Our sites are controlled by ANPR and register the length of time you stay and therefore payment is needed for that time, unfortunately the system will not pick up whether you have found a parking space or not and that is why the PCN was issued.
Pretty damning evidence of their ability to frustrate any contract. Any chance you can show us the actual letter received?
A copy of Royal Free parking services letter acknowledging the system's limitations and arranging for the cancellation of the PCN could potentially be used by others receiving PCNs from the same operator at the same location to argue frustration of contract or other defences. Frustration of contract occurs when unforeseen circumstances outside the control of the parties make the performance of the contract impossible or radically different from what was agreed.
In this case, if a driver is unable to park because no spaces are available, it can be argued that the fundamental purpose of the contract (to provide a parking space) was frustrated. The hospital's acknowledgment that the system does not differentiate between searching for a space and parking supports the argument that a contract to park could not have been properly performed.
The letter demonstrates that the system is flawed and creates unfair situations where drivers are penalised for circumstances beyond their control. This would strengthen an argument that any purported parking contract was frustrated because the driver was willing to comply with the terms but was physically unable to due to no fault of their own. The operator's reliance on such an inflexible system makes the contract inherently unfair and unenforceable.
The letter also supports an argument that the parking terms are unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly if the signage did not adequately explain that drivers could be charged even if they were unable to find a space. The operator uses a system that penalises drivers who cannot benefit from the service offered.
Anyone receiving a similar PCN could argue the operator is aware of the system's limitations (as evidenced by the letter). The same unfair situation applies to them (e.g., no spaces available, time spent searching counted as parking).
If the management cancelled the PCN for one person, it establishes precedent and undermines the operator's claim of fairness and enforceability.
However, there are some risks. The letter may contain personal or case-specific details. Any shared version would need redact such information to avoid privacy concerns.
The operator might argue the cancellation was a discretionary gesture rather than an acknowledgment of broader system flaws. To counter this, other affected drivers could combine this evidence with their own specific circumstances to demonstrate a pattern of unfair practices.
So, while the letter alone may not guarantee the success of other appeals/claims, it is a valuable piece of evidence highlighting systemic flaws and could significantly bolster arguments of frustration of contract or unfair terms. If someone in a similar situation wishes to use it, ensuring it is anonymised and paired with their own specific evidence will strengthen their case.
