Show Posts - ng1

Sorry for disappearing - just wanted to say thank you both for your input. I've submitted what I had on here to the IAS purely because I don't want them to be able to hold anything against me about not following the procedure etc. I'll follow up when I do hear back from them. As for the location code - I've just called the number again and it still accepts the location code on the sign (2883), so who knows where the call is going or where the driver paid for...

My memory is a bit hazy now as it was a month ago, but I don't remember having to enter a code for the car park at all. The system even stated the registration of the car so it was assumed this was automatically recognised from a camera in the car park. What would the timeline look like? I understand I would need to submit an appeal to the IAS within two weeks, but will there be much more to do in the short term? From June onwards I will have all the time in the world to fight this.

Quote from: b789 on 11 Apr, 2025 12:48That receipt you've show says payment was made to APCOA, completely different private parking company!Whislt the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is fully PoFA complaint, they can pursue the Keeper if the drivers identity is not revealed. However there are some technical flaws in the NtK that breach the BAPiPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). unfortunately, Excel are an IPC member and the only way this is gong to be resolved is when the issue a claim in the county court. That is a good thing for you.Do you wish to fight this all the way?That's a good catch and I'm only seeing it now, but the fact that the payment was made to APCOA wouldn't have been available prior to making the payment. In fact, I've just tried calling the number again and the automated system says "welcome to connect cashless parking" which is also the name of the website on the sign, so I feel like there would have been no reason to suspect that it was a different company... I'm willing to die on this hill but realistically I don't have a lot of time right now. Any ideas on what the process would look like or what the likely outcome would be if I do choose to fight this?

Hi all. I'm having some trouble with formatting so apologies if the post looks a bit weird. <br><br>The driver entered the car park at 13:23 08/03/2025, tried to download the app to pay but couldn't do so because the phone reception was weak. The driver calls the number on the sign (0345 434 8008) at 13:30 which went to an automated system. The automated system stated the vehicle registration of the car, and the driver proceeded to pay for parking following the instructions on the phone. The driver left the car park at 15:05 on the same day. On 21/03/2025, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through the post. <br><br>Naively I'd already tried appealing to the company before seeking advice. I don't have a copy of my message to them, but essentially I pointed out that the driver had paid for parking through the number displayed on the sign in the car park. The driver did not take any photos of the car park because they didn't expect there to be any problems, but I managed to find a picture of the sign on Google Maps which shows the post code of the car park and part of the Excel logo. <br><br>I attached in my message (and this post) photos of the sign found on google maps, the call history on 13:30 on 08/03/2025, and a photo from the driver's banking app of the payment being taken at 13:31 on 08/03/2025. My appeal was of course rejected, and I've attached their response. I've since found a photo of an older sign with the same phone number, which I've attached to this post. I intend to appeal to the IAS, so any advice would be greatly appreciated <br><br>Two points from their reply stood out to me. <br>1) they claim that "the signage on site clearly advertise the available payment methods" and "[phone payment] is not an accepted payment method on site and has no affiliation to the site the vehicle parked on". <br>2) they "maintain that the signs on this site meet the requirements set by the [IPC] Code of Practice". <br><br>On number 1: The sign at the entrance of the car park states "Refer to the sign(s) within the car ark for details" and "Pay by phone or online only". The sign inside the car park clearly states, under the "how to pay" section, "to pay by phone ... call 0345 434 8008 and follow instructions", which the driver did. If the signage on site clearly advertise the available payment methods, then I believe any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that phone payments are in fact accepted at the car park in question through the number advertised. <br><br>On number 2: I'm not familiar with the IPC CoP, but as can be seen from the Google Maps photo, there are multiple fake/scam QR codes on the parking sign. Upon getting a friend to take pictures of the car park after reading the instruction on this forum, it became apparent that the sign in question has since been removed as of 07/04/2025. The most recent Google Maps review has also mentioned the lack of signage inside the car park. If the removal of the sign was intentional then that feels like an admission that the signage was misleading, and if unintentional then surely a car park with no instructions on how to pay cannot be compliant with the Code of Practice? <br><br>Google Maps link to the car park in question: https://maps.app.goo.gl/xG4WUP5iHNQLPAbg8 <br><br>Phone log <br> <br>Phone payment (sorry for quality - the banking app doesn't allow screenshots) <br> <br>The whole car park <br> <br>Current sign at the entrance (the sign with the payment methods used to be on the pole on the back) <br> <br>The sign that the driver saw <br> <br>Old sign which displays the same phone number <br> <br> [ Guests cannot view attachments ]