1
Private parking tickets / Re: Got a PCN in Hospital after dropping off my mother to collect something while I was inside the car.
« on: April 13, 2025, 10:10:17 pm »
Incredible! Thank you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Private parking tickets / Re: Got a PCN in Hospital after dropping off my mother to collect something while I was inside the car.
« on: April 11, 2025, 10:40:47 pm »
Thanks a lot. Today I tried to trach PALS on the phone few times but didn't have much luck. So I thought of emailing them. However it occurred to me that by contacting PALS, I need to tell them the story and by doing that, I admit that I was the driver. If they share this with APCOA and they reject and then I appeal directly with your text, am I not contradicting myself? Could they somehow keep a record of my PALS communication and use it against me?! Or am I thinking too much?!
3
Private parking tickets / Got a PCN in Hospital after dropping off my mother to collect something while I was inside the car.
« on: April 11, 2025, 10:49:06 am »
Hi everyone,
I took my mother to Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading on 27th March for her to go inside and collect something. There was no place to park so I just drove around and then eventually found a space that I think was for EV cars. I kept the car running and at no point I left the car. I can't tell how long I was waiting but it might have been 10-15min.
I then received this PCN yesterday 10th April as per bellow.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/KjSctW4
It looks so clumsy to me, it doesn't even show when I left the place. Do I have any grounds to argue that I did not technically parked my car or left it at any time?
Appreciate your guide and input in this matter.
I took my mother to Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading on 27th March for her to go inside and collect something. There was no place to park so I just drove around and then eventually found a space that I think was for EV cars. I kept the car running and at no point I left the car. I can't tell how long I was waiting but it might have been 10-15min.
I then received this PCN yesterday 10th April as per bellow.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/KjSctW4
It looks so clumsy to me, it doesn't even show when I left the place. Do I have any grounds to argue that I did not technically parked my car or left it at any time?
Appreciate your guide and input in this matter.
4
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: February 08, 2025, 05:19:06 am »
Stuart Lumsden
5
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: February 07, 2025, 06:00:49 pm »
Dear all,
After appealing to POPLA and waiting for months, they finally made their decision! It's all thanks to you and your amazing knowledge and guidance that ordinary people like me can fight back against unjust fines and tickets. Can't thank you enough. I post this hoping that it can help someone else at some point.
Here is their verdict...
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name......
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper and state the operator has failed to bring the £85 charge to the attention of the driver which is a failure of PoFA. • Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed, Whilst the Monday – Saturday tariffs are highlighted in green at the top, the Sunday and Bank Holiday tariffs are placed at the bottom in black, making them less prominent. • No invitation to the keeper to pay the PCN has been made, which is a failure of PoFA. • The operator has failed to comply with section 18.1, 18.3 and 19.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the PCN and an image of a sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note they state the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. On review, I am not satisfied that that the signage is legible because the sum of charge is neither prominent, in larger or bold text or highlighted in a separate box. It is the same size as the rest of the text which does not make it prominent. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the contract terms were made clear to the motorist. As such, I am allowing this appeal. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.
After appealing to POPLA and waiting for months, they finally made their decision! It's all thanks to you and your amazing knowledge and guidance that ordinary people like me can fight back against unjust fines and tickets. Can't thank you enough. I post this hoping that it can help someone else at some point.
Here is their verdict...
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name......
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to failing to purchase the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper and state the operator has failed to bring the £85 charge to the attention of the driver which is a failure of PoFA. • Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed, Whilst the Monday – Saturday tariffs are highlighted in green at the top, the Sunday and Bank Holiday tariffs are placed at the bottom in black, making them less prominent. • No invitation to the keeper to pay the PCN has been made, which is a failure of PoFA. • The operator has failed to comply with section 18.1, 18.3 and 19.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • A copy of the PCN and an image of a sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and note they state the amount of the charge was not appropriately brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. On review, I am not satisfied that that the signage is legible because the sum of charge is neither prominent, in larger or bold text or highlighted in a separate box. It is the same size as the rest of the text which does not make it prominent. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the contract terms were made clear to the motorist. As such, I am allowing this appeal. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.
