Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

So I received a nasty little surprise through the post yesterday.

https://imgur.com/a/8xAKv1b


A request for £100 for the date of 12/09/2024. This should be a straightforward appeal because I paid and have a bank transaction. No other form of receipt. no email or text but I have it showing on my bank account.

I used the site mentioned and rang the phone number shown on the parking sign because the machine was out of order.

I want to make sure that it should be straightforward—transaction for the date below. I paid for the full day.

https://imgur.com/a/EJWcgD0
https://imgur.com/a/JYIEqYX

deadline says on reverse of letter 17/10/2024 and issue date was the 19/09/2024 which I only received yesterday.
so do you think it; 's safe enough to appeal the charge using their appeals process?

thanks in advance

If appealing as the Keeper, here is a suggested appeal to Excel:

Subject: Formal Appeal of Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number] - [Vehicle Registration]

Dear Excel Parking Services,

I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above as the registered keeper of the vehicle. Your allegation is not only mendacious but also deliberately unclear, seemingly designed as a pretext for extortion.

To address the key points:

• Payment was made: The parking session was fully paid for. Your notice fails to clarify whether you are alleging that an incorrect Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) was entered or if you are imposing a penalty for the payment being made outside an arbitrary time limit. This lack of clarity is unacceptable.
  
• Mendacity of the claim: If your allegation relates to an incorrect VRM, I reject any suggestion of fault. Any error, if there was one, is more likely the result of your own faulty or inadequate equipment. I am not responsible for the deficiencies in your system.
  
• Penalty for timing: If, however, your allegation is that payment was not made within some arbitrary time period after entering the site, this would clearly be a penalty disguised as a contractual term. As you are undoubtedly aware, penalties are unenforceable under contract law, which makes this entire claim not only unjust but legally void.

Therefore, I require you to clarify the nature of your allegation. Is it a failure to pay the parking fee, or are you attempting to impose an unenforceable penalty for the alleged late payment?

I am well aware of the biases inherent in the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), so I am more than willing to defend this matter in court if necessary, where I will expose your corrupt practices and highlight that this is nothing more than an attempt to extort money.

I suggest you cancel this PCN and cease pursuing such baseless and extortionate claims.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name] 
Registered Keeper of Vehicle [Vehicle Registration]

It's not a "fine" and to refer to it as such gives an air of legitimacy to the unregulated private parking company. It is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged debt because the driver has allegedly breach a contract with the operator.

Having looked at the location on GSV, I believe that there is some reference to a time limit for making payment.

If payment was made for the full period anyway, then the requirement to pay within a 5-minute window is disproportionate and unenforceable. Excel's legitimate interest would be in ensuring that parking is paid for, not necessarily when within a short window the payment was made, provided the parking was properly paid for and the terms of parking were otherwise complied with.

In this case, enforcing a penalty or charge for merely paying outside the strict 5-minute window—despite the full payment being made is considered unfair and disproportionate. Excel has suffered no financial loss because the parking fee was paid in full, and the driver's conduct has not harmed Excel’s legitimate interests.

This also bolsters the argument that the term is penal, as it is designed to punish rather than protect Excel’s legitimate interests (such as turnover of parking spaces). If a penalty is imposed despite the driver having paid for the parking, the charge is also an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), as it imposes an unfair financial burden on the consumer with no corresponding loss to Excel.

In particular, Section 62 of the CRA provides that unfair terms are not binding on consumers, and a term that requires payment within an unreasonably short time limit, especially where the parking was otherwise fully paid for, should be viewed as unfair.

Also, in the context of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, while the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a parking charge in that case, it did so on the basis that the charge was proportionate to a legitimate interest. However, if full payment has been made, there is no real loss or harm to Excel’s legitimate interests, making it much more difficult to justify a charge.

Therefore, a claim for a breach of the 5-minute payment window would likely be found unenforceable, especially where full payment for parking was made, whether the sign had that as a term or not.

hello,

So i have had a reply by email.

