Hello
At Springfields Retail Park, Stoke-on-Trent, on 18th October 2024.
The driver had parked the car as shown in the attachments in darkness, there was a vehicle being recovered at the time which blocked the entrance to the retail park, this is shown in I Park Services evidence.
I wrote an appeal as follows as the registered keeper of the vehicle:
Grounds for Appeal
1. Lack of Visibility Due to Inadequate Lighting
At the time of the alleged contravention, it was still dark. The signage was not adequately illuminated, making it impossible to read or see the terms and conditions of parking. Attached are time-stamped photographs showing the condition of the signage at the time of the alleged incident, which clearly demonstrates that the signage was not visible due to inadequate lighting.
2. Failure to Meet the Requirements of Clear Signage
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms and conditions of parking must be clearly communicated for them to be enforceable. The signage at the location was neither clearly visible nor sufficiently illuminated, thus preventing me from making an informed decision to park.
3. Violation of the Operator Code of Practice
As a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), you are obligated to adhere to the IPC Code of Practice, which requires that all parking signage should be clear, legible, and well-lit, particularly at night. The signage at this location fails to comply with these standards, rendering the parking charge unenforceable.
4. Reasonable Expectation of Fair Notice
It is a reasonable expectation that parking terms be clearly displayed and well-lit, particularly when enforcement applies during low-visibility hours. In this case, the lack of adequate signage and lighting failed to meet this expectation, making the parking charge unfair and unreasonable.
5. Additional Grounds for Appeal
Further to the above points, I would like to address the following:
o Blocked Access: As shown in the video evidence, the entrance to the parking area was blocked by a broken-down vehicle, as evidenced in image 6 to image 25.
o No Clear Parking Restrictions: The area where I parked did not have clear markings or yellow boxes, which should have indicated whether parking was prohibited. The absence of these markings, especially in image 10, shows that the area I parked in was not clearly marked as restricted.
o No Adequate Lighting: As seen in the attached evidence, the signage was not lit and was therefore unreadable at the time of parking, and there was insufficient street lighting to provide adequate visibility.
o No Response to Key Points in Appeal: The appeal response I received from your company did not address the core issues I raised, including the lack of illuminated signage and the absence of visible restrictions.
6. Disproportionate Charge
The £60 charge you have applied is excessive and not based on any genuine pre-estimate of loss. This amount exceeds the cost to your company or the landowner, which renders the charge disproportionate and unjust. This issue was not addressed in the appeal response.
7. Blue Badge Holder
It should also be noted that the driver of the vehicle is a Blue Badge holder, which should have been considered when issuing the charge.
They declined as I would of expected.
I then appealed to the next stage who sided with the parking company advising under the circumstances why the driver parked there could not be cancelled as law, but this would be down to the company who issued the PCN to cancel the PCN.
Do I just keep fighting and hope the courts will use some common sense, how they expect for the driver to read a sign in darkness not knowing its there in the first place and no visible lines to advise the driver of any restrictions where they parked.
I have also asked I Park Services Ltd who the landlord is also.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
