Hello all,

in January I parked my car in the car park I usually park in which for many years has been 3 hours free parking,

unbeknown to me (until I received the parking charge letter) in mid December the time was changed from 3 hours to 1 hour.

Where I enter the car park from the road there is the sign stating the terms and conditions but no 1 hour sign, they are dotted around the car park but when I leave the car park I leave via the same entrance and therefore don't see that they have changed the hours.

There was and still is no sign anywhere stating that the hours you can park have recently changed which in my opinion is a little unfair

I could in theory have checked the signs on Monday and seen 3 hours, parked again on Tuesday without looking and they could have changed it to 1 hour, a bit like entrapment in my opinion.

I appealed to POPLA and they rejected my appeal and I have now received a letter from Civil Enforcement demanding payment stating if it isn't received in 28 days they will have no option but to start proceedings against me and will charge for costs, interest and fee's.

Do I have a leg to stand on regarding there was no prior advice when entering the car park that the terms had been recently changed or do I just pay up?

And just as an aside I now live in Saudi Arabia and would like to write to Civil enforcement requesting they write to me here as I have only seen these letters from pictures my wife has sent from the UK.

Hi.

Can you give us the information from the forum stikky please? It will help us to advise you.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

HB

I bet if you look up the planning permission and its rules it says 3hours and no cowboy parking company can change that.

you should never appeal these things unless you have all of the relevant information and a sensible plan of attack as now you have given CEL a lifeline where before you appealed they were dead in the water.

get pictures of the signage, CEL like to threaten and even start court proceedings but as they are always in the wrong they usually just dont turn up to fight but that wastes your time so once we see what your have got as far as pictures and paperwork we will suggest what to say and more importantly when.

The incident date was 23/01/2018.

The issue date was 29/01/2018

Date received

The NTK does mention it was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act 2012.

There is a picture of the registration and the times involved

Yes I appealed to POPLA.

"The appellant’s case is that he has been parking at this location for many years and a short time ago, the terms and conditions were changed from three hours free parking to one hour free parking.

He states that there were no signs to indicate that the terms had changed and believes that the operator is trying to entrap motorists into paying.

Unbeknownst to him at the time, the appellant states that a three hour free sign had been left up for days after the terms and conditions had changed, as the operator was unable to move the sign due to vehicles being parked in front of it.

The appellant believes that he could have observed the sign and assumed that the maximum parking time permitted was still three hours."

Response.

The terms and conditions of the site state: “1 hour free parking. If you breach any of these terms, you will be charged £100”.

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant exceeded the maximum one hour free parking time.

Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 10:47 and exited at 12:12 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 25 minutes.

The appellant’s case is that he has been parking at this location for many years and a short time ago, the terms and conditions were changed from three hours free parking to one hour free parking.

He states that there were no signs to indicate that the terms had changed and believes that the operator is trying to entrap motorists into paying.

Unbeknownst to him at the time, the appellant states that a three hour free sign had been left up for days after the terms and conditions had changed, as the operator was unable to move the sign due to vehicles being parked in front of it.

The appellant believes that he could have observed the sign and assumed that the maximum parking time permitted was still three hours.

When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review and comply with the terms and conditions when deciding to park.

I refer to Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which states:

“You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Further, Section 18.10 states:

“Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage.

Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.”

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site.

Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the appellant was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park his vehicle

Additionally, I note that the parking event was on 23 January 2018. The photographs of the signs are date stamped 15 December 2017.

Should there have been a change in parking restrictions, I would consider a minimum of five weeks a reasonable amount of time for a regular user of the site to familiarise themselves with them.

I note that the appellant believes that the operator is trying to entrap motorists and advises that an old sign was still there when he parked, however he has not provided any evidence of this.

POPLA is an evidence based service and when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

In cases where no sufficient evidence has been produced to prove otherwise, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions.

Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it.

As the appellant exceeded the maximum one hour free parking time, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Company. Civil enforcement limited.

