Would you pay this parking charge?
Discussion
I can't decide if I have the energy to appeal it, and then be told the appeal is rejected even though this is about as weak as it gets.
I parked in this car park local to me for 14 minutes at 0713 on a Saturday morning. Apparently you can't use it between 2130 and 0730 although there is no efficient signage to that effect. The entrance is barriered which is permanently raised. There is only a "max 3 hour wait" sign on entrance, no restricted times. The first sign in the car park that has the small print with restricted times ripped off as pictured. There will be other signs that have the times on, but this is nearest to the entrance and it was pitch black when I visited. I don't think it is reasonable for all these reasons as the restrictions were and are practically invisible.
Can't decide if I have the energy for the battle when this boils down to one thing and one thing only - money. Would you pay?
I parked in this car park local to me for 14 minutes at 0713 on a Saturday morning. Apparently you can't use it between 2130 and 0730 although there is no efficient signage to that effect. The entrance is barriered which is permanently raised. There is only a "max 3 hour wait" sign on entrance, no restricted times. The first sign in the car park that has the small print with restricted times ripped off as pictured. There will be other signs that have the times on, but this is nearest to the entrance and it was pitch black when I visited. I don't think it is reasonable for all these reasons as the restrictions were and are practically invisible.
Can't decide if I have the energy for the battle when this boils down to one thing and one thing only - money. Would you pay?
Wacky Racer said:
Show them the picture of the "ripped" sign.
They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. (I would have thought)
They should have a LARGE warning sign at the entrance, I suspect it's aimed at "travellers".
Either aimed at travellers or boy racer meets 😂😂😂They wouldn't have a leg to stand on. (I would have thought)
They should have a LARGE warning sign at the entrance, I suspect it's aimed at "travellers".
Dear UKPC,
This letter is in reference to the above parking charge notice.
The charge is appealed on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient signage present at the location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is no signage of any restricted hours of operation. The only sign on entrance states “Max 3 hours” and does not reference prohibited parking hours. There is insufficient signage and/or warning presented to drivers informing them of any restrictions in place. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
2) Inappropriate signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is inappropriate detail contained within the signage to signify any restricted hours of operation. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
3) Defective signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is damage and/or missing information on the existing signage, which fails to warn users any restricted hours of operation. Image D is the first sign visible upon entering, and is therefore the primary information available to users. On this sign there is damage to the bottom right where a P is visible with a red cross. Further information is missing from the sign and no times of restriction are visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
4) Insufficient lighting at location
As per the below images A,B, C and D, there is insufficient lighting or visibility of any existing signage, which fails to signify to users any restricted hours of operation. The penalty was issued in full darkness so aside from points 1 -3 above, none of the signage was visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
5) Implied consent
There is a physical barrier present at the entrance of the car park which can be used to prevent access during any restricted hours. This barrier was open at the time of the alleged offence, implying consent for general usage. Combined with points 1 - 4 above, this implied consent is in breach of the reasonable person test.
This letter is in reference to the above parking charge notice.
The charge is appealed on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient signage present at the location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is no signage of any restricted hours of operation. The only sign on entrance states “Max 3 hours” and does not reference prohibited parking hours. There is insufficient signage and/or warning presented to drivers informing them of any restrictions in place. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
2) Inappropriate signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is inappropriate detail contained within the signage to signify any restricted hours of operation. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
3) Defective signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is damage and/or missing information on the existing signage, which fails to warn users any restricted hours of operation. Image D is the first sign visible upon entering, and is therefore the primary information available to users. On this sign there is damage to the bottom right where a P is visible with a red cross. Further information is missing from the sign and no times of restriction are visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
4) Insufficient lighting at location
As per the below images A,B, C and D, there is insufficient lighting or visibility of any existing signage, which fails to signify to users any restricted hours of operation. The penalty was issued in full darkness so aside from points 1 -3 above, none of the signage was visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
5) Implied consent
There is a physical barrier present at the entrance of the car park which can be used to prevent access during any restricted hours. This barrier was open at the time of the alleged offence, implying consent for general usage. Combined with points 1 - 4 above, this implied consent is in breach of the reasonable person test.
Ubiquitous2024 said:
Dear UKPC,
This letter is in reference to the above parking charge notice.
The charge is appealed on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient signage present at the location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is no signage of any restricted hours of operation. The only sign on entrance states “Max 3 hours” and does not reference prohibited parking hours. There is insufficient signage and/or warning presented to drivers informing them of any restrictions in place. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
2) Inappropriate signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is inappropriate detail contained within the signage to signify any restricted hours of operation. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
3) Defective signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is damage and/or missing information on the existing signage, which fails to warn users any restricted hours of operation. Image D is the first sign visible upon entering, and is therefore the primary information available to users. On this sign there is damage to the bottom right where a P is visible with a red cross. Further information is missing from the sign and no times of restriction are visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
4) Insufficient lighting at location
As per the below images A,B, C and D, there is insufficient lighting or visibility of any existing signage, which fails to signify to users any restricted hours of operation. The penalty was issued in full darkness so aside from points 1 -3 above, none of the signage was visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
5) Implied consent
There is a physical barrier present at the entrance of the car park which can be used to prevent access during any restricted hours. This barrier was open at the time of the alleged offence, implying consent for general usage. Combined with points 1 - 4 above, this implied consent is in breach of the reasonable person test.
Alternatively,This letter is in reference to the above parking charge notice.
