Hi all,
Should I send an request to reconsider within the 14-day period or ignore the PCN in total? Thanks for your time and advice!
What is "
...an request to reconsider within the 14-day period..." ?
You say you want to fight this because it was "...an unintended mistake", how do you think you would argue that point. The driver is alleged to have breached contractual terms and therefore agreed to the liability and now owes Ocean Parking a debt of £100.
There was a contract in place. The driver breached that contract. Whether they breached it intentionally or unintentionally is not really relevant unless it can be proved that the "unintended mistake" was caused by something due to Ocean Parking.
This is my opinion on the case... after weighing the facts and the limitations of dealing with an IPC member like Ocean Parking, I believe the chances of a successful outcome are quite low. The main issue here is the 40-minute unpaid gap between two parking sessions, which falls outside any grace period and isn’t something that Ocean Parking is likely to overlook.
While going through the appeals process is still worth doing, primarily to show good faith and to exhaust all formal options, the reality is that success at either the operator level or with IAS is highly unlikely. Even if the case was taken all the way to court, the odds of winning remain slim and it’s important to consider the potential costs involved.
If the case does end up in court and you are unsuccessful, you’re likely looking at around £200 in total, including court fees and the original parking charge. In contrast, if you throw in the towel after an unsuccessful appeal, you’d only be liable for £100.
There’s the possibility that if it does go to a court claim (though it may not), the claim could be discontinued before the hearing. Some of these PPCs push all the way to court in the hope that the defendant is low-hanging fruit and will capitulate once litigation looms. They often wait until the last minute before they have to pay the trial fee, then discontinue and move on in search of easier targets. However, this isn’t something you can count on happening, and the risk remains.
Given this, while fighting it might feel like the right thing to do in principle, the practicalities and financial risks suggest that paying the £100 after exhausting the appeal process is probably the most sensible course of action.
I would like to know the opinion of others.
As far as appealing, these are the points I could find:
1. Acknowledge the Mistake:
In the appeal, it may be beneficial to acknowledge that there was a 40-minute gap due to a misunderstanding of the payment system. State clearly that the driver believed they could make up for this gap by "back-paying" via the RingGo app, which unfortunately wasn’t possible.
Highlight the Good-Faith Effort:
Emphasise that the driver made multiple payments for the parking duration and clearly intended to comply with the terms. The 40-minute gap was an honest mistake caused by the misunderstanding of how payments could be made through the app. You could argue that this was not a deliberate attempt to avoid payment.
Technical Defence:
Without identifying the driver, appealing only as the Keeper, there is an argument that the Keeper cannot be liable as the NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no "invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge and so Ocean Parking may not hold you, the keeper, liable.
Disproportionate Charge:
You can try and argue that the £60 (or £100 if unpaid within the discount period) charge is disproportionate to the 40 minutes of unpaid parking, given the multiple payments made beforehand. While IPC members don't entertain grace period arguments, this could still highlight the unfairness of the charge in relation to the nature of the breach.
Escalation:
If this appeal fails, you could try and escalate to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), even though success rates are abysmally low. You may want to keep any appeals based on both the technicalities of PoFA compliance and the fairness of the charge, focusing on the unintended nature of the mistake.