6
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 27, 2024, 03:16:36 pm »
Incredible. I shall get back with the outcome. Thank you.
7
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 27, 2024, 01:30:11 am »
Reason selected was: I was not improperly parked - The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed
No mention of Beavis!I just had to search and read the case!
========wording:
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice AGP......
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice issued at the Clock Tower Car Park, Maidenhead, on 29th Sep 2024. The appeal is submitted strictly as the keeper, with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. I expect the Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Adequately Bring the £85 Charge to the Attention of the Driver (PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii))
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), requires that the parking charge be adequately brought to the attention of the driver. The signage at the Clock Tower Car Park does not comply with this requirement. The £85 charge is buried within smaller text towards the bottom of the sign, and it is not prominently displayed to sufficiently alert drivers to the potential penalty for non-compliance.
A significant term such as the £85 charge should be presented in a clear, prominent manner, similar to how the main tariff rates are displayed, to ensure it is adequately communicated to motorists before they choose to park.
2. Misleading Presentation of Tariffs (Consumer Rights Act 2015)
Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed. In this case, while the Monday-Saturday rates are in green at the top, the Sunday and bank holiday tariff is placed at the bottom in black text, below other less crucial information. This separation and difference in formatting mislead the driver into assuming that parking is free on Sundays, as the Sunday tariff is not presented with the same prominence as the other tariffs. Such a presentation fails to meet the requirement of transparency.
3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Requirements for the Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper issued does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, invalidating any claim to hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge if the driver is not identified.
4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice Regarding Signage (Paragraphs 18.1, 18.3, and 19.1)
The British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned so that terms are easily understandable by drivers. Paragraph 18.3 specifically requires that parking charges be clearly highlighted on signage, while Paragraph 19.1 mandates that signs must make it easy for drivers to understand the terms before parking. The £85 charge is buried in small print, failing to comply with these requirements.
In conclusion, Given these breaches of PoFA, the BPA Code of Practice, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I believe the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable.
No mention of Beavis!I just had to search and read the case!
========wording:
Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice AGP......
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice issued at the Clock Tower Car Park, Maidenhead, on 29th Sep 2024. The appeal is submitted strictly as the keeper, with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. I expect the Parking Charge Notice to be cancelled for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Adequately Bring the £85 Charge to the Attention of the Driver (PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii))
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(3)(b)(ii), requires that the parking charge be adequately brought to the attention of the driver. The signage at the Clock Tower Car Park does not comply with this requirement. The £85 charge is buried within smaller text towards the bottom of the sign, and it is not prominently displayed to sufficiently alert drivers to the potential penalty for non-compliance.
A significant term such as the £85 charge should be presented in a clear, prominent manner, similar to how the main tariff rates are displayed, to ensure it is adequately communicated to motorists before they choose to park.
2. Misleading Presentation of Tariffs (Consumer Rights Act 2015)
Under Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be transparent and prominently displayed. In this case, while the Monday-Saturday rates are in green at the top, the Sunday and bank holiday tariff is placed at the bottom in black text, below other less crucial information. This separation and difference in formatting mislead the driver into assuming that parking is free on Sundays, as the Sunday tariff is not presented with the same prominence as the other tariffs. Such a presentation fails to meet the requirement of transparency.
3. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Requirements for the Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper issued does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA, as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, invalidating any claim to hold the registered keeper liable for the parking charge if the driver is not identified.
4. Breach of BPA Code of Practice Regarding Signage (Paragraphs 18.1, 18.3, and 19.1)
The British Parking Association Code of Practice stipulates that signage must be clear, legible, and positioned so that terms are easily understandable by drivers. Paragraph 18.3 specifically requires that parking charges be clearly highlighted on signage, while Paragraph 19.1 mandates that signs must make it easy for drivers to understand the terms before parking. The £85 charge is buried in small print, failing to comply with these requirements.
