-
Hi
Can someone please help and advice me. I am absolutely being taken for a mug by a company called Excel Parking
I had gone to some shopping at Iceland ( first time I went to this place) and on the main road it said we have a car park at the back which is available for up to 1hr. On entering the car park there was no lighting and thus absolutely dark as it was evening.
So anyway i had parked up and my wife went to Iceland and i stayed with the kids who were asleep in the car. when my wife got back from shopping which took around 15mins we put the shopping away I went to the machine and entered my reg and paid the £1. This happened on the 14th Feb
Last week (29th Feb) i got a letter saying ive received a PCN stating i had not paid for using car park. I appealled and showed my bank statement with the payment.
They responded to say I should have paid on arrival. They are not given me any more opportunity to respond so ive emailed the adjudicator which they given. I have mentioned it was pitch black, i was there for 20mins ( according to the PCN) and provided bank statement showing i paid £1 for parking and my shopping bill at Icelands ( ive since found out its free parking if you shop there)
If the parking company still reject my appeal, do i have any reasonable grounds? I mean charging £100 because I paid my ticket on the way out is extremely pathetic especially as there was no visible signage. Google maps also shows there being no lighting at the car park.
Can someone please advice what I can or should do should they persist in trying to get money out of me.
thanks in advance
-
-
Excel can be a rather stubborn company, and may well sue you, but from the sounds of it you may have the makings of a sound defence.
Firstly, using the following guide - READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide - provide as much info as you are able, in particular, images of the original parking charge you received, copies of your appeal and their response, and photos of the signage (close ups, so that we can see the terms and conditions, and photos of their layout and ideally lack of visibility at night).
The signage not being visible is one potential argument to advance, although it might be made more difficult by the fact that you paid, as you'll need to explain how you knew to pay if there was no visible signage to draw your attention to this fact (of course not impossible).
Another question for starters, is the car park monitored by ANPR or wardens on foot? -
-
Hi
Thanks for the swift response, i have no idea if its manned by foot, i think its totally APNR, hence why i was under the impression i needed to pay on my way out so they can charge me accordingly.
As for how i knew to pay, on the main road it said there was parking at the back for £1 and up to 1 hr and on my way out i saw the machine. Basically you from a narrow alleyway and on the left was the machine which you can only see when leaving ( unless your looking around whilst driving) -
-
Ive attached their respond to my appeal as well as their original PCN. Ive also screenshotted from google maps their car park. as you can clearly see there is no lights. During the night there is no way of able to read the signs if even you managed to see them.
Unfortunately they wont let me access my original appeal but i just basically said I did pay and send them the proof of purchase. I will try obtain a close up of the signs, its not close to where i live and had only popped in as we saw it on our route home
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Have you spoken to Iceland yet? If not, I'd try and speak to the manager of the store - ideally show them your receipt for shopping, as well as the fact you paid for the parking, and that the parking company has rejected your appeal etc., to see if they will intervene.
The images suggest ANPR - the reason I was asking is relevant. In a car park enforced by wardens on foot, it's reasonable to ask motorists to pay on arrival and display a ticket, as doing so allows the warden to check tickets and see who has and hasn't paid, and enforcement would be impossible otherwise. In a car park monitored entirely by ANPR however, there's seemingly no legitimate reason to require payment in advance - all that requiring payment in advance does is (a) Encourage over-payment, with people paying for longer than they need to because they have to guess how long they'll stay and (b) Increase the opportunity for Excel to issue parking charges. You could therefore make the argument that the charge is not 'commercially justifiable' like the charge in ParkingEye vs Beavis and is therefore an unenforceable penalty.
There's an example of a case involving a similar argument over on PePiPoo here - Bank Park v Foster, Failure to claim free parking - 'Foster' in this case of course being Andy Foster, who is one of the moderators on this site. The circumstances are different, as that case involved a free parking period for which the parking company inexplicably require motorists to obtain a ticket from a machine, but the core argument is similar and may therefore be useful reading. -
-
yes i spoke to them but they are not very helpful, they said they have no control over the car park. they too said Excel Parking use cctv to issue tickets and monitor so there are no wardens.
as Excel rejected my appeal today went to IAS and stated i shopped at iceland and paid for ticket ( screenshotted bank statements for both) and that its pitch dark thus unable to read the signage.
Below is there automated response, so if Excel reject i think i have one more throw of the dice, My main arguments will be due to no lighitng i cant see anything and as you can only see the paying machine when exiting it made more sense that is when you pay. i didn try to scam or get a free parking from them. had the signs been cleared i could have gotten it free from icelands. Hopefully il have picture of the sign later today or on friday.
