Free Traffic Legal Advice

PCN issued 28/08/2024 for Contravention date 20/08/2024 Time of entry 19:43:57 Time of Exit 22:38:21

Via www.myparkingcharge.co.uk I appealed.

Excel Parking letter dated 17/09/2024 rejects appeal.

NEXT Either:
1. Pay the Charge Notice
2. Appeal to IAS

My draft IAS appeal to check it is ok to reference another member. Any additional comments on my appeal to IAS appreciated.

Facts:
I drove into Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park, Leeds, LS2 7DE on 20/08/2024 at 19:43:57.
To pay I used the parking ticketing machine, entering my registration into machine, paid via contact debit card (Appendix H) and the machine printed a ticket at 19.48.
Photographed ticket at 22:34, only ‘G’, the first character of my VRM, was printed not the other 6 (Appendix B).
On https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/excel-parking-services-ltd-incorrect-registration-leeds-crown-street-24hr-pay-ca/msg36629/#msg36629 post by roodymoops on September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 pm describes same problem (Appendix D). Since there are others experiencing the same problem on this site the parking ticket machine must be sporadically faulting.
Focus of evening was to join friends not spend 10 minutes scrutinizing nuances of Excel Parking’s terms and conditions.
Excel Parking’s Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park is my last resort. I recall parking there a total of 5 times.
Excel Parking previously sent a PCN for failing to pay for a ticket within the 10 minute allocated period via Parkonomy at Excel Parking’s Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park when their two ticketing machines were out of order (Appendix F).

Grounds for Challenging PCN:
It can be argued that the charge is penal in nature because Excel Parking Services Ltd has not suffered any financial loss.
1. Penalty, Not Compensation: The charge is intended as a penalty rather than compensation for any actual loss.
Since I, the defendant, paid for the parking session and Excel Parking has acknowledged a payment at the relevant time, they have not suffered any financial loss. In the absence of a loss, any charge should be seen as disproportionate and punitive.
Citing the infamous ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] case which allowed certain charges as justified under specific circumstances as it was largely due to the nature of that particular car park (i.e., free parking with a commercial justification). In this case, the charge is disproportionate, as I, the defendant, paid for the parking session and did not overstay or avoid payment.
2. Unenforceable Penalty Clause
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA): The terms imposing the penalty are unfair and thus unenforceable under the CRA.
This includes provisions that create disproportionate financial consequences for minor, technical errors like the failure to fully print a VRM.
Absence of Commercial Justification: Unlike the Beavis case, there is no clear commercial justification for penalising the defendant for a system error when they paid for parking.
3. Proportionality of the Charge
Penalty Principle: Excel Parking's charge is excessive and penal in nature, especially given the minimal error (if any) in the transaction process. Courts generally frown upon penal charges that are not a genuine reflection of a company's loss.
4. Contract
For a contact to be in place there must be a meeting of minds. I did not expect to have to buy an additional ticket as advised by Excel Parking (Appendix C) having entered a correct  VRM, but issued a ticket showing only first character or I would have done so. It is arguable that no contract was in place. As I paid my parking charge, there are no losses.
Excel Parking accepted my money and therefore it is arguable that they accepted the contract anyway, on my terms. I gather, when this happens in business cases this is known as the 'battle of the forms' and the contract may be deemed accepted on the basis of the last proposed terms. Excel Parking accepted the contract knowing the VRM they printed was invalid - after all, the ANPR system knew that the vehicle with the registration their parking ticket machine printed on the ticket was not in the car park. They could therefore have refused to accept my money, but did not. I am left in doubt if Excel Parking ticketing machine matched the VRM but only printed a ticket with the first character. Other parking companies have ticket machines that match VRMs - only accepting valid registrations. There is absolutely no reason, with today’s technology, that Excel Parking do not have a system that will refuse payment for a VRM that has not been registered by ANPR. I believe it is Excel Parking’s responsibility to provide faultless ticket machines to avoid issuing people with fines rather than trip customers up and issue fines regularly.

