driver if they breach it", that in itself suggests the clause imposes a "penalty" for non-compliance. If that is the case, how can this clause be considered anything but a penalty clause?

The judge's assertion that the clause "is not a penalty clause" but "penalises the driver" conflates the clause's punitive nature with its enforceability. If the clause's purpose is to penalise rather than compensate for actual loss, it is, by definition, a penalty clause.

In light of Cavendish Square v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis, the clause should be examined as follows:

Does the 5-minute limit serve a legitimate interest of the parking operator (e.g., ensuring turnover of parking spaces)? While there may be some legitimate interest, the clause's effect of penalising non-compliance, particularly given the practical impossibility of compliance, suggests it is disproportionate.

Is the detriment imposed (the £100 parking charge) out of proportion to the legitimate interest? The time limit starting from the ANPR camera entry, combined with the impracticality of complying, suggests that the clause is unreasonable and therefore punitive.

The clause requires actions (finding a space, reading terms, setting up payment etc.) that are impossible to complete within 5 minutes. This undermines the fairness of the clause and its enforceability.

The strict 5-minute timeframe effectively sets up drivers to fail, especially considering the logistical realities of parking and reading extensive contractual terms. There is no way that the operator suffers a tangible loss if the payment is made slightly later or even at the end of the parking session, undermining any argument that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The clause appears to deter breaches rather than protect a legitimate interest, making it punitive and therefore, unenforceable.

If it were ever to actually get as far as a hearing, you would only need to highlight the practical impossibility of complying with the clause, rendering it inherently unfair. You would also argue that the charge imposed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is disproportionate to any legitimate interest. Reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires terms to be fair and transparent mean that an unachievable requirement is neither.

So if a clause penalises a driver for breaching it and does not align with the tests established in Cavendish Square v Makdessi, it can and can only be treated as a penalty clause. My argument with the judge's reasoning is that he conflates the punitive nature of the clause with its enforceability, which is contradictory under established legal principles.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 01, 2025, 05:55:33 pm
Further photos..

First- Close up of entrance sign- passenger's side

Second- The sign by the payment machine.

Third- closer photo of the T and C's

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on January 01, 2025, 05:51:05 pm
Please find Photos attached.

The first photo is the driver's side as you enter the car park.

The second photo is the passenger's side as you enter the car park. 

The third photo is a closer photo of the sign on the driver's side.  In the background,is a sign saying that the car park is covered by ANPR.


I've some more so will attach to a another message.
. 



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: H C Andersen on January 01, 2025, 05:29:18 pm
Where are your photos?? And put them in context e.g. these are at the entrance and these are placed at A,B and C as marked on the GSV snapshot etc.

With respect to b789 and the judge, there's a step missing in their analysis.

A motorist does NOT have 5 minutes to read the sign and pay, they have 5 minutes from entering the car park to pay and this includes:

Noting the contents of the entry signs - which we haven't seen;
Finding a parking space, parking, off-loading any items, securing the car, finding a Ts and Cs board and then reading and acting upon its contents.

ALL potentially within 5 minutes of an unknown time because, unless instructed to do so, the motorist would not note the time of entry as they would not have any reason to do so.

AND..when commencing the payment process how would a driver know whether they had breached the '5-minute' requirement and thereby left themselves liable to a parking charge of the SAME amount as if they had simply not bothered to pay at all...and therefore paying the parking tariff under false impressions?
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 09:17:16 pm
Thank you. Your responses lead me to feel confident in not paying the £60. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on December 31, 2024, 05:26:26 pm
How many times does it have to be said? The contract is unenforceable. Excel will have to discontinue or else face a spanking in court.

Why do you think they discontinued with the case I showed you above which is for an amount that, had they been successful, could have been pursued with a warrant. The publicity helped but it never went in front of a judge.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 05:04:48 pm
Thank you very much for your reply. I've taken photos of these signs this afternoon. At entry, it states it is a pay on entry car park. A sign saying pay within 5 minutes is on the passenger side which arguably, is harder for the driver to read. It says the T and Cs are on the sign by the payment machine- which I onviously woukdnt hwve been near until I was leaving. My only concern is that I didn't miss the 5 mins by a small amount, I didn't pay until I was leaving.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: b789 on December 31, 2024, 04:46:56 pm
Copeland Street car park is the infamous Excel car park where the recent case of Ms Rosey Hudson was highlighted in the press.