PS ive attached the view driver gets coming in from the alley and were there machine is. As you can see the machine is out of driver sight and only visible on looking back towards the way you enter. add to this i came in the dark.
What happens now?
Your appeal has been sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account.
The Parking Operator is now provided 5 working days to upload sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.
Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log in and see it. You will then have 5 working days to respond in one of TWO ways:
1) SUBMIT YOUR APPEAL - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any photographs or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your response it will go back to the operator who may wish to respond or send the appeal straight to arbitration. In the case of the operator responding, you will receive another chance to respond.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. The Adjudicator will assess the evidence provided by the operator and appellant. You will not have the opportunity of making representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
You will be notified by email when you are able to proceed further.
Caution: Once the operator has uploaded their evidence, if you do not respond in one of the above two ways within 5 working days, your appeal will be submitted to the Adjudicator WITHOUT your response to the operators evidence that will be available to you.
IMPORTANT:
You will receive emails from the IAS at various stages throughout your appeal notifying you of the need to take action. You should check regularly and ensure these emails do not end up in junk/spam folders.
You should also log in regularly to check the status of your appeal to ensure that you do not miss any deadlines which would have an adverse effect on your appeal.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Below is there automated response, so if Excel reject i think i have one more throw of the dice
It's not up to Excel to reject - if you've appealed to the IAS, it is them who make the decision, as outlined in the automated response.
The IAS are a bit of a kangaroo court so they're almost certain to reject.
The last 'throw of the dice' would be in court, if Excel choose to go that far. If they do, you could seek to defend on the issues already outlined. -
-
Below is there automated response, so if Excel reject i think i have one more throw of the dice
It's not up to Excel to reject - if you've appealed to the IAS, it is them who make the decision, as outlined in the automated response.
The IAS are a bit of a kangaroo court so they're almost certain to reject.
The last 'throw of the dice' would be in court, if Excel choose to go that far. If they do, you could seek to defend on the issues already outlined.
thanks for your help appreciate it. if IAS reject my appeal i most likely just pay to avoid the stress. i cant believe how desperate these guys are. they got their £1 yet hounding me like im a criminal. this woman below seems to have had similar issue.
PS. my strongest argument is the lack of lighting, is there any benchmark or anything they need to demonstrate that the sign was clear? if i was to obtain picture and video evidence the signage is only visible to read if shining a light, will that be enough for me?
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/fuming-iceland-shopper-hit-170-7047473 -
-
PS. my strongest argument is the lack of lighting
My personal view is that the strongest argument is that the charge is not commercially justifiable and is thus an unenforceable penalty, although the IAS won't entertain that anyway.
Re. signage, I'm not aware off the top of my head of any test cases, but the phrase often used is whether or not the signage is "there to be seen" - i.e. suitably visible that a competent/reasonable person would be able to first notice it, and second be able to read it.
From a quick mooch around on Google Street View, I found the following - https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZX9SKZe4y54xm2ncA
The image is a few years old now, so the site may have changed, but if it is the same then you'll definitely need to get your own photos and present a compelling case for the signage not being visible as it would appear to be directly next to the ticket machine, which you were able to find and use successfully. The photo also shows a large floodlight directly next to this, so you would be wise to get photos showing that this is not lit at night. -
-
Yh it may be difficult, the signage in the middle closer to where I was parked has no lighting so this one we only saw on our way out. however my wife does recall that there was a delivery truck at the time which was covering the sign you posted, also she had to turn her phone torch on to enter the reg on machine because it was so dark.
Sorry for the daft question but what is commercial justification. Someone on the pepipoo forum also said that is a avenue.
Is it fool proof and does it apply to me? I imagine they will push back on the lighting even though it was so dark we had to use a torch and there was a truck covering sign
It's just criminal they can charge £100 for simply paying the correct amount on leaving rather then staying. It makes no difference to them.
If you can think of any other arguments I can use please share as I'm at my wits end. -
-
Sorry for the daft question but what is commercial justification.