In conclusion, Given these breaches of PoFA, the BPA Code of Practice, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I believe the Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable.
8
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 26, 2024, 10:54:55 pm »
Hello everyone.
First off, my apologies for not getting back to your comments. For some reasons I did not get any notifications on my email after the last one. I just came to post my update and saw them. As for why I rushed my submission to POPLA, I had a surgery being done on my hand and I couldn't type for a while and maybe psychologically as well, I wanted to get it done so went with your original appeal.
I heard from POLPA today saying that Green Parking has added their bit and I have 7 days to reply. I have copied their reply below. They have also attached the PCN that was issued and shows my car + their letter of rejection to my appeal as per my previous post +pages of their terms and conditions and 2 pages list of all the cars that were parked and paid on that day. I put a link at the bottom showing their submitted photos and signage. I can tell that they have cleaned them up nicely for photo shoot!
Other things to mention is how they put a date on their letters and it takes up to 6 days to get to me and they keep clocking their deadline as per date on letter. they even sent another demand over a week after my submission to POPLA. Now they want 100 based on their 28 days rule but I hardly had any days in between the communications, as if I was chilling! This might be normal for you experienced people and they just use this for intimidation. Thought of mentioning it.
So here it goes....
===============================
Case summary and rules/conditions
On 29/09/2024 @ 14:06hrs vehicle ...... was observed entering on Private Land called Clock
Tower Car Park, Maidenhead. Our Car Park offers pay and display accepting both coin and card,
along with an online payment system (RingGo location code 2854). Disabled Parking is available and
normal Tariff applies, as per displayed on our signage.
Signage on entrance clearly shows this is private land and our terms and conditions apply.
Prior to the Parking Charge Notice being issued the vehicle was observed for 2hr 34 minutes.
No payment has been made for this vehicle.
Therefore, as no parking was paid to us for this vehicle it was in breach of the terms and conditions
and we issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Parking charge notice and any notes
A contravention was logged by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera on 29/09/2024
@ 16:41 hrs
A PCN was issued on 04/10/24 and sent second class to the vehicle keeper supplied by the DVLA.
Time and Date Stamped Pictures also enclosed; these clearly shows times of vehicle ......
entering and exiting our car park Clock Tower Car Park Maidenhead.
Our terms and conditions state that a vehicle is allowed a grace period of 15 minutes which exceeds
the BPA guidelines for 10 minutes, before a parking charge notice is issued. This provides the
motorist enough time to read the signage and move the vehicle.
Registered keeper details and liability trail
The registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA via KADOE link on 03/10/2024 and the
PCN was issued under POFA on 04/10/2024 to ...... (Registered keeper).
No transfer of liability was received.
Original representations and notice of rejection
An appeal was received on 29/10/2024 from ..... The appeal explained that there wasn’t
sufficient signage on the car park. Letter is attached along with the evidence provided.
We responded back to ....., the Keeper of the vehicle, confirming that the PCN was issued
correctly, for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer
than permitted in accordance with terms and conditions set out in the signage.
Our parking facility operates on the basis of clearly outlined terms and conditions, prominently
displayed at various points within the premises, including the requirement for all vehicles to pay the
designated parking fees. It is the responsibility of all individuals, to familiarise themselves with these
regulations before utilising our parking facilities.
The appellant claims that the £85 charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver,
citing Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the car park
complies with Sections 19.1 to 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which
requires that parking terms and charges be clear, legible, and prominently displayed. The £85 charge
is specifically highlighted alongside the terms of parking at both the entrance and within the car
park, ensuring that drivers are sufficiently informed of the potential consequences of non-
compliance.
