parking signs and deception

[WCZ]

we have a company vehicle which received a parking fine despite him paying for the duration of his stay using the pay-by-phone app.
he parked just outside of the sign which has the number of the site location on it - with no option whilst on the app for 'vans' (he was in a vw transporter).

the operator (SIP Parking) claims that for vans a different site location should have been used which was on a separate sign on the other side of the car park and absolutely no reference to this is made on the sign he parked in front of!




I disputed it with the independent service who sided with the operator and said it's perfectly legal for them to do this???

I think it's deeply unfair that car parking operators are allowed to do this which especially considering the location of this car park and the many contractors who work around the area, is deliberately deceptive I think.

[Mrr T]

WCZ said:

we have a company vehicle which received a parking fine despite him paying for the duration of his stay using the pay-by-phone app.
he parked just outside of the sign which has the number of the site location on it - with no option whilst on the app for 'vans' (he was in a vw transporter).

the operator (SIP Parking) claims that for vans a different site location should have been used which was on a separate sign on the other side of the car park and absolutely no reference to this is made on the sign he parked in front of!




I disputed it with the independent service who sided with the operator and said it's perfectly legal for them to do this???

I think it's deeply unfair that car parking operators are allowed to do this which especially considering the location of this car park and the many contractors who work around the area, is deliberately deceptive I think.

You have not received a parking fine. Only the police or the LC can fine you.

You have received an invoice based on contract law.

Based on your discretion the contract will be unenforceable since your driver could not have read the contract.

PC cannot do this but they try it on all the time.

Head over to Peppicco, Parking Prankster, or Money Saving Expert.

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

You have received an invoice based on contract law.

Based on your discretion the contract will be unenforceable since your driver could not have read the contract.

IANAL and could be wrong, I always thought that parking in the car park was acceptance of the terms and conditions of parking?

Also, if the drive used the park to pay app using the location sign to identify which car park he was in, how can you argue he didn't see the sign that clearly states a different location for vans (second photo).

Is reading the signs then paying to park using the location code not acceptance of the sign and therfore the terms and conditions?

Again I could be wrong (probably am)

[CraigyMc]

Mrr T said:

...Head over to Peppicco, ...

Pepipoo is what you mean.


OP, go here - http://forums.pepipoo.com/

[deckster]

AlrightYouns said:

IANAL and could be wrong, I always thought that parking in the car park was acceptance of the terms and conditions of parking?

Also, if the drive used the park to pay app using the location sign to identify which car park he was in, how can you argue he didn't see the sign that clearly states a different location for vans (second photo).

Is reading the signs then paying to park using the location code not acceptance of the sign and therfore the terms and conditions?

Again I could be wrong (probably am)

IANAL eiher, but it would seem to me that having multiple contradictory signs in the same car park would in itself be reasonable grounds for appeal. I wouldn't be letting this one go, myself.

[Solocle]

deckster said:

AlrightYouns said:

IANAL and could be wrong, I always thought that parking in the car park was acceptance of the terms and conditions of parking?

Also, if the drive used the park to pay app using the location sign to identify which car park he was in, how can you argue he didn't see the sign that clearly states a different location for vans (second photo).

Is reading the signs then paying to park using the location code not acceptance of the sign and therfore the terms and conditions?

Again I could be wrong (probably am)

IANAL eiher, but it would seem to me that having multiple contradictory signs in the same car park would in itself be reasonable grounds for appeal. I wouldn't be letting this one go, myself.

It's not that he agreed to the terms and conditions. An analogy is going into a bank, going to the front desk, taking out a credit card with the cashier. Then the bank manager decides that the contract you signed doesn't apply to you, and fines you.
The OP parked in front of a sign that says "to pay". It doesn't, anywhere, say "cars only". It's not unknown for phone systems to say "cars" and not say "for cars, minvans, vans, minbuses, robin reliants...".
It's reasonable to look at the nearest sign, pay, then be on your way. I trust AlrightYouns will be going round the entire car park checking for a signage inconsistency next time he parks at Heathrow...
The OP did absolutely nothing wrong, although IANAL.

[Pica-Pica]

The argument would rely on how prominent the relevant signs were. If they have cars only on one sign, but not all, I would say you have a case. Just e-mail the sign as you have on the top post, and any evidence of payment. That is what I would do. My opinion only.

[WCZ]

AlrightYouns said:

IANAL and could be wrong, I always thought that parking in the car park was acceptance of the terms and conditions of parking?

Also, if the drive used the park to pay app using the location sign to identify which car park he was in, how can you argue he didn't see the sign that clearly states a different location for vans (second photo).