Dated 17/10/2024

Dear Ms Sharon W*****,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number EPS24274797 - Vehicle: DU16CWZ
Site: Providence Street Pay & Display Car Park Post Code: WF1 3BG
Contravention Date: 12/09/2024
We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 06/10/2024.
Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our
main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs at the car park make it clear that the land is private property and that a charge of £100 will be levied if
vehicles park outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed. The signs make it clear that a valid ticket/permit to park
must be purchased for the vehicle parked.
On this site motorists are permitted to use Connect as an alternative method of making payment for parking. All
Connect parking sessions are virtual, which means that a paper ticket is not required to be displayed in the vehicle
when parking using the Connect service.
The above detailed vehicle was observed parked whilst payment for parking had not been correctly made and you
became liable for the Charge Advertised.
In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you were the driver of the vehicle at the time it
parked in the car park.
We note your comments concerning the use of Connect, however we must clarify that Connect is third-party software
for which we are not responsible.
We note your comment that you purchased a period of parking using Connect and acknowledge that you have
provided a copy of your payment transaction with your appeal; in this case our enquires show that you purchased a
period of parking from 08:22 to 20:22. The photographic evidence shows that your vehicle entered the car park at
08:05 and therefore the payment was not made until after the allowed consideration period had ended. On this
occasion the vehicle had no valid session paid for and therefore in the absence of a Pay & Display ticket, was in
contravention of the Terms and Conditions displayed. Signs on site clearly display a Helpline telephone number which is available for use by motorists who have any
problems or queries in respect of their use of the car park. In this case the driver should have called that Helpline so
that arrangements could be made or advice given in respect of any problem they had.
We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to
accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the charge
will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk.
What you should do next - Either:
1. Pay the Charge Notice (CN): In order to settle the Charge, the payment of £60 to reach us by 31/10/2024 or £100
to reach us by 14/11/2024 must be made. Failure to pay this charge within the stated times, may result in Debt
Recovery Action being taken and further costs up to an additional £70 being incurred. Payments can be made
online at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk by following the links for "Pay Now", or over the phone by calling
0845 226 9138 by using a valid Credit or Debit Card.
OR:
2. Appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS): If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to
appeal to the IAS. In order to appeal, the IAS will need the following information (which is also contained in the
subject header of this correspondence).
Notice Serial No: EPS24274797 Vehicle Registration Mark: DU16CWZ
Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this correspondence. Please visit www.theias.org
for full details on how to submit an appeal online.
It is important you note that if you do make an appeal to the IAS, the reduced charge offered above will no longer
apply. You should also be aware that if a payment is made prior to an appeal being made to, or adjudicated by, the
IAS AND this is accepted as Full and Final settlement against the CN, the appeal will automatically be dismissed and
the matter will be deemed closed. Should you appeal to the IAS and it is unsuccessful, the full amount outstanding
(£100.00) will become payable within 14 days of the date the IAS decision is notified to you. Failure to pay this sum
in the 14 day period will result in debt recovery costs of up to £70.00 being added to the outstanding balance.
It is important we also highlight that no further appeals will be accepted at this office; any such appeal must be
made to the IAS.
Please also note that further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to subsequently recover any
outstanding charge using further debt recovery and/or court action.
Yours sincerely
Appeals Administration Team
CENTRAL PROCESSING OFFICE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess my next step is to appeal to :-
Appeal to the Independent Appeals Services (IAS)
by the 15th November 2024?

Is there anything I should put in the appeal specifically?

By the way from memory the car parking machine was out of order for weeks and the only option was the phoneline. This is a car park that I hardly used and the first time I rang it and I don't remember what day it had my former vehicle down as listed.

If you really insist on trying an IAS appeal, for what it's worth, you can try what I suggest below. As already mentioned in earlier posts, the only way the sis going to be resolved in your favour is if/when they issue a claim in the county court, the only place where you will receive truly impartial dispute resolution, assuming they bother to take it all the way.

Dear IAS Adjudicator,

I am submitting this secondary appeal in relation to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Number EPS24274797, concerning vehicle DU16 CWZ and the alleged contravention on 12th September 2024 at the Providence Street Pay & Display Car Park.

1. Payment for Full Period of Parking
Firstly, I must reiterate that full payment for the period of parking was made. The Connect system used to facilitate payment confirmed a valid session from 08:22 to 20:22, covering 12 hours, which is more than the entire intended parking period. The allegation that payment was made outside an undefined “consideration period” or strict 5-minute window is a spurious attempt to impose a penalty. The fact remains that payment for parking was completed and valid for the full duration.

2. Disproportionate and Unenforceable Requirement
Even if there is a term on the signage indicating a strict 5-minute window for payment, such a requirement is disproportionate and unenforceable. Excel Parking’s legitimate interest should be ensuring that payment is made for parking, not enforcing an arbitrary and absurdly short time limit. Imposing a charge for payment made just outside this window, when the parking was fully paid for and complied with in all other respects, is an unfair and punitive measure.

3. No Financial Loss to Excel
Excel Parking has suffered no financial loss in this instance as full payment was made for the entire parking period. The driver's conduct did not harm Excel’s legitimate interests, which further underscores that the charge serves as a penalty rather than a protection of legitimate business interests. This reinforces that the charge is punitive in nature, which is not enforceable under contract law.

4. Breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA)
Section 62 of the CRA provides that unfair terms are not binding on consumers. A term that requires payment within an unreasonably short time limit—where the parking was otherwise paid for—should be considered unfair. The imposition of such a term imposes an unnecessary and disproportionate financial burden on the consumer, with no corresponding loss or harm to Excel.

In the context of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld a parking charge as enforceable on the basis that it was proportionate to a legitimate interest. However, in this case, where full payment was made, there is no comparable legitimate interest or financial loss to justify imposing such a charge. This distinction makes the penalty wholly unjustifiable.

Conclusion
Given that full payment was made and the only basis for the charge is an unfair, disproportionate, and non-transparent term, I urge the IAS to apply the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and uphold this appeal. Failure to do so would further reinforce the perception of a lack of impartiality in the process.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
Registered Keeper of Vehicle DU16 CWZ

hello,

thank you in advance for your help.
Can anyone please advise if there is any specific that I need to include when respond to this claim?

thanks,
Sharon

Hello,

I have completed the AoS, thank you.

In response to your questions about debt letters, I did receive three. Which I did not respond to. All from DCBL.

https://imgur.com/a/dcbl-letters-09dJms7

I didn't respond to any from DCBL because my understanding was/is that to enforce payment, it has to be brought before a court.

(I have been reading around a few cases on this site to gen up on the subject matter).

thank you for your earlier response and help.