-
To keep this brief, the driver parked in a car park, took about 10 mins trying to locate the ticket machine and a further 5 odd mins trying to figure it out. Purchased a ticket and displayed it in the car and went on with their business.
Fast forward and we have a fine through the post for failing to purchase the parking tariff for said vehicle.
Before I upload docs, what exactly do I need to cover up before uploading.?
Thanks -
-
Before I upload docs, what exactly do I need to cover up before uploading.?
Personal details: name, address, vehicle registration mark, PCN reference number. It's important we see all the PCN wording, photos they've included, car park location and all dates and times. This is explained here: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide -
-
Attached.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
According to the new IPC CoP, Schedule 7, a P&D car park must display an entrance sign that "Parking tariff applies". In August 2018, according to GSV, their entrance sign did not comply to the latest standards as required by the IPC:
The image is a clickable link to the GSV view.
Can the OP go back to the location to obtain up to date photos of the signs at the location?
Also, it is (or was) possible to enter this car park from Bell Lane where there is no entrance sign at all:
-
-
Will get on it.
-
-
Fast forward and we have a fine through the post advising us of not displaying a ticket.
Is that your final answer? Would you like to reconsider? -
-
It's not my final answer, I was just stating the course of events. I would like advice and helps as to how to show that I had a valid ticket during the stay. Maybe my choice of words was poor. Or maybe I misunderstood your post.
Apologies. -
-
Was the contravention, as specified in the NtK not displaying a ticket, as stated by you in your Original Post?
-
-
Amended original post.
-
-
Presumably you are hoping that knowledgeable posters will give up their free time to help you with your problem.
So you started off, by posting an untrue statement. Probably not deliberately, just a case that you can't see why you should bother reading what has been sent to you - why should you when you can leave that up to others?
You have now edited that statement, so that it tells a different lie. But this one is a smaller lie, because it is a lie of omission rather than a complete fabrication.
If the contravention was failing to purchase a ticket within an arbitrary time limit imposed for no legitimate purpose, as opposed to failing to display a ticket - which would have only been observed by a warden who would have issued a "Notice to Driver" (stuck a yellow envelope on the windscreen), or failing to purchase a ticket at all, then you would have a defence of the charge not being commercially justified - but from what you have told us twice in your own words, that is not the case.
If you can't be bothered to read the notice you have posted, or tell us what the actual contravention listed is, why do you think that others who have no stake in this would?
-
-
Excuse me if I’m being a bit slow (jet lag)… the OP entered the car park at 11:47, took 14 minutes before they managed to pay the tariff for 1 hour of parking at 12:01 and departed 43 minutes after entering.
The NtK states the contravention as ‘failure to purchase a ticket and/or failure to purchase a ticket within the time allowed’. It also states in the contravention box that “the maximum period allowed at this site is ‘0’ minutes”. What does that mean? The only grammatical thing it can mean, in the context of the alleged contravention, is that there is no grace/consideration period from the entry time recorded on the ANPR to the time recorded when the ticket is purchased. Can anyone else interpret that differently?
The OP has evidenced the ticket that was purchased and that the tariff paid covered the amount of time that the vehicle was on the land. The only “evidence” from Excel is in the NtK which are ANPR images. My interpretation of that is that it can only have been issued for the “or” bit of the alleged contravention… failure to purchase a tariff at the time of recorded entry into the car park. An impossibility unless there is a barrier/pay machine at the very entrance.
Is there any mention on the terms signs that state how long after entering the car park, the driver has before a PCN will be issued?
This just stinks like many other Excel Parking scams and it would appear to be penal. -
-
It also states in the contravention box that “the maximum period allowed at this site is ‘0’ minutes”. What does that mean? The only grammatical thing it can mean, in the context of the alleged contravention, is that there is no grace/consideration period from the entry time recorded on the ANPR to the time recorded when the ticket is purchased. Can anyone else interpret that differently?
It will mean that, if you do not purchase a ticket, the permitted period of parking is 0 minutes (i.e. it's not a "Free for ___ minutes, pay ___ for every hour thereafter" arrangement or similar). This is not necessarily at odds with the requirement to have a consideration period, as a consideration period is not considered to be a period of permitted parking, but is rather a period in which the driver can decide whether to accept the contract on offer, or decline it and leave.it would appear to be penal.
Indeed - it seems very likely to be the case that they have set some time limit for purchasing a ticket, which as Andy suggested further up, would not appear to be commercially justified in a car park managed by ANPR. -
-
Presumably you are hoping that knowledgeable posters will give up their free time to help you with your problem.
I' apologise if that's how it has come across, however that was never my intention. My first statement was just my interpretation, the second was a copy and paste. I have read it but not knowledgeable enough to understand how to respond stating that a ticket was purchased. There's nothing untowards at all and I can only apologise for my shortcomings.
So you started off, by posting an untrue statement. Probably not deliberately, just a case that you can't see why you should bother reading what has been sent to you - why should you when you can leave that up to others?
You have now edited that statement, so that it tells a different lie. But this one is a smaller lie, because it is a lie of omission rather than a complete fabrication.
If the contravention was failing to purchase a ticket within an arbitrary time limit imposed for no legitimate purpose, as opposed to failing to display a ticket - which would have only been observed by a warden who would have issued a "Notice to Driver" (stuck a yellow envelope on the windscreen), or failing to purchase a ticket at all, then you would have a defence of the charge not being commercially justified - but from what you have told us twice in your own words, that is not the case.
If you can't be bothered to read the notice you have posted, or tell us what the actual contravention listed is, why do you think that others who have no stake in this would?
Yes, I did come on here for help and support as I have no knowledge myself and don't have anyone else to turn to.
Hope this helps clarify. -
-
My first statement was just my interpretation, the second was a copy and paste.
A partial copy and paste - you missed out the second half, which is likely the one that is the basis for the charge. The reason for the charge is given as:"101) FAILURE TO PURCHASE THE PARKING TARIFF FOR THE REGISTRATION MARK OF THE VEHICLE ON SITE AND/OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED"Regarding the first half, from what you have shown us, 1 hour's parking was paid for, and the vehicle was on site for 43 minutes - and I am working on the assumption that you have checked the ticket to make sure that the right vehicle registration was entered. If so, that moves us onto the second part (in bold above) - this would suggest that Excel have mandated some arbitrary time limit in which a ticket must be purchased after entering the car park. This should be specified on the signage, which is why it will be useful to get some photos of the signs.
A requirement to purchase a ticket in good time upon entry, and display it in the windscreen, makes sense in a car park patrolled on foot by wardens, as they need some mechanism by which to check that drivers have paid. However, when the car park is seemingly managed by ANPR cameras, there doesn't seem to be much legitimate reason for requiring a ticket to be purchased within a set time limit, as long as the driver pays the relevant tariff to cover the duration of their parking. The only purpose such a term would seem to serve is creating opportunities for it to be breached, thus generating £100 charges for Excel - an argument could therefore be made, as Andy suggests above, that the charge is not "commercially justified".
It's worth bearing in mind that such an argument is a good one, but is not one that Excel or IAS are likely to accept, and would probably be one you would need to argue in court. In the meantime, let's see photos of the signage to see what that throws up. -
-
OP, the GSV link seems to be '5 years ago'. We need to see exactly what's there now pl.
This includes whether there is a vehicle entrance into the car park other than the one used by the driver - GSV shows that there is NOT a vehicle entrance into the car park(simply an exit from the road) because the boundary to the car park is marked 'No Entry'. This would be all the 'entrance' signage needed. -
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List