Show Posts - muffingg1

Quote from: b789 on 27 May, 2024 18:25The 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)...

Quote from: b789 on 27 May, 2024 17:39Well, 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 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?

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.

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.

Quote from: b789 on 22 May, 2024 16:10Here 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:  Impossibility1. 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 TermsUnder 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 RemediesGiven 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.  ConclusionThe 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)

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.

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.

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...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)

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

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!

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