Regarding the presentation of tariffs, the appellant argues that Sunday and bank holiday charges are
misleading. The signage at Clock Tower Car Park clearly lists all applicable tariffs, including those for
Sundays and bank holidays, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code. The layout of the
signage is not misleading, and the responsibility lies with the driver to review and understand the full
terms before parking.
The appellant further claims the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the requirements of Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. The NtK explicitly informs the registered keeper of their liability if the
driver is not identified, stating: “You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days...we do not know
both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the
parking charge from you.” This language satisfies the statutory requirements outlined in PoFA.
The signage fully complies with the BPA Code by presenting terms and charges in a clear and
accessible manner. The £85 parking charge is neither hidden nor buried in small print but is
prominently displayed in a format that ensures visibility and comprehension by all users of the car
park.
Our company has taken considerable measures to ensure that all relevant signage and information
are clearly visible and easily comprehensible for all users of our car park. Our signs explicitly
communicate the necessity of adhering to the payment terms.
We then extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow them to pay the discounted
amount of £40, but should no further communication be received the PCN would process at the full
charge of £85.00 and then after 28 days if no payment is made this would increase to £100.00
(£85.00 + £15.00 which is our administration charge). This all falls in line with the BPA guidelines.
A POPLA case has been logged on the 05/11/2024 and therefore the discount rate of £40 would be
removed and the advertised rate as per the signage of £100.00 would apply.
Summary of Evidence
Please see attached as part of our evidence package, signage for the car park which clearly displays
the Terms and Conditions. We also include all records of payment from RingGo and the Pay and
Display Machine showing no payment was allocated to Vehicle registration ‘......’.
Attachments etc.
Signage for the car park
Terms and Conditions on website and displayed at car park
Evidence of Non- Payment from our Parking Records.
https://ibb.co/GP5zNPk
First off, my apologies for not getting back to your comments. For some reasons I did not get any notifications on my email after the last one. I just came to post my update and saw them. As for why I rushed my submission to POPLA, I had a surgery being done on my hand and I couldn't type for a while and maybe psychologically as well, I wanted to get it done so went with your original appeal.
I heard from POLPA today saying that Green Parking has added their bit and I have 7 days to reply. I have copied their reply below. They have also attached the PCN that was issued and shows my car + their letter of rejection to my appeal as per my previous post +pages of their terms and conditions and 2 pages list of all the cars that were parked and paid on that day. I put a link at the bottom showing their submitted photos and signage. I can tell that they have cleaned them up nicely for photo shoot!
Other things to mention is how they put a date on their letters and it takes up to 6 days to get to me and they keep clocking their deadline as per date on letter. they even sent another demand over a week after my submission to POPLA. Now they want 100 based on their 28 days rule but I hardly had any days in between the communications, as if I was chilling! This might be normal for you experienced people and they just use this for intimidation. Thought of mentioning it.
So here it goes....
===============================
Case summary and rules/conditions
On 29/09/2024 @ 14:06hrs vehicle ...... was observed entering on Private Land called Clock
Tower Car Park, Maidenhead. Our Car Park offers pay and display accepting both coin and card,
along with an online payment system (RingGo location code 2854). Disabled Parking is available and
normal Tariff applies, as per displayed on our signage.
Signage on entrance clearly shows this is private land and our terms and conditions apply.
Prior to the Parking Charge Notice being issued the vehicle was observed for 2hr 34 minutes.
No payment has been made for this vehicle.
Therefore, as no parking was paid to us for this vehicle it was in breach of the terms and conditions
and we issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Parking charge notice and any notes
A contravention was logged by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera on 29/09/2024
@ 16:41 hrs
A PCN was issued on 04/10/24 and sent second class to the vehicle keeper supplied by the DVLA.
Time and Date Stamped Pictures also enclosed; these clearly shows times of vehicle ......
entering and exiting our car park Clock Tower Car Park Maidenhead.
Our terms and conditions state that a vehicle is allowed a grace period of 15 minutes which exceeds
the BPA guidelines for 10 minutes, before a parking charge notice is issued. This provides the
motorist enough time to read the signage and move the vehicle.