Location. Portwood Court, Garfield street, Stockport, SK1 2ED.

Letter received 29/04/2018 from Civil Enforcement Limited.

We refer to Parking Charge Notice detailed above.

We have been notified by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) that your appeal submitted to them has been unsuccessful.

A confirmation of this was also sent to you directly by the POPLA team.

Following POPLA's decision we are now writing to inform you that we are not able to accept any further appeals for this Parking Charge Notice and payment is now due within 28 days from the date of this letter.

In the event that payment is not received, we will have no option but to issue proceedings against you to recover the amounts due to us. We will add our additional costs, interest and fees to the clain.

Payments can be made online on http://www.ce-service.co.uk, by calling 0115 822 5020 or by sending a cheque to Civil Enforcement Ltd. Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF.

we need to see the signage,

this letter merely sets out the stall of the serial liars that are CEL they wont have provided a truthful account to POPLA as they rarely do, they prefer to send computer mock ups and pictures from elsewhere so we need to see what you saw, not what they say.

I can't get back to the UK in time to take pictures before the limit set expires, the signage at the entrance has never changed, it details free parking terms apply, the signage within the car park is exactly the same as it was except the 3 hours has been changed to 1 hour.

the time limit only applies if you are going to pay these bandits and our argument is that they have no lawful reason to dermand it so you dont.

that gives you time to do what is necessary.

saying they havent changed doesnt tell us exactly what they say,

how big the letters are,

what font they use and

what colour the letters and background of the sign is nor how high up from the ground it is,

whether it is obscured by anything else as you enter the land from the public highway

what side of the road it is so can the driver read it when passing

does it have a proper addrss for the company you are entering a contract with

does it have the correct logo of the accredited ATA they belong to and so on.

As you can now see, there is a lot that they need to do to get it right and they rarely do so we need to see it all so show you where it is wrong.

Thanks ericsbrother, I will try to get my wife to take a close up of the signs, I do have some phone shots of them but they are not very good.

carpark.pdf

well, that sign rather damns then as it isnt an offer of a contract, it is a statement that parking is free.

As for the terms that apply, they arent shown on the sign so they dont exist as an enforceable contract. generally this is known as an intivation to treat at best or just graffiti at worst.

the thing about invitations to treat is they are not binding on either side.

the normal example of an invitation to treat is a sign in a shop window that says 50% off most items inside.

that sign doesnt force the shopkeeper to sell you anything you want at 50% off nor does it force you to buy anything just for asking whether an item is in the sale. It is an opening to get you to enquire about what is on offer and only then will you take part in the negotiation of offer and acceptance to form a contract.

No shopkeeper sues you for his heating bill just because you didnt buy something but stayed there to look at what else they had. you CAN agree to be bound by a contract if you wish but there is no obligation so you can say with honesty that you didnt bother to read the other signs as you werent interested.

The landowner then has the right to ask you to leave but not these bandits and no-one can charge you for parking in a free car park.

we then get on to the charge itself,

a charge for parking in a free car park may be seen as being a deterrent to park and that isnt a genuine offer of terms either.

In short CEL are stuffed.

they know it but as already said, they arent honest and any mistake they make isnt down to ignorance on their part, it is a deliberate act.

More reasons for not being in a hurry to appeal to them.

POPLA dont consider the law, they have a very limited remit and that is because they are paid by the parking co's.

When a truly independent arbitrator was used by the BPA the parking co's lost just about every correctly argued appeal. that normally started and finished with a demand for sight of the contract.

Ombudsmanservices Ltd who run it now dont let you see the evidence they receive from the parking co's but they see yours. Not open justice.

likewise if the parking co says they have the correct permissions they are usually believed without being told to produce it.

ombudsmanservices Ltd are not an ombudsman appointed by government, they are a private company that deals with outsourced matters such as this and also energy provider disputes so it makes it difficult to complain about maladministration.

rant over, you have little to worry about though.