Car park operator drops £1,906 'rip-off charge' (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c627zp5d0qeo)

I did discuss this case with a judge and, whilst I did not fully agree with him, it ws interesting to see how a judge would view the case and how it would best to argue it.

Just so as you can get a glimpse into the judges way of thinking, I repeat the WhatsApp conversation below:

Quote
Me: Isn’t a term requiring payment within 5 minutes of entering the car park an unenforceable penalty in contract law, as long as payment is made to cover the period of parking? That’s always been the argument I’ve put forward. Never had it get in front of a judge though.

Judge: No. If the contract says pay within 5 minutes, it’s a breach if you pay any later than that.

Me: So, if it is an almost impossible term to comply with because it can often take more than 5 minutes from entering the car park and finding a parking spot and then reading the terms and deciding to remain and then being presented with more issues due to the time it takes to download an app and set up the app to accept payment etc.

Would an argument that the time allowed is designed to entrap users? As long as the users pay for the time parked, the operator has not lost anything of value and the 5 minutes allowed is simply a form of penalty clause designed to entrap the driver and should be unenforceable to to frustration of contract?

Judge: It isn’t right to talk about entrapment or a penalty clause or frustration of contract. These are really emotive and subjective terms
Think of it in this way. It is fact specific. If the signage hides the “five minute rule” in very small print and/or in complex language, then this clause could be construed as an unfair contract term and cannot therefore be relied on.

Me: My argument for the defence to you as the “judge” would be:

Yes, it’s a breach: By the strict terms of the contract, failing to pay within the stipulated time is a breach. But is it enforceable?:

Even if a breach occurs, the enforceability of the penalty (£100 in this case) depends on whether the term is fair, proportionate, and in compliance with consumer protection laws.

Under the CRA, contractual terms must be fair and not create a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer. A 5-minute window should be considered unfair as it is unreasonably short, especially if drivers need time to park, read the signs, and decide whether to stay.

If payment was made after 5 minutes but adequately covers the parking period, enforcing a £100 penalty would be disproportionate and arguably unfair.

The £100 charge for late payment should be viewed as a penalty clause, which is unenforceable as it does not protect a legitimate business interest and is extravagant or even unconscionable.

If the operator suffers no significant loss (because payment is made for the parking period), the £100 charge can only be punitive rather than compensatory or justified by any commercial need.

In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court upheld the parking charge because it served a legitimate interest in managing parking spaces and ensuring turnover. In this case, the operator needs to show why enforcing payment within 5 minutes is necessary and justified. Without a clear justification, the charge cannot meet the "legitimate interest" threshold.

If the delay in payment is minor, penalising the driver £100 for missing a short deadline should be seen as disproportionate. Would you not consider degree of the breach and the harm caused when assessing proportionality?

Judge: Firstly, it is not a penalty clause. It is just a clause that penalises somebody for breach. Your argument is a little overcomplicated. If you can demonstrate that it is literally impossible to do everything you have to do within the five minute window then there are two consequences.

If the clause is central to the performance of the contract then the whole contract is void. If the clause can be severed from the rest of the contract leaving the rest of the contract able to be performed, then only that clause is void

It seems to me that this clause is central to the performance of the contract and therefore the whole contract is void. End of

I Hope that makes sense.

Me: This is the contract:

(https://i.imgur.com/cv0CdZ4.jpeg)

Judge: Ok

Me: And this is the term, hidden in the bigger sign:

(https://i.imgur.com/xAw6Oh6.jpeg)

Judge: Lolol. Not only would you need about half an hour to read all of that, but you need a microscope

Me: Which is always the case, especially with Excel and VCS.

So, if you were presented with my argument and the evidence, would you say that the 5 minute clause is enforceable?

Judge: No I would not.

So, according to the thinking of a judge when it comes to whether the 5 minute clause is enforceable at this car park... it isn't. As that clause is central to the contract, the whole contract is void.