Registered keeper details and liability trail
The registered keeper details were requested from the DVLA via KADOE link on 03/10/2024 and the
PCN was issued under POFA on 04/10/2024 to ...... (Registered keeper).
No transfer of liability was received.
Original representations and notice of rejection
An appeal was received on 29/10/2024 from ..... The appeal explained that there wasn’t
sufficient signage on the car park. Letter is attached along with the evidence provided.
We responded back to ....., the Keeper of the vehicle, confirming that the PCN was issued
correctly, for not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer
than permitted in accordance with terms and conditions set out in the signage.
Our parking facility operates on the basis of clearly outlined terms and conditions, prominently
displayed at various points within the premises, including the requirement for all vehicles to pay the
designated parking fees. It is the responsibility of all individuals, to familiarise themselves with these
regulations before utilising our parking facilities.
The appellant claims that the £85 charge was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver,
citing Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The signage at the car park
complies with Sections 19.1 to 19.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which
requires that parking terms and charges be clear, legible, and prominently displayed. The £85 charge
is specifically highlighted alongside the terms of parking at both the entrance and within the car
park, ensuring that drivers are sufficiently informed of the potential consequences of non-
compliance.
Regarding the presentation of tariffs, the appellant argues that Sunday and bank holiday charges are
misleading. The signage at Clock Tower Car Park clearly lists all applicable tariffs, including those for
Sundays and bank holidays, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the BPA Code. The layout of the
signage is not misleading, and the responsibility lies with the driver to review and understand the full
terms before parking.
The appellant further claims the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the requirements of Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. The NtK explicitly informs the registered keeper of their liability if the
driver is not identified, stating: “You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days...we do not know
both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the
parking charge from you.” This language satisfies the statutory requirements outlined in PoFA.
The signage fully complies with the BPA Code by presenting terms and charges in a clear and
accessible manner. The £85 parking charge is neither hidden nor buried in small print but is
prominently displayed in a format that ensures visibility and comprehension by all users of the car
park.
Our company has taken considerable measures to ensure that all relevant signage and information
are clearly visible and easily comprehensible for all users of our car park. Our signs explicitly
communicate the necessity of adhering to the payment terms.
We then extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow them to pay the discounted
amount of £40, but should no further communication be received the PCN would process at the full
charge of £85.00 and then after 28 days if no payment is made this would increase to £100.00
(£85.00 + £15.00 which is our administration charge). This all falls in line with the BPA guidelines.
A POPLA case has been logged on the 05/11/2024 and therefore the discount rate of £40 would be
removed and the advertised rate as per the signage of £100.00 would apply.
Summary of Evidence
Please see attached as part of our evidence package, signage for the car park which clearly displays
the Terms and Conditions. We also include all records of payment from RingGo and the Pay and
Display Machine showing no payment was allocated to Vehicle registration ‘......’.
Attachments etc.
Signage for the car park
Terms and Conditions on website and displayed at car park
Evidence of Non- Payment from our Parking Records.
https://ibb.co/GP5zNPk
9
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 06, 2024, 04:09:14 pm »
I selected the reason as signage not being clear and then used your above argument as my ground for appeal. I attached photos of the parking signage and their PCN.
10
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 06, 2024, 12:37:48 am »
Update: I have now submitted my appeal to POPLA
11
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: November 04, 2024, 10:33:00 pm »
Hello I finally heard back from Green Parking with regards to my appeal. The date on their letter is 29t/10/2024 but just received it today 4th Nov and they have given me till 5th in order to pay the "discounted" price! Incredibly annoying and cheeky of them to put pressure so you pay last minute!
My appeal was pretty much what you suggested above and bellow is what they sent me. Looks like a typical generic cut/paste letter. Awaiting you kind suggestion of what to do next. One problem is that I will be going away in a month and won't be around for few weeks to deal with any possible letters and more headaches!
