Excel PCN Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

Today I've received a parking charge notice from Excel Parking Services Ltd for a car park that I frequently park (and pay) at.

 

 

This ticket came about because I normally pay online using RingoGo

- but in this once instance I was catching an unusually early train and the RingoGo payment application reported that the carpark was closed even though the physical signage reports 24 hours opening.

As a result I was unable to buy my ticket and hence received the ticket.

 

£100 (or even the reduced £60) charge seem extortionate, particular considering I'm a frequent customer and have probably spent > 300 paying parking here.

Do I have any chance at successfully appealing this?

 

Date of the infringement - 07/03/2017

 

Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 14/03/2017

 

Date received - 17/03/2017

 

Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - no

 

Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

- Unknown - notice says photographic evidence is held on file in accordance with DPA

 

Have you appealed? {y/n?] - No, not yet

 

Who is the parking company? - Excel Parking Services Limited

 

Where exactly - Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - IPC

[silverfox1961]

Hi

Having never used Ringo before, I am assuming you must authorise the parking at the time of parking and not later. If my assumptions are right, you should be able to get some proof that you tried to pay for parking but the system wouldn't let you due to a problem with their system not recognising that the car park is 24 hours.

 

I can guarantee that any appeal you make to Excel will fail. This is purely a paper exercise. Appealing to the IAS is likely to go against you too as it is an old boys club. The IPC control the IAS and the directors of the IAS are also directors of Gladstones Solicitors. So you see that they have a serious conflict of interest.

 

Personally, I would follow the appeals process but only as a paper exercise, knowing that you will get knocked back. Excel are quite happy to begin court action as this scares a lot of people to pay up. A well crafted defence will usually sink them.

 

The ability to pay was taken out of your hands due to the system in place.

 

What would help is some pictures of the signs at the car park.

 

Whatever you do, never name the driver. Always state 'the keeper' As Excel do not follow POFA they cannot go after the keeper if they don't know who was the driver and as you know, anyone with the required insurance can drive the car with permission.

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

The NTK doesn't meantion POFO, however it does state:

- We have the right to recover the registered keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge.

 

As a side not the PCN/NTK has a typo in the name on it - the car was recently purchased and checking my V5 it looks like the dealer failed to register my fullname and instead used a nickname - unsure if this helps at all?

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

did the payment go through at all?

 

excel are members of the IAS and their appeals system is best described as a kangaroo court so you really wont get any joy with them but if you did actually pay it will be worth creating a paper trail by writing to Excel and telling them in no uncertain words that the prescribed fee was paid and their claim is denied.

 

If the payment didn't go through then that is not your fault, you attempted to pay but the problem with appealing is that it negates the safeguards of the POFA by identifying you as the driver at the time.

 

Since you habitually use this car park I would say that this is immaterial compared to getting the point across that you are not liable for their inflated charge.

 

As for them claiming they keep the photos on file according to the DPA, well that is cobblers as they don't rely on the POFA they have no reason to ask for your details from the DVLA in the first place. Something to consider if you wish later.

 

My advice?

Write to Excel and tell them

 

"that your payment wasn't accepted so Excel have failed to perform to their obligations of the normal offer and acceptance of the contract offered at the site. You are therefore not liable for a charge for a breach of contract as one wasn't formed.

 

They should now withdraw the demand for £60 as there are no grounds for demanding it and getting the incompetent Gladstones or BW legal to chase you will only result in Excel losing the claim and thus costing them vastly more. As Ringo has cost them money take that up with them, dont blame me"

 

Dont mince words, letting them know that you know about their skullduggery will make them think seriously whether they want to pursue this to the bitter end.

[silverfox1961]

I have had a look at the site via StreetView and none of the 3 signs I could see are lit. Not good in the dark!

 

The signs say at the entrance, £2.50 all day which would suggest to me that means 24 hours however at the payment machine (which looks like it is lit at night) it states that it is for 4 - 15 hours but doesn't have a start time. The only place I could see clearly was at the entrance where it states from 06:00 - 21:00. The terms may have been on the sign at the payment machine but they are too small to read (hence the need of pictures)

 

There were 2 things that I did notice.

1 The penalty charge was hidden at the bottom of the sign at the payment machine. This is (IMO) a main term and as such should be highlighted and more prominent.

 

2 Aside from the entry sign and the payment machine, I could only spot 3 signs. One by the entrance going in but too small to read as you were passing. One at the same gate but facing the other way. The third was partially obscured by trees. Far too few signs. This may have changed as the images from StreetView are from 2015.