Basis for considering my appeal against Excel Parking’s rejection of my Appeal (Appendix C):
Excel Parking Letter dated 17/09/2024 states,
‘We note your comment that you did input your vehicle registration but the machine did not print it on the ticket. In those circumstances if you were unable to purchase another ticket or use the alternative method of payment, you should have phoned the helpline.'
Excel Parking thereby assumes:
•   I was aware I had not complied with their Terms and Conditions.
•   I was able to determine the nature of failure of the machine to print the number entered
•   I have a smartphone with sufficient data and reception to pay online or download app or make a phone call or
•   I was able run to the other side of the carpark to check the other car parking ticket machine was working and put money; cash or card within the remaining 5 minute time frame ie within 10 minutes allocated.
Had Excel Parking’s assumptions been correct I would have been discriminated by my limitations:
•   With my osteoarthritis I would not have been able to move at the speed to complete the task.
•   There was insufficient time for me to switch optical wear to read at distance and close up, assuming I had, have the means and know how to use a smart phone to perform tasks stated I should have performed.
•   I cannot process information as quickly as others being dyslexic (note my previous ticket was issued because I failed to eliminate option at two broken parking ticket machines and go on to purchase a ticket online within the 10 minute period).
 
Conclusion:
I request you forgive the fine after considering;
•   how reasonable/fair it is to expect I can comprehend the functionality of the Excel Parking Ticket machine, who’s responsibility the failings fall to and thus comply with nuances of Excel Parking’s signage Terms and Conditions (Appendix G).
•   I believe I have complied with Excel Parking’s Terms and Conditions.
•   Further evidence that another person, military personel, having used the machine and it failed to provide them with a complete VRM, only printing the first letter, Appendix D, and
•   also Appendix E - Parking Prankster’s analysis of Mr Kelner’s incorrect entry of VRM and PRN.


 
Appendix A - PCN Issue Date 28/08/2024, Contravention Date/Time 20/08/2024 at 22.38 at Crown Street 24 Hr Pay Car Park Leeds, LS2 7DE
Appendix B – Photo of ticket at 22:34, only ‘G’, the first character of VRM printed
Appendix C - Excel Parking Letter dated 17/09/2024 Rejecting Appeal
Appendix D - Post by roodymoops on September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 pm describes same problem
Appendix E – parking prankster on Mr Kelner incorrect entry of VRM and PRN
Source: https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/08/case-of-century.html
Appendix F – 02/05/2023 PRN issued as too slow
Appendix G – Signage and parking ticket machine photos
Appendix H - Debit card contactless payment confirmation

Due to file size I'm struggling to upload files - please advise which of the Appendices if you need.

Thanks for all help.

Thank you.

I will send an appeal to IAS (appreciating your comments maybe a waste of time and energy) ...

Does anyone else have info on how to write a successful appeal to IAS?

Thanks again.

Why would you want to pay £100 to a scammer? It’s your money but if you feel aggrieved enough to fight it, then we will assist.

For now, you wil have to ignore the debt collector letters that are going to come your way. They are powerless to do anything and can only try and scare you into paying by using scary words such as “bailiff” and “CCJ”. Their only job is to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up.

Never, ever, ever communicate with a debt collector. They have now powers and can be safely ignored.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and we will provide the advice on what to do next.

No idea.

Never bother with pointless IAS appeals.

Thank you

Apologies for late reply ... only just realised you'd added another post thank you.

IAS wrote ...

Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/10/2024 15:33:23.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 28/08/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/08/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. The Crown Street car park is private land and motorists are allowed to enter it to park
their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. The signage on site states ‘You must ensure the FULL AND ACCURATE VEHICLE
REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment'. The
signage also states “A Parking Charge Notice of £100 will be issued for the following: Failure
to make payment within 10 minutes of entry to the car park/private land; Not registering the
full and accurate VRM when making payment”.
3. Site photos and the site map supplied show that signage can be seen at the entrance
and throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite,
including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit,
complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
4. There are 2 ticket machines onsite, one pay by card and one pay by cash and Pay By
phone and online payment facilities are available at this car park via the Parkonomy and
YourParkingSpace Apps.
5. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of
vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are
compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines or by phone and any vehicle that
remains on the car park for 10 minutes and fails to purchase a valid P&D ticket or make a
valid payment by phone is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
6. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and exit from the car park and the
images supplied show that the appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 19:43:57 and
exited at 22:38:21; a duration of 2hr 54min 24sec.
7. Payment data supplied, taken from the database of tickets purchased at the Crown
Street car park on the date of contravention shows that no payment was made for the
appellant's full and accurate VRM during the 10 minutes consideration period granted to
the appellant upon entering the car park. The data shows a payment made at 19:48 for the
VRM ‘G'. This is confirmed as the appellant's purchase by the supplied P&D ticket with the
appellant's submission. The data shows that other motorists were paying to park for the full
and accurate VRM throughout the period in question confirming that machine was in
working order.
8. It should be noted that all ticket machines are fitted with a cancel button. If pressed at
any point (before pressing the green button to print the P&D ticket), any money inserted will
be refunded allowing the user to correct mistakes, use another P&D machine or leave the
car park if they did not wish to proceed with the purchase. It should be further noted that
the digital display on the ticket machine has an LED display illuminated with a green light;
as the buttons on the machine are pressed, the relevant information is displayed on that
panel. The information displayed, whether during daylight or hours of darkness, clearly
shows a motorist whether or not they have entered their correct VRM.
9. It is not unreasonable to expect a motorist to check the validity of any ticket they
purchase and to take corrective action if necessary.
10. There is a helpline number located at the bottom of all the signage on site which is
available to any motorist who is experiencing difficulties or has any query. This was not
utilised by the appellant.
11. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in
such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where
notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by
implications a motorist enters into a contract with Excel Parking Services Ltd and accepts
the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. When parking on private land, a
motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for
permission to park. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly
displayed conditions of parking. It is clear that the terms of parking stated that when
purchasing a ticket to park the full and accurate VRM of the vehicle parked on site must be
provided; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice. The adjudicator
will note that the appellant had the opportunity to leave the car park if they could not
comply with the terms of parking.
12. We are not pursuing the Charge Notice on the basis of any company's loss but as a
result of a contractual breach of the Terms and Conditions, observed on the day in
question. Any motorist who familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be
notified of the relevant Charges. Specifically the signage states ‘You must ensure the FULL
AND ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided
when making payment'.
13. The sole purpose of this PCN is to determine the lawfulness of the issue this PCN.
PCN's that may have been issued to other motorists have no relevance to this appeal or the
issuing of this PCN. We reiterate that this PCN was correctly and lawfully issued.
14. We maintain that the terms and conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the
motorist's attention at the time of the parking event and that the motorist had sufficient
opportunity to make a valid payment for their parking or leave during their consideration
period.
15. The appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and
Conditions displayed by failing to make a valid payment for the vehicle on site within the
consideration period.

Responding to the above I have added to IAS system (TBH I feel too dumb to figure out / fight how the different entities fit together) which appears to go onto the arbitrator:

Inadequate Signage: The signage at the location is insufficiently clear to form a valid
contract with the driver. The lack of definition regarding what constitutes “ensure the FULL
AND ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided
when making payment” and the absence of clear terms explaining that failure of the ticket
to print out the correct VRM, even though payment is taken, would incur a penalty, renders
this alleged contract unenforceable. Excel Parkings’ reliance on ambiguous terms and
unclear signage makes any purported agreement void for uncertainty.
Conclusion:
The driver complied with Excel Parkings’ T&Cs ‘You must ensure the FULL AND ACCURATE
VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making
payment'.
In addition to this PCN (****), the driver, so far, has evidence of two other drivers
(roodymoops PCN for September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 advised previously) and PCN
(K***M***Appeal your ticket online.pdf) attached, also reporting to Excel Parking in their
PCN appeals they entered their VRMs correctly but the ticketing machine printed out only
the first letter.
Excel Parking are not showing full picture saying ‘9. … The data shows other motorists
successfully paying for their full VRMs and we are therefore satisfied that the machine was
working correctly.’ I have provided declarations from two others I am aware of the machine
is sporadically faulting and Excel Parking’s claim this has not been reported a lie, as the
above three appeals made Excel Parking aware.
In light of the combined lack of clear signage and the absence of any financial loss, this
parking charge is wholly unjustified and renders it unenforceable.
Should this appeal be rejected, I am fully prepared to defend this matter in court, where I
will require Excel Parking to substantiate their claims with proper evidence of record logs
from and including 26 September 2023 through to and including 28 August 2024, showing
the VRM’s where only the 1st or 1st and 2nd characters of VRM’s are on data log, instead of
other 6 VRM’s entered after 1st character.
I trust that the Arbitrator will carefully review the evidence provided and cancel this
unfounded charge.

Thanks again.

Email them at info@dcblegal.co.uk the following response:

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[MY ADDRESS]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists". Don't send me your usual blather about that.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

It's not going to stop them issuing the claim but their response will add to the mounting evidence that they are defrauding HMRC out of their VAT obligations. When they respond, you simply report them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud, which takes minutes online.