Is reading the signs then paying to park using the location code not acceptance of the sign and therfore the terms and conditions?

Again I could be wrong (probably am)

I'm confused as to what you're asking - the sign with the van location code and tarrifis was not at the entrance of the car park, it was to the left side and our engineer never read it as he parked up in a spot with the location code on the sign immediately in front of him.

Previously I had 6 parking tickets from a different company on my own land (leasehold) to which I had to appeal to POPLA, they were very reasonable and I won every single appeal. I was quite surprised to have my appeal rejected with IAS with this.

[anonymous-user]

AlrightYouns said:

IANAL and could be wrong, I always thought that parking in the car park was acceptance of the terms and conditions of parking?

...

IAAL but IANYL. The terms only bind the motorist if they can reasonably be seen and understood by the motorist.

[WCZ]

Pica-Pica said:

The argument would rely on how prominent the relevant signs were. If they have cars only on one sign, but not all, I would say you have a case. Just e-mail the sign as you have on the top post, and any evidence of payment. That is what I would do. My opinion only.

I went to a big effort with my appeal to I-AS including a map of where the machines are located, proof of purchase, several photos from many angles, a diagram showing the route the engineer entered the car parking to illustrate how the 'tariff' board easily be missed, etc

still lost the appeal, the decision was as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. While noting the Appellant's comments, the Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site. I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unfair. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as they have not ensured that the correct payment was made for the vehicle they were driving.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

[WCZ]

just to give you more of a visulation: this is a photo of the bay that he was parked in (it's under some arches tucked away in the corner)

and this is a diagram showing:
red is the tariff board we were supposed to have noticed
green is our van
and brown is the route he took to get in

[deckster]

Adjudicator said:

I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unfair

This the bit that I would take issue with. I would not expect to have to read every sign in the car park to make sure that they are consistent; it is entirely reasonable to assume that reading one sign will give you the entirety of the information that you need to accurately work out what you need to pay. Certainly, the sign that fails to mention that a different class of vehicle needs a different code is the very definition of misleading.

[Pica-Pica]

deckster said:

Adjudicator said:

I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unfair

This the bit that I would take issue with. I would not expect to have to read every sign in the car park to make sure that they are consistent; it is entirely reasonable to assume that reading one sign will give you the entirety of the information that you need to accurately work out what you need to pay. Certainly, the sign that fails to mention that a different class of vehicle needs a different code is the very definition of misleading.

Agree. If you see one sign, and that sign seems to explain everything, are you supposed to search around for any other possible signs that may be around and may add more information? That assumption seems ridiculous.

[nikaiyo2]

WCZ said:

I went to a big effort with my appeal to I-AS

The IAS is not an independent appeal service as one would normally understand those words.

It is owned by the same people who authorize the parking companies.
The people who own the IAS also own the solicitors who will take motorists to court should the IAS find in favour of the parking company.
It guarantees that it will find in favour of the parking company in at least 80% of cases, in actual fact it hardly ever finds against the parking company.

[Mrr T]

WCZ said:

I went to a big effort with my appeal to I-AS including a map of where the machines are located, proof of purchase, several photos from many angles, a diagram showing the route the engineer entered the car parking to illustrate how the 'tariff' board easily be missed, etc

still lost the appeal, the decision was as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. While noting the Appellant's comments, the Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site. I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unfair. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as they have not ensured that the correct payment was made for the vehicle they were driving.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

If you check the forums, sorry about my miss type, you will find most do not even consider appealing to IAS, its owned and run by the PC so almost never applies the law.

From your description sounds as if it’s worth waiting and see if they take you to court. A well set our defence should scare them off.

I assume you received a notice to keeper? Have you checked if it complies with the relevant legislation, very few do.

[Alucidnation]

How much is the fine?

[anonymous-user]

It's not a fine, it's a bill.

[WCZ]

From memory it’s £110, certainly north of 100

[anonymous-user]

WCZ said:

I'm confused as to what you're asking - the sign with the van location code and tarrifis was not at the entrance of the car park, it was to the left side and our engineer never read it as he parked up in a spot with the location code on the sign immediately in front of him.

Previously I had 6 parking tickets from a different company on my own land (leasehold) to which I had to appeal to POPLA, they were very reasonable and I won every single appeal. I was quite surprised to have my appeal rejected with IAS with this.

Sorry, I didn't realise the signs weren't at the entrance of the car park, I do apologise.

[anonymous-user]

i was watching Can't pay won't Pay, when they turned up at a house for a collection, from the high court.

'But they told me on internet i didn't have to pay it' she said...