Author Topic: Paid for parking after 20minute cut off window (didnt realise private car park)  (Read 221 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
LOCATION:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6051622,-0.1746622,3a,75y,53.64h,87.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYiS0NuHDDS_flp-QBoGZVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

---------------

On the left is a private car park.

On the right is free parking.

You can see small signs on the fence sayings its private but it really wasnt obvious to me especially with other cars parked infront of some of the signs.

So it wasnt the clearest signage.

Either way when I realised it was a private car park I quickly moved my car and then angrily paid the money to cover the cost I wouldve paid if I wanted to park there for that time.


Still 2 weeks later I get a letter in the post saying I didnt pay/ didnt pay in time.
Here are the images:





Sign:



SO basically I paid for parking later then they stated I should but this was also due to (phone malfunction... etc)

Is this reasonable grounds for appeal?

Cheers!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2024, 04:40:28 pm by C_H_R_I_S »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
The images in GSV are from April 2022. Are you sure the signage hasn't changed or been updated since then? Can you go back to the location and get some photos of the signs and some general overviews? Where were you parked in relation to the sign you have shown us?

When you say "on the left is private car park and on the right is free parking" it is not exactly clear what you mean. In any case, it is private land. Are you stating that there is signage at the entrance to parking are you have shown us that splits the car park into two separate areas?

In the GSV there are no obvious signs, either at the entrance or within the parking area that conform to either ATAs CoP on signage.

What evidence do you have that you paid? Did you have to enter your VRN but maybe entered it incorrectly or with one or two digits incorrect or, for example, use an 'O' instead of a '0'? Did you pay by app or phone?

Without seeing the actual signage and knowing how you paid, it is difficult to provide advice.

Edited to add: Based on the NtK, you were at the location for 31 minutes. One of the terms on the sign, in tiny print, is that payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving at the location. That is probably the term that are trying get you on.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2024, 05:58:46 pm by b789 »

b789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
It will now depend on how badly you want to fight this. We'd have to see more evidence of the signage at the site. However, if it was not obvious when you entered the car park that you were entering private land with parking controls due to deficient signage, you have a case.

What brought to your attention the fact, after approx 30 minutes, that you had parked in a car park with a requirement to pay as opposed to being able to park in a free to use car park if you had turned right instead of left when you entered the private land?

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
  • Karma: +4/-1
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
The 100 penalty is clearly a penalty in all but name (bears no relation to any conceivable loss) - so can only be saved by "commercial justification".

If the car park is enforced solely by ANPR, then the entirely arbitrary requirement to pay within 20 minutes would seem to be nothing but a cynical trap for the unwary, and entirely contrary to the "service provider's" legal duty to treat consumers fairly and act in good faith.

Signage should always be the starting point though.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Like Like x 2 View List

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The signage that I spotted was on teh restuarant door saying

-> FreeParking
<- Paid Parking

At first it didnt click for me but when I went to my car to get something I realised then.

THe signs were not very clear to me...


I am referring to the 20minutes timer as how they are getting me.
And yes I paid by phone/

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It will now depend on how badly you want to fight this. We'd have to see more evidence of the signage at the site. However, if it was not obvious when you entered the car park that you were entering private land with parking controls due to deficient signage, you have a case.

What brought to your attention the fact, after approx 30 minutes, that you had parked in a car park with a requirement to pay as opposed to being able to park in a free to use car park if you had turned right instead of left when you entered the private land?

Unfortunately the place is hours from me.

The signage definetly wasnt clear (TO me - or those in the car with me)

Sounds like i am gonna lose my parking ticket and this penalty...
These private companies are ridiculous


Nosy Parker

  • Expert committee
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Please see the PM I've sent you and take the necessary remedial action ASAP

b789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Is it possible to go back to the location and get some photos of the entrance signs, if any and any signage that directs the driver to either the free parking or the paid parking areas? Also, any general overview of the parking area.

They are trying to rely on the term on their sign that states "Payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving on the premises". You made payment after that period.

However, as @andy_foster has pointed out, you are being penalised even though you paid for the parking in good faith. That is a breach of the CRA 2015.

In fact, there are so many breaches of there CRA that you should be making the PPC aware of their multiple breaches such as:

  • Transparency: The terms of the agreement, including any penalties, must be clear and easily understandable to the consumer before they agree to the service. If the penalty for certain actions, such as overstaying in a car park monitored by ANPR cameras is not clearly communicated, it could be deemed unfair.
  • Proportionality: The penalty imposed should be proportionate to the breach of the agreement. If the penalty for a minor infraction is disproportionately high, it may be considered unfair under CRA.
  • Good faith: Service providers are expected to act in good faith and treat consumers fairly. If the penalty is imposed in a way that exploits consumers or is not justified by legitimate reasons, it may be deemed unfair.
If the mention of monitoring by ANPR cameras is hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, it raises serious concerns regarding transparency. Transparency is a fundamental principle of  the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumers must be provided with clear and easily understandable information about the terms and conditions of the agreement, including any monitoring methods and potential penalties. Which, in this case, it is not.

