Thread: Excel Parking Services Limited - Greenwich University Car Park

My girlfriend is a student at Avery Hill Campus which is part of Greenwich University.

She recently got a parking ticket for parking in an outlined bay on a private road owned by the University. The road is an access road which I think the University has taken it upon themselves to paint the bay outlines and yellow lines on the opposite side.

The bays up until recently were free to park.

Excel Parking Services Limited have taken management of a new car park which is adjacent to the road she parked on and has plenty of sign posts informing those parking in the car park that the car park is now managed by Excel and it is a Pay-and-display car park.

What they've done is put two sign posts up on the road side between the trees, the signs themselves are duplicates of the signs posted next to the ticket machines. However as these signs are over 6ft up in the air so you can't actually read 80% of the sign.

The sign also refers to those parking in the car park but nothing said about the parking bays on the private road.

When she parked there, she actually went to buy a ticket as she saw someone putting a ticket in to their car parked behind her, however there was a sign on the ticket machine stating 'If you have parked your car on the tree lined tarmac road surface you do not need to purchase a ticket from this machine' or something like that.

She came back 20 minutes later to find a ticket on her windscreen. She grabbed the issuing officer by the arm and dragged him over to the sign on the machine. He removed it and said 'Yes I can see how that would be misleading, you will have to appeal in writing'.

As he removed the sign, she could not take a photo of it!

I've since been to see the site and noted the following;

• Font size on parking signs is too small and is unreadable.
• Parking signs refer to those who 'ENTERS AND USES THIS CAR PARKING FACILITY' which does not accurately describe, mention or include those who use the parking bays on the road adjacent to the car park.
• Signs have been placed between trees and cannot be seen unless standing directly in front of them.
• Signs in place do not meet the requirement of one sign within 5 metres of the end of the outlined parking bay nor does it meet the requirement of one sign every 30m along the length of the outlined parking bays.
• There is no ticket machine on the road you intend to charge for parking, nor directions to the nearest machine and the nearest machine is not visible from the parking bays.
• There is no visible road name to relate to.
• There was a sign on the ticket machine in the Car Park which informed the public that if you are parked on the tree lined tarmac surface (where my car was parked) you would not be required to Pay & Display. This was pointed out to the pcn issuing officer who agreed that the sign was misleading and had removed it after explaining that I have to appeal to the PCN in writing.
• It has been confirmed by the issuing officer that the parking bays were originally free of charge but have since been integrated with the main Avery Hill Car Park.
• The issuing officer did not write the location of the car on the ticket issued, simply "Avery Hill Campus".

I don't know how the above stands... But should I start an appeal now? The issue I have, or think I may have, is that even though she was driving a car registered to me, she has her details and the reg in the University's database. I am certain they will cross reference as they had previously for me when my car was blocking a JCB (although parked correctly in a bay).

Any advice welcome.

Thank you.

Excel invoicing person arrives for work, and before having cuppa, puts sign on ticket machine.

Has cuppa and roll-up.

Returns to see how many people have parked without tickets, issues invoices.

If challenged, then uses the excuse, "Ah! Yes, it could be misleading".

Removes sign until complainant has gone.

Looks round, furtively, then replaces sign.

No! They wouldn't do anything as devious as that................would they?

Sam

She was lucky enough to get both of those responses lol.

I'm ignoring for now then going to use the templates to say that I am the keeper but was not the driver.

When they ask for the driver details should I just respond It is your responsibility to know who you enter a contract with.' or something?

Now listen very carefully. DO NOT reply by phone and DO NOT reply by letter. DO NOT REPLY at all. Completely ignore all threatograms from them. They are all crap and will not stand up in a court.

The second you start communicating they will never leave you alone.

I thought at the very least as the registered keeper I should confirm that fact but deny that I was the driver at the time?

Originally Posted by The Guv.

I thought at the very least as the registered keeper I should confirm that fact but deny that I was the driver at the time?

Nope nope and nope!

The only good communicaiton with them is no communication at all.

I thought at the very least as the registered keeper I should confirm that fact but deny that I was the driver at the time?

What's the point? They'll just carry on sending junkmail to anybody and everybody they can.

Do you think these companies make money by going "Oh, in that case if you promise you're not the driver I'll HAVE to leave you alone".

I prefer to avoid communicating with con-men and I think you should do the same.

I think I would like to be able to say I responded if I ever was brought to court or something?

I think I would like to be able to say I responded if I ever was brought to court or something?

Responding doesn't alter the facts of the case and makes the chance of court higher (although you've still more chance of winning the lottery).


PPC's don't like taking silent people to court because they don't know if they've got the driver, or even if they're dealing with a policeman or a solicitor.

Got my NTO through; should I return the back saying I'm the owner but not the driver. I understand I don't need to provide any further details other than that.

Thanks!

Its not a real NTO. File it and ignore it.

OK, so they are using the phrase of "Notice to Owner" which as far as I know is protected only for use by the council.

They claim the "contravention" was a "code 94" again in an attempt to make it look like a council "offence". Naughty Naughty.

They then refer you to their on-line payment system onto the sub page of "fine_payment.htm" Fine? What fine?

Keep all their paperwork, it'll be great working your way through all that with a magistrate.

Filed.

Thanks

All they are doing is trying to draw you in to contact them/pay up!

Loads of people fall for this [problem], even though they have been told many times about it being a [problem]!