Posting on behalf of the keeper of the vehicle (although they have, regrettably, already informed them who was driving)
The driver of the vehicle drove into the car park at approximately 19:10, he parked his vehicle and within the allotted 10 minute time paid for his ticket. He paid the £3.00 tariff which covers him for the period Excel claim he has not paid for. The machine initially errored, so he cancelled, then restarted and made payment.
Evidence initially was just a bank statement, however later found a card sales receipt though it does state on the bottom NOT A PARKING TICKET.
This card sales receipt does state £3.00 and 19:14 which is within the allotted 10 minutes you have to pay.
The above was stated in the initial appeal.
We went back and forth but no ground was made, they just stated that they didn't have anything on record showing my car paying for it, though didn't show me the licence plates that they did later on.
So I submitted it to IAS and they have just replied with a long list of information but I'll outline what I think are the key parts, please let me know if I should include more:
"We have not disputed at any stage that the appellant did not make a payment to park. We must note that the appellant's bank statemnet and payment receipt (which clearly states is it not a parking ticket) does not evidence the vehicle registration paid for and therefore no evidence has been supplied that the appellant made a valid payment for their full VRM within the consideration period. This is confirmed by the supplied data which shows no such payment."
With regards to the above, they have then included the first image I've attached, hopefully this is allowed. They continue on with:
"A possible payment for the incomplete VRM ‘P' is shown. This has not been confirmed to be the appellant's, however if so would still be invalid as the full accurate VRM was not entered. The data shows other motorists successfully paying for their full VRMs and we are therefore satisfied that the machine was working correctly. If the appellant had any difficulty they could have paid online instead, called the helpline or found alternative parking.
It was the appellant's sole responsibility to ensure they were parked according to the terms and conditions on the signage. It is not unreasonable to expect the appellant to have checked their ticket to ensure all details were correct before leaving the vehicle parked and take corrective action if needed. If for any reason this was not possible they had the option to call the helpline for advice or find alternative parking within the consideration period."
Obviously the person driving has accidently typed P instead of the full registration, which starts with P. You can tell because NO. 255 on the image is taken at 19:13 and then the receipt is printed dated at 19:14, the vehicles reg starts with P.
I understand this may be jumbled as it's slightly stressful but please let me know if you need any more information, where do I go from here? The options that seem to be presented for me are to either Submit Response or Refer The Case Straight To Arbitration.
Edit:
Wouldn't let me upload files, sorry!
https://imgur.com/a/gnsZH0v They're all here.
Also full context of what they stated below:
"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 ‘After a vehicle has entered the car park, a maximum period of 10 minutes is allowed to purchase the required Parking Tariff' and ‘You must ensure the FULL AND ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment'. Signage makes clear that any motorist not adhering to these conditions will be held liable for a charge.
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 19:10:25 at and exited at 19:58:38; a duration of 48min 13sec.
7. Payment data supplied, taken from the database 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 or at any time whilst the vehicle was on site.
8. We have not disputed at any stage that the appellant did not make a payment to park. We must note that the appellant's bank statemnet and payment receipt (which clearly states is it not a parking ticket) does not evidence the vehicle registration paid for and therefore no evidence has been supplied that the appellant made a valid payment for their full VRM within the consideration period. This is confirmed by the supplied data which shows no such payment.
9. A possible payment for the incomplete VRM ‘P' is shown. This has not been confirmed to be the appellant's, however if so would still be invalid as the full accurate VRM was not entered. The data shows other motorists successfully paying for their full VRMs and we are therefore satisfied that the machine was working correctly. If the appellant had any difficulty they could have paid online instead, called the helpline or found alternative parking.
10. It was the appellant's sole responsibility to ensure they were parked according to the terms and conditions on the signage. It is not unreasonable to expect the appellant to have checked their ticket to ensure all details were correct before leaving the vehicle parked and take corrective action if needed. If for any reason this was not possible they had the option to call the helpline for advice or find alternative parking within the consideration period.
11. 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.
12. 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."