-----
Issue date: 04/10/2024
POPLA Verification Code:......
Thank you for your appeal received on 29/10/2024 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice
We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason (s):
By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage Therefore the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly
We have now extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount.
Please now make payment of £40.00 to reach us by 05/1 1/2024 or £85.00 to reach us by 19/11/2024.
We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again.and therefore you now have two options:-
You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options:..(blah blah)
You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals using the POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website,www.popla.co.uk, where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure that your POPLA Reference Number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA
You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined
By law we are also required to you that Ombudsman Service (www.ombudsman-services.org/ ) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above
if you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to bur appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department Green Parking Limited
My appeal was pretty much what you suggested above and bellow is what they sent me. Looks like a typical generic cut/paste letter. Awaiting you kind suggestion of what to do next. One problem is that I will be going away in a month and won't be around for few weeks to deal with any possible letters and more headaches!
-----
Issue date: 04/10/2024
POPLA Verification Code:......
Thank you for your appeal received on 29/10/2024 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice
We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason (s):
By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage Therefore the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly
We have now extended the discounted payment period by 7 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount.
Please now make payment of £40.00 to reach us by 05/1 1/2024 or £85.00 to reach us by 19/11/2024.
We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again.and therefore you now have two options:-
You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options:..(blah blah)
You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals using the POPLA Reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.
If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website,www.popla.co.uk, where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure that your POPLA Reference Number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA
You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined
By law we are also required to you that Ombudsman Service (www.ombudsman-services.org/ ) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above
if you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to bur appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department Green Parking Limited
12
Private parking tickets / Re: PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: October 11, 2024, 02:00:58 pm »
Incredible knowledge and service! Thank you so much. Will keep you updated if/when I hear back.
13
Private parking tickets / PCN in Maidenhead car park with questionable/unclear signage on Sunday.
« on: October 10, 2024, 11:21:50 pm »
Hi everyone,
On Sunday 29th September I went to Maidenhead to attend a Coffee Festival. Beforehand I read online that on Sunday most parkings are free around that area. My first choice was full and someone directed me to the next closest option and said it's free. I ended up in Clock Tower Park at 14:06. I read the sign and on top clearly said Monday-Saturday followed by charges. I looked at all the parked cars and none had any tickets on display. So I assumed that it was free.
Today I had this PCN through the post by Green Parking asking for £85. I was shocked so went back and looked at the Parking display photo that I had taken on that day. To my horror, right at the end and not in the same colour as charges, it says £2 on Sundays. I have attached the photo. To me, this signage is very cheeky and if you are a bit in rush or don't have your glasses on, you can easily miss this bit. I genuinely missed this and clearly won't risk it for the sake of 2 quid.
What do you suggest I need to do?
Thanks in advance
PS. I have uploaded my PCN and car park display on this link. I couldn't embed them here, no matter how small!
https://imgur.com/a/ZJDFJRa
On Sunday 29th September I went to Maidenhead to attend a Coffee Festival. Beforehand I read online that on Sunday most parkings are free around that area. My first choice was full and someone directed me to the next closest option and said it's free. I ended up in Clock Tower Park at 14:06. I read the sign and on top clearly said Monday-Saturday followed by charges. I looked at all the parked cars and none had any tickets on display. So I assumed that it was free.
Today I had this PCN through the post by Green Parking asking for £85. I was shocked so went back and looked at the Parking display photo that I had taken on that day. To my horror, right at the end and not in the same colour as charges, it says £2 on Sundays. I have attached the photo. To me, this signage is very cheeky and if you are a bit in rush or don't have your glasses on, you can easily miss this bit. I genuinely missed this and clearly won't risk it for the sake of 2 quid.
What do you suggest I need to do?
Thanks in advance
PS. I have uploaded my PCN and car park display on this link. I couldn't embed them here, no matter how small!
https://imgur.com/a/ZJDFJRa
Pages: [1]