 

So, go back and take pretty pictures, upload them as a pdf file on here so we can then enlarge them to our hearts content. As it stands, there is no keeper liability because they don't follow POFA and you are under no obligation to name the driver.

[ericsbrother]

if you want to go down the road suggested by silverfox do not write to them as suggested in my post. It will be one or the other, not both or a mixture of the 2. Each are equally valid and feasable

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

As requested I've attached some photos from the car park in question. It's actually in worse state than google streetview suggests as it has 'literally' become a building site since those images were taken.

 

The A4 laminate sign falling off states that the car park is open 6am to 10pm, an obvious conflict with the signage indicating 24 hours parking. This might also explain why Ringgo online payment failed to work for me, I was trying to pay at 5:30am so my guess is they have configured their online parking profile incorrectly.

 

I've also noticed a discrepancy on the signage, the red signage suggesting I'm entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd, and the pay and display signage suggesting I'm entering into a contract with Excel Parking Services Ltd (I know they both have the same ultimate owners) - the PCN/NTK was from Excel Parking Services Ltd.

 

As you can see limited lighting except on the payment machines - at 5:30am it's pitch black.

 

Thanks

 

Abe

carpark img 1-4.pdf

carpark img 5-8.pdf

carpark img 13-14.pdf

carpark img 9-12.pdf

[ericsbrother]

the mix up between the 2 is always a winner in court. they claim they are one and the same but obviously they arent becasue Companies House have different details. Ultimately the sigange is confusing and that means a contract cannot be offered and accepted. You cant agree to 2 companies offers. Being unlit is another bonus, they lose claims where you cant see that a contract was offered and that with the mixture of signs will see you OK

as for the detail of the sign by the entrance- please refer to the other signs- you dont have to, especially when they are misleading The wording public car park is also a misnomer.

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

Thanks all for the advice so far. To answer a previous question the online payment didn't go through and I've added the screenshot from the RingGo app.

 

A few questions pleases

- Is it worth while going through the appeals process (it sounds pointless from what is described). Should I therefore just write them a letter to their address directly outlining the reasons why the PCN is invalid.

- In the response rather than naming myself, can I just say 'The driver asserts...'

- Should I offer to pay the normal parking fee (~£3.00) and enclose a cheque/postal order?

- Should I advise I will bill them for my time if they continue to pursue me (I'm expecting a lot of harassing letters)

 

Thanks

ringgo.pdf

[silverfox1961]

Well the signs have changed--as well as the car park. Nothing I have seen states anything less than 24 hours. Certainly not 06:00 to 21:00 so the signs are contradictory. The smaller signs refer you to the full terms at the pay machine. The main sign says nothing about the opening times and the Ringo app shows that at the time you tried, it was just after 5:00. This is evidence.

 

I think we need to Notice to Keeper as well (suitably redacted of all personal data and codes but including the time of issue. The only fly in the ointment is that it may have been possible to pay later which you didn't do.

When paying by Ringo, is it stipulated that you 'Must' pay on parking?

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

PCN attached and suitable redacted.

 

I've read through RingGo's T&C's here:

https://www.myringgo.co.uk/static/onlineterms

They are fairly light, I car park ts&cs are meant to apply regardless of the payment method, which is payment within 10 minutes.

parking171.pdf

[ericsbrother]

to answer your question about the appeal- no.

That will negate the POFA and make them think you are a likely one to pay up.

as for the other bits- no.

 

Let the spend their money chasing you, they are going to anyway so don't give them a means of doing so on the cheap.

No email, no phone calls.

 

As for Ringo, as you now see, even if you do pay them they reckon that you don't have a contract with them so you should ask yourself why you want anything to do with them ( I know that carrying change is a bind but this forces the parking co to have properly working meters, which they often don't.

 

The change of the £1 coin will cost the private parking co's a fortune and they will be losing a hell of a lot more claims for the next year.

 

serves them right, they can buy meters that cope with all of this and give change but they don't use them because the type they prefer rob the motorist.

[silverfox1961]

Well as I see it, you have an absolute defence. You could not pay within the stipulated period therefore the system is wrong and as such you can't be held liable for their failings.

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

The fly in the ointment might be - why didn't I pay using cash if the app wasn't working - or is that not a valid argument on their part?

 

Thanks

[DragonFly1967]

Perhaps you weren't carrying cash (or change) at the time. Why would you need to, you use an app

[ericsbrother]

which of the 2 defences do you intend to pursue,

the one about the payment, which identifies you as the driver,

or the more solid no contract formed route?

You cant mix and match, as already stated.