So in a nutshell are you saying I don't pay and await the threatening letters, bare in mind i'm 4000 miles away and couldn't get back for a court case if they took it to court.

And by the way, sorry I couldn't answer sooner, I work 12 hour shifts and don't have much access to the internet at work.

Yep

Go read up on CEP wins...If you can find any....

well, if you do get a court claim let them know you are 4000 miles away and a claim for your air fare and lost earnings will cripple them.

Make them serve their documents on your current address as well as part of Civil Procedure if it comes to it

However, even if they do go down this route they will get so many other things wrong a letter to court will invoke a case management order and that will sink them as they dont have a claim lastly you could [pay a solicitor to turn up and by way of a CPR 27.2 order get the money back for that for their unreasonable conduct.

They will behave unreasonably as they always do try to add on unicorn food tax for writing their witness statements, use the name of a solicitor who has been struck off to bump up costs etc.

All well known but unfortunately this all has the be pointed ou on each and every occasion

The matter can still be dealt with on the papers after this

So at the minute I do nothing and just await the threatening letters?

And thank you both for your replies.

until or unless you get a letter of/before claim yes

Could you please answer the questions asked in post 2.

This enables us to investigate and if you give us the details of the exact site, we may be able to look on Google Streetview to see what is what and gives us the ability to check with the local council to check if the had planning permission to change the parking hours from three to one.

Location. Portwood Court, Garfield street, Stockport, SK1 2ED.

Letter received 29/04/2018 from Civil Enforcement Limited.

My apologies. I didn't see that you had already posted the information I needed. The joys of skim reading.

I have checked with the Stockport council online planning portal and there is nothing I can find (so far) regarding the signs or the time reduction

I have a problem locating Portwood court on Google. I have found Garfield Court which has a Carphone Warehouse and a Pizza Hut. Is this the one?

It is also across the road from the dreaded Peel Centre.

Look expand on your answers to questions,

we are trying to help you but you are making it harder than it needs to be.

Cant find a garfield St but Garfield Ct is off Gt Portwood St.

so, have CEL put a totally incorrect address on their NTK and if so does that disallow a claim because they have failed to identify the land in question?

Possibly depending on your explanation.

but again, it may be that there is only one bit of land in the UK that their description, even though wrong, can apply.

Yes that is the one silverfox1961

So, it's Garfield Court but CEL have put Portwood Court as the land in question.

There has been no planning permissions applied for nor any approved according to Stockport Councils planning portal so any signs that are on site are unlawful and you cannot be bound by any unlawful contract.

According to Google Streetview (who happily have images from the site) the image taken in March 2017 shows 3 hours parking so the change is quite recent. It seems ridiculous that a one hour limit is placed on this small site which contains a Pizza Hut. How long does it take to have a meal there. More than an hour I bet.

I have tried every variable on the planning portal and all I could find were 4 applications for the postcode and nothing for Garfield Court and certainly nothing for the landowner/agent or CEL.

Unless CEL can show where they have planning permission and permissions to vary the times then IF they did try court, they should lose.

It was changed in December and I parked in January, they now have a system in Pizza hut only where you put your number in a screen and you get 3 hours but nowhere else.

The parking years ago was 2 hours but many people visiting Pizza hut for childrens parties got parking charges and the time was increased to 3 hours, now it has been reduced to 1 hour.

was it in the car park or on the service road?

from your answer I presume the car park but this isnt made clear.

we need to know EXACTLY because CEL may well not have an arrangement over the whole site and using ANPR wont tell them where you parked so another possibility of not a contractual obligation.

Come on, tell us everything,

we wont know what happened otherwise

It was in the car park, I drove in as I usually do not looking at the hourly sign because it has never changed in years, parked up for around 90 minutes. In Pizza hut they have a screen terminal like Aldi where you put your number that is all I meant by my previous comment, this allows you three hours but I wasn't in Pizza hut I went to another shop and was unaware of the change in time limit.