These sections of the CRA apply:

  • Section 62 - Transparency of Terms: This section requires that contract terms be transparent and easy to understand. If terms related to monitoring by ANPR cameras or penalties are not clearly disclosed, it may be a breach of this provision.
  • Section 62(1) - Requirement for Transparency: This subsection states that a term is transparent if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. If terms related to monitoring or penalties are hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, they may not meet this requirement.
  • Section 62(4) - Prominence of Terms: This subsection emphasizes that terms that may be deemed unfair should be brought to the consumer's attention in a way that is prominent and transparent. If terms related to ANPR monitoring or penalties are buried in the fine print, they may not meet this standard.
  • Section 62(5) - Assessment of Transparency: This subsection provides factors to consider when assessing transparency, including the clarity of the term, the legibility of the language used, and the presentation of the term. Failure to meet these factors could indicate a lack of transparency.
  • Section 64 - Requirement for Fairness: This section requires that contract terms be fair. If penalties imposed based on undisclosed terms related to ANPR monitoring are considered unfair, they may be deemed unenforceable under this provision.
  • Section 65 - Assessment of Fairness: This section provides factors to consider when assessing the fairness of contract terms, including the nature of the subject matter, the circumstances at the time of making the contract, and the interests of both parties. If the penalty imposed is found to be unfair based on these factors, it may not be enforceable under this provision.
  • Section 68 - Exclusion and Restrictions of Liability: This section deals with terms that attempt to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract. If a term attempts to exclude or restrict liability for breach related to ANPR monitoring or penalties, it may be subject to scrutiny under this provision.


C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Please see the PM I've sent you and take the necessary remedial action ASAP
Hi,
Thanks I tried to edit but see no option to do so!

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Is it possible to go back to the location and get some photos of the entrance signs, if any and any signage that directs the driver to either the free parking or the paid parking areas? Also, any general overview of the parking area.

They are trying to rely on the term on their sign that states "Payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving on the premises". You made payment after that period.

However, as @andy_foster has pointed out, you are being penalised even though you paid for the parking in good faith. That is a breach of the CRA 2015.

In fact, there are so many breaches of there CRA that you should be making the PPC aware of their multiple breaches such as:

  • Transparency: The terms of the agreement, including any penalties, must be clear and easily understandable to the consumer before they agree to the service. If the penalty for certain actions, such as overstaying in a car park monitored by ANPR cameras is not clearly communicated, it could be deemed unfair.
  • Proportionality: The penalty imposed should be proportionate to the breach of the agreement. If the penalty for a minor infraction is disproportionately high, it may be considered unfair under CRA.
  • Good faith: Service providers are expected to act in good faith and treat consumers fairly. If the penalty is imposed in a way that exploits consumers or is not justified by legitimate reasons, it may be deemed unfair.

If the mention of monitoring by ANPR cameras is hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, it raises serious concerns regarding transparency. Transparency is a fundamental principle of  the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumers must be provided with clear and easily understandable information about the terms and conditions of the agreement, including any monitoring methods and potential penalties. Which, in this case, it is not.

These sections of the CRA apply:

  • Section 62 - Transparency of Terms: This section requires that contract terms be transparent and easy to understand. If terms related to monitoring by ANPR cameras or penalties are not clearly disclosed, it may be a breach of this provision.
  • Section 62(1) - Requirement for Transparency: This subsection states that a term is transparent if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. If terms related to monitoring or penalties are hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, they may not meet this requirement.
  • Section 62(4) - Prominence of Terms: This subsection emphasizes that terms that may be deemed unfair should be brought to the consumer's attention in a way that is prominent and transparent. If terms related to ANPR monitoring or penalties are buried in the fine print, they may not meet this standard.
  • Section 62(5) - Assessment of Transparency: This subsection provides factors to consider when assessing transparency, including the clarity of the term, the legibility of the language used, and the presentation of the term. Failure to meet these factors could indicate a lack of transparency.
  • Section 64 - Requirement for Fairness: This section requires that contract terms be fair. If penalties imposed based on undisclosed terms related to ANPR monitoring are considered unfair, they may be deemed unenforceable under this provision.
  • Section 65 - Assessment of Fairness: This section provides factors to consider when assessing the fairness of contract terms, including the nature of the subject matter, the circumstances at the time of making the contract, and the interests of both parties. If the penalty imposed is found to be unfair based on these factors, it may not be enforceable under this provision.
  • Section 68 - Exclusion and Restrictions of Liability: This section deals with terms that attempt to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract. If a term attempts to exclude or restrict liability for breach related to ANPR monitoring or penalties, it may be subject to scrutiny under this provision.