 

You asked whether you should continue corresponding with them and the answer to that was no. IF you are going to ignore them then the no contract formed is going to be the argument to follow and that has nothing to do with Ringo and everything to do with the signage so put the thoughts on cash payments out of your mind

 

Understand this though, there is not a quick fix for this,

the parking co's are incompetent and greedy and use the courts to coerce people into paying rather than as a last resort for getting monies that are actually owed.

 

The parking companies have put such a strain on the courts system there may well be a change in the law about proof of debt to prevent a large number of these dodgy claims ever getting through to a CCJ.

 

Main reason for that is they take advantage of people moving and then go for an uncontested judgement.

Obviously part of preventing that abuse is the standard of proof of claim so it will benefit all defendants but there are several companies that are quicker to file a claim than others and Excel is one of those.

 

They lose almost all of the defended ones though.

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

I haven't decided 100% which of the two defences to take, as you said I appear to have two options:

1.) Unable to pay through the ringgo application

2.) No contract formed

 

I'm inclined to take the 1st approach, and write to them as you previously suggest with words to the effect:

""that your payment wasnt accepted so Excel have failed to perform to their obligations of the normal offer and acceptance of the contract offered at the site. You are therefore not liable for a charge for a breach of contract as one wasnt formed. They should now withdraw the demand for £60 as there are no grounds for demanding it"

 

Thanks

[ericsbrother]

better word it as your payment want processed correctly by Ringo, a third party in the employ of excel so there has been no breach on your part as you did everything as you should.

 

It is not your fault that your subcontractor had problems with the payment and Excel should seek redress for any loss caused by that third party from them and not you.

 

however, don't choose this as the easy option, they still aren't going to cancel so you may well end up fighting a court claim

 

However, make sure that you have the pictures of the VCS and Excel signage handy as that will still show that there is confusion over everything but keep this out of your communications with Excel or it will give them grounds to claim that you weren't confused if you could spot the deliberate errors

 

also ask the council about the planning permission for the temporary car park.

When it was granted, what conditions etc.

When does the permission last until?

I bet there is something you can dig up.

[abedegno]

Good point, I checked on the planning portal here:

https://publicaccess.chesterfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=LHH92BEP00M00

 

Looks like temporary permission for a car park was renewed in 2011 for 3 years and they have forgot to renew - oops...

 

Hi,

 

I've been looking at the planning portal further, it appears planning permission was approved for creation of the temporary car park on the building site here, CHE/16/00188/FUL:

https://publicaccess.chesterfield.gov.uk/online-applications/caseDetails.do?action=dispatch&keyVal=O4G5KYEP00T00&caseType=Application

 

And was conditionally approved, however condition 9:

 

"The temporary car park shall not be brought into use until a detailed lighting strategy and details of the proposed knee rail have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Such approved measures shall be implemented in full."

 

Does not appear to have yet been satisfied, as per here:

https://publicaccess.chesterfield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&previousKeyVal=KRTIMDEP00200&activeTab=summary&previousCaseUprn=000074079233&previousCaseNumber=KRTILUEP00200&keyVal=OJWZM1EPK7A00

 

Has yet to be approved or the proposed lighting to be installed.

[ericsbrother]

I also note lots of conditions regarding access, that it something else to look at and photograph where necessary.

 

note the date of the decision letters.

If it comes to the point where they become important it should be noted when you ask for sight of the contract between the landowner and the parking co as obviously you cant offer a contract to the parking co if you cant hold up your end of the bargain.

 

(performance of contract) that means the parking co cant offer anything to the public for the same reason.

 

They are stuffed but that is only useful in a court...

[abedegno]

Should the lack of planning permission for the public car park be something that I mention in my initial letter, or one I should hold for when/if I get taken to court?

[DragonFly1967]

Save all the good bits, if they're daft enough to take you to court (likely with this bunch of halfwits), the more points you can score with your defence the better. The Judge may not consider them all, but it's always nice to give the Judge a selection of arguments to choose from

[ericsbrother]

as suggested, hold on. If you are going to appeal to them about their useless payment system, why mention the rest at the moment?

 

There is a long way to go yet as the greedy gits don't give up just because they are breaking the law

- they know that no-one is going to prosecute them.

 

Make them waste their time and money and don't allow them to alter things in the meanwhile, some parking co's change signs and doctor documents when they are known to be caught out on their contracts, signs etc.

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

I sent the appeal letter off using the wording advised. Lets see what happens next...

[abedegno]

Hi,

 

It's take some time, but I have now received a response to my letter to Excel parking challenging their demand to me because the RingGo app wasn't working. I note they are now the PoFa which they didn't do before.

 

Thanks

 

Abe

appeal letter.pdf