Not a daft question. In general, contracts cannot include penalty clauses for breach of contract - previously, it used to be the case that any fee charged for a breach had to represent a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. Of course, a minor breach of a parking contract does not cause Excel to incur £100 of losses, so these charges used to be deemed unenforceable penalties. The case of ParkingEye vs Beavis in 2015 changed this in certain circumstances. In that case, Beavis overstayed the maximum stay in a free car park for shoppers at a retail park - the court decided that the fee charged by ParkingEye did not need to reflect their actual losses, because they had a legitimate interest in ensuring that people did not misuse the car park, denying shoppers the opportunity to park, and affecting the income of the businesses on the retail park. As such, the charge was commercially justifiable.
If you hadn't paid for your parking, then (notwithstanding potential issues with the signage as discussed), the charge would likely be enforceable - Excel have a clear legitimate interest in deterring non-payment, which is the predominant purpose of the £100 charge, and the charge may therefore be deemed commercially justifiable. However, you did pay. Their attempt to justify the charge is to say that the tariff was not paid within 10 minutes of entry(or however long they expect payment within) - as discussed this time limit seems entirely arbitrary, and charging people £100 for not meeting this limit does not appear to serve any justifiable purpose.It makes no difference to them.
It makes £100 worth of difference to them every time they catch someone out - their business model is contingent on issuing as many charges as possible. -
-
Nobody who gets advice from this forum or over on the MSE parking forum pays Excel parking a penny. Losing an appeal from these shysters (Hansard) means nothing and does not affect anything if it should go all the way to court.
They rely on low hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay into their scam. Letting it go to court is what you want and what they don’t want.
It’s small claims in the county court. It’s civil law and nothing criminal about it, except the behaviour of the likes of ex-clamper thugs like Excel and their ilk, the unregulated private parking industry.
If this were to go all the way, assuming that they don’t discontinue before it ever gets in front of a judge because they know they are on shaky ground, you would have a strong case and if you used the robust template defence, you’d be highly likely to win.
Paying a penny to these scammers would just mark you as a “mug” for future reference. You’ve come here for advice and you are already getting it.
Your defence is, amongst other things, it’s an unenforceable penalty, the signage is rubbish and breaches the IPC Code of Practice (CoP), due to the lack of lighting and clear, prominent signs, no contract could have been formed. It is very possible that Excel have no authority from the landowner to issue PCNs and so on. -
-
Is it fool proof and does it apply to me?
There's no such thing as a foolproof defence - we cannot guarantee you success and you should be wary of anyone who claims they can. But it's a argument that would apply to your case and should be a decent one.
There's also always the possibility that a strong defence convinces them to discontinue. -
-
thanks guys i really appreciate all you help. is it ok if i share my draft email ive written to send to the Iceland CEO? im hoping as a genuine customer he can intervene and get it cancelled.
-
-
is the following ok to send to the ceo?
Dear Richard
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention an unfortunate incident that occurred at the Iceland store's car park in Leytonstone, and to request your intervention in overturning a parking ticket that was issued to me.
On the day in question (nigh of14th February) I visited the Iceland store to do some shopping with my family. This was my first time at this particular store. After completing our shopping and to ensure compliance with the car park regulations, I made my payment before leaving the car park. The time from entering to exiting was 20mins. To my surprise, I later received a parking ticket from a private parking management company, alleging that I had not paid upon arrival.
I would like to emphasize that my failure to pay upon arrival was not intentional, but rather the result of poor visibility and unclear signage within the car park, particularly during the night. The lack of adequate lighting and signage made it virtually impossible for me to discern the parking regulations and payment instructions upon entering the premises. The CCTV footage if any will show us even having to use our phone torches to operate the ticket machine due to the poor lighting.
Given the circumstances, I was unaware of the requirement to pay upon arrival, and had I been able to clearly see the signage, I would have promptly complied with the regulations or taken advantage of the free parking benefit available to Iceland customers.
Furthermore, I wish to highlight that there was no commercial justification for the parking ticket issued to me. I had utilized the car park for its intended purpose as an Iceland store customer, and I promptly paid for the parking before leaving. Neither Iceland nor the landlord suffered any financial loss as a result of my action. The only infraction in question was a minor delay in payment, attributable solely to the inadequate visibility and signage within the car park.
I kindly request your intervention in this matter to review the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the parking ticket and to consider overturning it. As a loyal customer of Iceland, I value the positive experiences I have had with Iceland until this incident, and I trust that your intervention in this situation will not only rectify an unjust penalty but also underscore the dedication of Iceland to customer satisfaction.
I sincerely hope for a fair and amicable resolution to this issue and would be grateful for any assistance you are able to provide in addressing this matter.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal. I eagerly await your response and remain hopeful for a positive outcome.
Yours sincerely,
-
Agree x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List