Thankyou @b789

Do you think me quoting this would suffice as an appeal in itself?
Maybe with the addition of the images of the terrible signage?

Cheers
Chris

b789

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
There's no harm in quoting it. However, it will depend on which assessor you get at POPLA. It could be the tea-boy. Who knows?

In theory, POPLA should take the CRA into account but it will also depend any other legal or CoP arguments you can bring to bear. Don't forget that any POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant. It is only binding on the operator.

If it ever went as far as a county court claim, then the CRA must be taken into account. We are a long way off anything like that.

You must put as many points as you can into a POPLA appeal as each point must be rebutted by the operator. They must rebut ALL points raised. You only have two win on one point.

Signage is always argued. Any breaches of the BPA CoP, PoFA if keeper liability is denied, contractual right of the operator to issue PCNs and any rights to make a claim and so on.

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • Karma: +17/-0
    • View Profile
Rightly or wrongly, POPLA are probably more likely to pay attention to appeal points based on non compliance with the BPA's Code of Practice, than ones about the Consumer Rights Act, so I'd be tempted to lead with any Code of Practice points at POPLA.

Whatever wording you do use, if you're making the point about the charge not being commercially justified, it's important that this is loud and clear, and doesn't get lost in amongst points around the lack of clarity around their use of ANPR etc.

Nosy Parker

  • Expert committee
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Maybe something like this on the commercial justification point?


The term the operator is seeking to invoke is for failing to pay for parking within 20 minutes of arrival. Payment was made in full, there was no overstay and the correct VRM was entered. The parking charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty that is not saved by the Supreme Court decision in the Beavis case as there is no commercial justification for imposing a time limit for payment that expires before the end of the period of parking.
Like Like x 1 View List

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thankyou Guys these are great points.. This is my first private appeal so feels a bit like a lost cause but i'm drafting an appeal now with your help.

C_H_R_I_S

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Dear Adjudicator,

I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice issued to me for an alleged breach of parking terms on 28/1/24 at N12 0QZ.

Upon review, I identified several discrepancies that, in my view, invalidate this charge due to non-compliance with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and the fairness principles outlined by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). To further strengthen my case, I will also reference the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), highlighting violations of this legislation to underscore the legal deficiencies in the parking charge imposed.

Discrepancies Identified:

Absence of Entry Signage: No signage was visible upon entry into the car park, a clear contravention of the BPA Code which mandates visible terms and conditions upon entry. This oversight directly violates the BPA Code and CRA 2015, Section 62(4), compromising my ability to be informed of the parking terms before deciding to park.

Signage Obscured by Parked Vehicles: The signs present were affixed to the back of a fence and not visible, especially when obscured by parked cars. This placement fails to comply with the BPA Code's visibility and legibility requirements (Section 18) and contradicts the transparency obligations under CRA 2015, Section 62(4).

Unreasonable Time Limits: The requirement to make payment within 20 minutes is excessively restrictive, providing insufficient time to understand the obscured terms and conditions. This practice likely violates Section 19 of the BPA Code and does not meet the fairness criteria under CRA 2015, Section 65.

ANPR Camera Transparency: The use of ANPR cameras was not clearly signposted, failing to meet the BPA Code's clear signage requirements and questioning the fairness of data collection practices under CRA 2015, Section 62(5).

Unenforceable Penalty Without Commercial Justification: The condition to pay for parking within 20 minutes of arrival, leading to a penalty, lacks commercial justification. This charge is not supported by the Supreme Court decision in the Beavis case, as it offers no legitimate business interest protection, given that payment was made in full, with no overstay and the correct VRM entered.

Given these points, I contend that the parking charge was issued under conditions that fail to meet the BPA's standards for clear and fair parking management and contravene the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The lack of entry signage and obscured sign placement significantly impaired my ability to understand and adhere to the parking conditions.

I respectfully request the cancellation of this charge, supported by enclosed photos of the car park signage and confirmation of my parking payment on the day in question.

Please acknowledge receipt of this appeal and provide a reference number. I anticipate a favorable resolution and the cancellation of the PCN.

Yours sincerely,
« Last Edit: February 14, 2024, 09:31:50 am by C_H_R_I_S »