While the 5-minute clause is not a "penalty clause" in the traditional sense, it can still be successfully challenged on grounds of fairness, proportionality, and enforceability under the CRA.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 12:51:30 pm
I'm going into Derby shortly so I'll take photos of the terms smd conditions.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: DWMB2 on December 31, 2024, 12:44:57 pm
Photos of the signs would be useful, but even if they do state a requirement to pay within X minutes, I'd stand by my previous point. The fact that a term is printed on a sign does not mean it is automatically commercially justifiable.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: H C Andersen on December 31, 2024, 12:37:01 pm
As this must be local, then you should be able to obtain clear photos of the Ts and Cs upon which their case rests i.e. payment must be made within X minutes of entry and not just before exit.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 11:47:46 am
Yes,  The photographs on the PCN are taken at the entry and exit to the car park. It states on the PCN paperwork   "The contravention was detected and recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the Privately Operated Park/site specified opposite" 

I totally agree, its a money-making tactic.  I'm annoyed that I paid for the two hours so they are not out of pocket for the time I was in the space and I then received the notice two weeks later. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: DWMB2 on December 31, 2024, 11:40:10 am
From the looks of the PCN you've received, the car park is enforced by ANPR cameras rather than wardens on foot, is that your understanding too?

If so, the first argument that springs to my mind is that there is no commercial justification for requiring payment within an arbitrary deadline upon arrival, making a £100 charge for paying 'late' (but still before leaving) an unenforceable penalty.

The ParkingEye vs Beavis case in the Supreme Court held that parking charges that would ordinarily be penalties are acceptable in some circumstances, where there is a commercial justification. For example, in a free shop car park with a time limit, there is a commercial justification for a charge for overstaying, in order to deter misuse, which would block spaces that genuine customers could otherwise use.

Here, I can't see what legitimate purpose there is in requiring payment to be made within a certain time after entering - all such a term would seem to achieve is increasing the chances of issuing PCNs. If the car park was patrolled by a warden on foot, I could understand needing payment on arrival, as you'd need to display a ticket so that the warden could check who has paid. With an ANPR car park however, they could simply check payments received vs time spent on site, and allow drivers to pay at any time before they leave the car park.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 11:37:18 am
That said, I know I said I was distracted by my daughter feeling poorly, who then stumbled as she got out of the car and she hurt her hands.  I comforted her then we rushed to my appointment.  I was distracted by her and completely forgot about paying for a ticket. I'd say this was pretty much my appeal.  There wasn't room for much more.  In doing that I've confirmed I was the driver, which I now know I shouldn't have done.  My peeve is that I paid on return to the car, so I feel deeply annoyed at their fine in the first place, nevermind the rejection of my appeal.  Seems really unfair. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 11:29:36 am
I can't get that.  Unfortunately, the appeal was sent without realising the minefield this is.  I've logged onto the website but I can't see what I sent. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: mickR on December 31, 2024, 10:06:44 am
the wording of your appeal is important
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 31, 2024, 09:51:09 am
Morning,

Everything is posted.  Does anyone have any advice?  Many thanks.
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 29, 2024, 10:09:38 pm
The first page is uploaded,  also included is the main text of the response without too many details.  There isn't a copy of the appeal.  The most appropriate selection was child ill, which was selected then the additional info was that this distracted the driver as they were rushing to an appointment that this made them late for. 
Title: Re: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: DWMB2 on December 29, 2024, 09:44:58 pm
Welcome to FTLA.

If you haven't already, please read the following guide carefully: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/).

To help us to help you, we need some further information:

Title: Parking Charge in Derby- Paid on return to car
Post by: MO1974 on December 29, 2024, 09:12:52 pm
Hello,

Here is a quick summary of what happened to lead to a PCN.
The driver went into Derby with their daughter who felt off colour on the way.  They got to Copeland Street car park and looked around for a space.  It too a few minutes.  They both got out of the car and the daughter stumbled and fell.  She hurt her hands and the driver comforted her for a few minutes.  The driver realised they were running late for an opticians appointment so they hurried to the opticians.  They did a couple of errands and returned to the car.  As the driver approached the car they realised they had not got a ticket on arrival- as they were busy with the child, so it was an oversight.  The driver immediately purchased a ticket and paid £3- more than needed.  They kept the ticket just in case and went home.

They subsequently received a PCN.  They appealed this explaining what had happened with the child and attached a photo of the parking ticket they had bought- to show that a ticket had been bought albeit at the point of departure.  They hoped for some understanding from the company.  On Christmas Eve the company sent an e mail with a letter attached outlining that this was not acceptable.

The driver felt quote irritated by this and has contacted the MP who was interested and will take this up with them.  The driver assumes that the company, if they do respond to the MP will do this after the deadline for paying the fee.  The driver wonders if you have any advice on how to best proceed.

[attachment deleted by admin]