Hi All

Firstly, a massive thanks in advance for any advice that can be given. I feel a little bit lost in the law and unfortunately can't afford a lawyer so it's great to have communities like this to come to. My situation below:

I live in a flat that shares it's car park with the rest of the block. The buildings management has employed ParkDirectUK to manage the car park and they require parking permits to be displayed.

ParkDirect recently gave me a £100 parking charge as I forgot to display my parking permit. I contacted them with evidence of my residency and my parking permit but they stated that this is irrelevant as at the time my car did not have a permit.

I then contacted the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and they have rejected my appeal on the same basis.

The question I have for the community is should I still refuse to pay and potentially go to court. Where does the law tend to land on cases like this?

The full case (copied from my IAS appeal) is detailed below:

************************* ************************* *********

My Appeal

Hello

On the day I received my fine I forgot to put my parking permit in the window of my car. (Although in the pictures ParkDirectUK sent me you can see it in the holder in between the two seats).

I am appealing this fine on the basis that I am a resident at the property and have the right to park there.

You will find attached an image of my Parking Permit and the Visitor Parking Permit that belongs to my flat.

In addition, I have attached an image which contains the relevant section of my lease (section 4) that states I have the right "to use the common parts".

I have confirmed with Building Management that the car park is owned by the building I reside in and not by ParkDirectUK.

I can also confirm that no where in my lease does it state I must display any form of permit to use the land.

In addition, the details of my car had been submitted to ParkDirectUK and so they were aware of my right to park there.

Thank you for your time

Matt

Section 4 of my lease:

The right in common with the landlord the other tenants of the Building and all other persons entitled to the like right at all times and for all purposes in connection with the permitted use of the Property to use the Common Parts and all those pathways and accessways leading to and from the Property for the purposes of access to and egres from the Property subject to any rules and regulations for their common use that the Landlord may from time to time consider necessary

************************* ************************* *******

Operator's Prima Facie Case

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 01/07/2018 10:14:23.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.

The ticket was issued on 23/05/2018.

The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

This PCN was issued because the vehicle was found to be parked in a permit holders ONLY area and failed to display a valid parking permit.

Whilst we do sympathise with the appeallants circumstances at the time of the contravention, there are nonetheless numerous warning signs displayed in various locations around the site including the sign in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the vehicle to ensure all approaching motorists are fully aware of the restrictions that are in force highlighting the need to display a valid permit in order to utilise the premises.

We would now like to refer the appeallant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 64, which looks at what a reasonable person would consider fair.

The myriad number of signs are sufficiently lit, are in an intelligible language and are prominent to draw the attention of a reasonable consumer.

As such, a reasonable consumer would have acknowledged these signs. It can never be used as a defence in contract law to state that one did not see/read the terms and conditions (warning signs) once it has been established that the existence of those terms and conditions (warning signs) have been reasonably advertised.

All of our warning signs have been audited and approved by the IPC who have deemed their location and content sufficient to disseminate all drivers of the restrictions in force.

The signage at this location clearly connotes to all motorists the level of charges that were in force and you had the option to park elsewhere if you felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable.

By parking on site, it confirms that they agreed to park in accordance with the perspicuously displayed terms and conditions – including the level of the parking charge if it arose.

The warning signs clearly state that vehicles must clearly display a valid parking permit fully within the windscreen and comply with all conditions on the permit.

We have reviewed the time and date stamped photographic evidence taken at the time your vehicle was issued with a PCN and we can confirm that no permit was on display.

As no valid parking permit was displayed the vehicle was indeed parked in DIRECT BREACH of the terms of parking as set out on the warning signs - these terms are clear and do not make any exceptions.

Furthermore, all of our warning signs prominently displayed a 24 hour customer service telephone number which they could have called in the event of any uncertainty, and had they called the number they would have been advised which steps to take in order to avoid receiving a PCN.

We must remind you that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they actively observe and adhere to the parking restrictions in force when parking on PRIVATE PROPERTY and we would advise that they do so in the future so as to prevent any further PCN’s being issued.

The appellant has provided a copy of their lease which does give them the right to use the common parts however, it clearly states "subject to any rules and regulations for their common use that the landlord from time to time consider necessary".

The landlord has implemented parking regulations and the driver is aware that the permit must be displayed in accordance with the terms of the use of the permit as stated on the reverse of the permit and the terms as stated on the warning signs.

************************* *************************

My Response

The appellant made their response on 01/07/2018 15:57:50.

The landlord has implemented the parking charges for the purpose of deterring non-residents from parking in order to ensure that residents (like myself) have the ability to park when required.

The purpose of a parking charge is to recover the losses that the landowner incurred for the space not being available.

I am a resident and have the right to park. Therefore there was no loss, in any sense, incurred by the landlord or the residents by my parking there. Therefore I would ask a justification for the excessive £100 fine.

************************* ************************* ****

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator made their decision on 12/07/2018 15:37:31.

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.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event.

I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge.

The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with.

The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge.

The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention.

The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge.

If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss.

In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site.

Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

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.

************************* ************************* ******

Thank you all for any advice you can give. It is very much appreciated

It is not a FINE

Where do they ever use that word!!

Shame you appealed and named yourself as the driver

Total waste of time

You have supremacy of contract

Ignore them now unless you get a letter of claim

Thanks a lot for the response dx100uk.

Apologies as I guess I'm pretty green to this world as never had a parking charge before. I don't really understand the difference between a charge or fine.

I guess, very naively, I assumed that by proving I was a resident they would drop the charge. But from reading the other posts around I realise that most of these companies are just cowboys hiding behind very convoluted law. (and even the "independent" appeals aren't really independent)

Thanks a lot for your time and I'll take your advice. I'll update this thread if I do get a letter of claim.

You have an open and shut case. Guaranteed win for you. Just ignore them.

can you complete this please

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(2-Viewing)-nbsp

thread title updated

In short you have a good reason to sue Park direct but before you consider doing that it would be prudent to clear up this mess.

Who appointed these bandits to manage parking at the site?

If it was a management company then they have no right to do so and that means that the parking co have no locus standi (legal phrase for right to take you to court)

Now,

the IAS know this but as they arent honest brokers they wont be telling anyone that you are right and the parking co is wrong because they know which side their bread is buttered.

The plus side is that the IAS's decision is not binding so you can still ignore the muppets when they send you their next begging letter.

the reasons given for turning down your appeal are pathetic and ignore the legalites or otherwise of your lease and the placing of the signs there without authority.

If I put graffiti all over your walls wouild you expect to have to pay me compensation for scrubbing it off or ignoring it ?

that in effect is what they are asking for.

Expect letters from the parking co followed by threatograms from various dca's like Debt Recovery Plus.

Ignore those.

if you get a letter from Gladstones Solicitors or BW legal then come back here and we will suggest some choice phrases to send to them to rebut their claims.

@forcharli - what happened in the end then? I just been struck with something similar.

all too often we hear nothing back from the OP so we cant learn from it. It is a shame as even when peopel decide to pay up we woudl like to know as it gives us an idea abouthow many cave in or stick it out. Generally the longer thread end up with the OP beating the parking co's claims so we believe that the parking co's are knowingly telling lies but the wording of ther Perjury Act 1911 as amended is pretty forgiving of people who tell lies and then plead ignorance as recklessness and stupidity are not covered by the penalties of the law.