There is a private car park at the back of the office building where the vehicle that the PCN relates to was parked. This is shared by multiple companies but managed by the same parking firm, One Parking Solution. The car registration was provided to the office manager so it could be registered to be parked in that car park. What the driver didn’t realise is that there are a small number of parking bays there that require a different permit to the one registered, this only became apparent after a PCN was attached to said vehicle on Saturday (24/8) for “Failure to Display a Valid Permit”. This was clearly a genuine error, rather than an attempt to park without permission, as why else would the car have been parked in one of those bays if it was registered for the other ones in the car park? It feels as if the charge in this case is somewhat opportunistic, rather than being based on any commercially justifiable loss to their company or the land owner. Does the driver have any grounds to be able to reliably contest it though?
Attached are photos of the signs (affixed to the wall of the building nearest the parking bays), along with the PCN.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Please 'Modify' (edit) your post to not give away the driver ID, tell us what 'the driver' did with no I, we, he or even the dog.
The “I” in this case was referring to the keeper rather than the driver, but the post has been modified as suggested, thanks.
Modify both, that's enough for a claimant to convince a Judge of driver ID, no I, we, he or the Dog, NONE, NADA.
Think about it!
Yep, understood & post has been updated.
With windscreen PCNs like this one, the general advice is to appeal as the keeper on or around day 26 of 28, in the hope that they mess up the process giving you a technical ground of appeal.
In the meantime, have you spoken to the employer about this? If not, this would seem a sensible first step.
Ok, thanks very much for the advice.
The office manager is away on holiday this week, but I do intend to raise it with them on their return.
The signs are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP). Had they conformed, it would have been obvious to the driver which bays were available for which permits.
Can you elaborate on why the signs don’t perform please? There is a map on another wall which is clearer but that isn’t next to the bit where the driver had parked, hence why it was missed.
Can you elaborate on why the signs don’t perform please? There is a map on another wall which is clearer but that isn’t next to the bit where the driver had parked, hence why it was missed.
If the signs were “performing” their required function, why did the driver park in the bay that they did?
Have a read of the CoP and PoFA and see what they say about signs and “prominence”, “adequately” bringing to the attention of the motorist/driver and so on. Also, have a look what the CRA mentions about contracts and terms.
Useful to know, thank you very much.