The charge is appealed on the following grounds:
1) Insufficient signage present at the location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is no signage of any restricted hours of operation. The only sign on entrance states “Max 3 hours” and does not reference prohibited parking hours. There is insufficient signage and/or warning presented to drivers informing them of any restrictions in place. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
2) Inappropriate signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is inappropriate detail contained within the signage to signify any restricted hours of operation. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
3) Defective signage at location
As per the below images A,B and C, there is damage and/or missing information on the existing signage, which fails to warn users any restricted hours of operation. Image D is the first sign visible upon entering, and is therefore the primary information available to users. On this sign there is damage to the bottom right where a P is visible with a red cross. Further information is missing from the sign and no times of restriction are visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
4) Insufficient lighting at location
As per the below images A,B, C and D, there is insufficient lighting or visibility of any existing signage, which fails to signify to users any restricted hours of operation. The penalty was issued in full darkness so aside from points 1 -3 above, none of the signage was visible. This in breach of UKPC’s duty to adequately inform users of site restrictions, or to maintain the physical signage of the site, which fails the reasonable person test.
5) Implied consent
There is a physical barrier present at the entrance of the car park which can be used to prevent access during any restricted hours. This barrier was open at the time of the alleged offence, implying consent for general usage. Combined with points 1 - 4 above, this implied consent is in breach of the reasonable person test.
(1) Did their invoice arrive within 14 days (inc BH & Weekends) of the infraction? If No, tell them they can't pursue you as the Registered Keeper under POFA. They will try and blag that they are not pursue you under POFA. If Yes, go to (2)
(2) Appeal as the RK - I am the RK of vehicle AB12ABC, but was not the driver and will not be naming the driver. Please issue a POPLA code if you disagree.
NEVER NEVER EVER ADMIT TO BEING OR APPEALING AS THE DRIVER!
vikingaero said:
Alternatively,
(1) Did their invoice arrive within 14 days (inc BH & Weekends) of the infraction? If No, tell them they can't pursue you as the Registered Keeper under POFA. They will try and blag that they are not pursue you under POFA. If Yes, go to (2)
(2) Appeal as the RK - I am the RK of vehicle AB12ABC, but was not the driver and will not be naming the driver. Please issue a POPLA code if you disagree.
NEVER NEVER EVER ADMIT TO BEING OR APPEALING AS THE DRIVER!
I have sent the above now but didn't think about your second point. That's a good point - no 6 points for failing to name in a parking case. But are they not wise to all those things any insist you pay anyway bu following up with all the usual threats of debt recovery? I think I am being more than reasonable with what I have provided. If I had known there were restrictions I would never have parked there.(1) Did their invoice arrive within 14 days (inc BH & Weekends) of the infraction? If No, tell them they can't pursue you as the Registered Keeper under POFA. They will try and blag that they are not pursue you under POFA. If Yes, go to (2)
(2) Appeal as the RK - I am the RK of vehicle AB12ABC, but was not the driver and will not be naming the driver. Please issue a POPLA code if you disagree.
NEVER NEVER EVER ADMIT TO BEING OR APPEALING AS THE DRIVER!
vikingaero said:
(2) Appeal as the RK - I am the RK of vehicle AB12ABC, but was not the driver and will not be naming the driver. Please issue a POPLA code if you disagree.
NEVER NEVER EVER ADMIT TO BEING OR APPEALING AS THE DRIVER!
Don't say this if it's a lie. In fact just don't say it at all.NEVER NEVER EVER ADMIT TO BEING OR APPEALING AS THE DRIVER!
"As the registered keeper of AB12ABC I am not obliged to name the driver and will not be doing so".
Out of sheer nosiness; OP why were you there before 07:30? If you aren't allowed there before then surely nothing is open?
I would fight it as I have been screwed by parking companies before. Clamped at work on a Saturday despite being allowed to park, had to pay removal fee. No luck on appeal even though the company and building owners sent letters to them. This was pre-clamping ban.
I would fight it as I have been screwed by parking companies before. Clamped at work on a Saturday despite being allowed to park, had to pay removal fee. No luck on appeal even though the company and building owners sent letters to them. This was pre-clamping ban.
OutInTheShed said:
Surely the real point is that it's a shop car park and none of the shops were open at the time, therefore the OP had no business parking there?
Plenty of legitimate reasons for the OP to be there. For example, shops have staff. Do you think they just turn up at opening time?if you do nothing it's possible the parking co will make a clam in court and the claim would be for "breach of contract".
any contract requires "offer" of terms by one party and "acceptance" of those terms by the other party and in the case of parking that offer is made by the sign which set out the terms of the contact and the driver's acceptance is implied by parking.
it's not clear from the sign but you state that the sign, or another sign, says that parking is only permitted after 7.30 but you were there at 7.13. if that's the case then no contract offer was made for someone parking at 7.13 and if there was no contract there could be no breach, and if there's no breach there's no basis for a claim. the claim would have no merit for that reason.
any contract requires "offer" of terms by one party and "acceptance" of those terms by the other party and in the case of parking that offer is made by the sign which set out the terms of the contact and the driver's acceptance is implied by parking.
it's not clear from the sign but you state that the sign, or another sign, says that parking is only permitted after 7.30 but you were there at 7.13. if that's the case then no contract offer was made for someone parking at 7.13 and if there was no contract there could be no breach, and if there's no breach there's no basis for a claim. the claim would have no merit for that reason.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff