Hello All,

I received a PCN from HX Car Park Management in the mail a few weeks ago. The contravention was that the pay and display ticket was face down. The "charge" was £100, discounted to £60 if paid quickly.

Needless to say, I appealed, pointing out that:

• I would not identify the driver.
  
• There was no suggestion that the daily parking fee was not paid.
  
• Their photographs show a ticket displayed on the dashboard.
  
• The tickets issued at this car park are a different colour each day making it obvious that a valid ticket had been purchased.
  
• These is an attendant on duty to take payment, making parking without paying the fee extremely unlikely
  
• The tickets issued do not make any reference to the terms and conditions, merely point out that "parking at own risk"
  
• No loss has been suffered by the owners of the car park
  
• HX should have enquired with the attendant as to the validity of the ticket in my vehicle.
  
• No notice was attached to the vehicle, nothing to indicate anything was amiss until the PCN arrived in the post.
  
• That this behaviour strikes me as a predatory and underhand tactic
  
• That this was a "Fluttering Ticket" caused by the wind at the time or soon after the driver left the vehicle,
  
• A reference to case C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H, 14/11/2016 Port Talbot, where the court rules it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide self adhesive tickets.
  
• That the signage is confusing, instructing motorists to "park in marked bays". This car park is on rough ground and not a single marked bay is present. This makes any "contract" void.
  
• That their obtaining keeper details from the DVLA was most likely unlawful.
  

It will come as no surprise that the appeal was rejected, since HX act as judge, jury and executioner in such cases.

So I have also appealed further to the IPC, pointing out the same. HX's response is the same old BS … that the driver breached the terms and conditions and I am liable for the PCN.

I now have a few days remaining to add any further information to the IPC appeal before the adjudication.

Any suggestions as to anything else I might add?

Am I wasting my time fighting this?

Have I gone too far and should I just pay these blood suckers to go away ?

-- skeet23

Hi and welcome to CAG.

HX are members of the IPC and as such couldn't care less what you said as they are only after the money. Equally, the IAS are only interested in their members so very rarely do they uphold an appeal.

I hope you kept the ticket showing you paid.

The only way for HX to get you to pay is to take court action and I feel that the circumstances here, any judge in their right mind would throw this out.

The ticket was issued by an attendant therefore you must have paid.

The ticket flipping over is a minor issue and should be tossed out just on that.

no you don't pay

shame you appealed as you identified yourself as the driver I bet.

pers i'd do nothing now.

await and see if you get a letter of/before claim from their fake/tame paperwork only solicitor.

see what others think.

dx

Thanks for replying, silverfox1961 and dx100uk

I most certainly did not identify myself as the driver!

Unfortunately,

I did not keep the ticket! It's somewhat ironic

- I had a stack of old tickets in the car and binned them one morning

(in a council bin, emptied daily, so could not retrieve them) only to get their damned PCN a few days later!

From the research I have done, it seems clear that the IPC etc are set up for one purpose only

- namely to get their hands on other peoples money

- but at least by appealing I have given them a chance to act in a reasonable manner (LOL).

--skeet23

ok good

I agree was SF here its a managed carpark theres no way you could have parking there without a ticket nor having paid

and an updide down ticket is pretty immaterial in this case.

see what they do.

appealing to the IAS is utterly pointless and the IPC embolden their members by making it clear that their "independent" appeals service doesnt actually act impartially. ( see telly programme on them)

You appealed to HX and that created a paper trail so that was enough.

Unfortunately by giving the IAS some credence HX will continue to persue you after Bryan decides you have to pay and HX will then use the service of Will and John at Gladstones to chase you.

they may look like the same Will and John who own the IPC and have the same addresses and dates of birth but I can assure you they act entirely separately from their doppelgangers and will only ever act as they are instructed to do by their clients who have taken their advice from Will and John at the IPC so no conflict of interest there.

Now the main thing is that you have evidence that you paid the prescribed fee and that is enough, the parking co has evidence by way of their photograph so what is it they are claiming?

No oss to them, ticket displayed so no breach of conditions, parking man failed to mitigate things by checking status of ticket before taking piccy.

Likewise failed to notify driver and although HX are using the IPC abuse of process in this manner it is covered by the POFA but again there is this mitigating of their actions that has to be considered.

Also can we see the signs and the NTK as I want to look at whether a discount period was correctly applied and made clear

I will try to attach some pics but they are a little fuzzy

the get some decent ones, you will need the for a court claim defence anyway

Hi Guys,

Finally got home (to a reliable internet connection) and uploaded 3 x PDF.

The first contains the redacted PCN and some (poor quality) pictures of the signage at the site.

The next two were kindly attached by HX to the IAS appeal - site map showing location of signage and a pristine copy of the terms which are so fuzzy in my own picture!

They also have attached some pictures of the "pay here" arrow and the hourly charges sign - which I do not believe are relevant to this case since the ticket in question was bought from the attendant, not from the ticket machine. I hope this is not some further underhand attempt to swing any adjudication in their favour.

Best Regards

--skeet23

2018-11-15-CAG-Images-01.pdf

Sitemap.pdf

Terms.pdf

What a pathetic NTK!

It firstly states that no ticket was issued at the time but in the next paragraph goes on to state that at the date of the notice, no payment has been received??

I also cannot see any mention of PoFA on the letter so they cannot go after the keeper. what they will do is assume the driver was also the keeper and go from there. They cannot state that after 28 days they will go after the keeper.

Personally, I would ignore them until/unless a Letter Before Action is received.

so what is written on the payment meter?

we need to see this as well as that is the actual contract accepted when you put money in. i know you paid the attendant but HX arent that good at recognising the truth

By having the clause in about bumping the charge Up to £160 they have made a fatal error. If this is a NTK they can only ask for the £100 as the keeper wasnt a party to the original contract so adding this unicorn food tax in the letter actually makes the whole contract void.

They would have done better keeping their gobs shut and let the clowns at Gladstones tell that particular fib later.

If this was lawful I would just stick notices through all of my neighbour's letter boxes and say you owe me money because you didn't send me a christmas card last year and this demand is a retrospective contract

As requested by EricsBrother ... pics of the pay machine and surrounding signage.

No mention anywhere I can see about the "charge" increasing to £160 because the unicorns need feeding.

Sorry it's not a pdf ... site refused to upload it for some reason

Best Regards

--skeet23

Probably because your pdf is huge in size?

5 pix should be

We cant rotate and zoom those

I am a little confused. In your initial post you state there was an attendant issuing the tickets yet you have shown images of pay machines. Were they not working on the date you parked? Is this attendant there every day?

I noticed from the images of the NTK that they didn't show your complete dashboard showing the flipped ticket. Are they on the website?

If pics are on website grab them before they take them down.

I asked for piccies of the pay machines as these actually offer the contract and not the signs so you can only consider the contract formed whe you rwead the blurb on the machine and then decide to apy. That creates the binding terms. Now by paying a bloke on the gate you can negotiate any terms you want and he must have accepted them on behalf of HX or he wouldnt let you in would he? So you cannot breach the terms on the signage as YOUR contract was on individually negotiated terms.

Now that will be interesting when it comes to actual witness evidenec in court as they will need to drag that bod along and make him recall every ticket he sold that day ( and other days he was there) to make sure that he didnt agree to let you park for free for a fortnight because you are in the same darts team.

Now the ticket machine has a set of tariffs that doesnt mention clobbering you for overstaying or anything else so those would be the terms you agreed to if you had used the machine, not the ones on the signage. So, whichever way round you look at it the signs mean nothing.

So plenty to use should the muppets decide to play tough but in the meanwhile you do and say nothing, let them waste their energy and money

Thanks, all, for your responses.

@Silverfox - images were requested by EricsBrother - the ticket in question was purchased from the attendant and definitely NOT from the machine.

The attendant is there every working day ... I have never had to use the machine in the last 2 years ... I'm not sure what time he finishes though, but I believe it is late afternoon.

@BrassNecked - already got them! (They even sent me full sized A4 prints when I hit them with a subject access request). Any value in posting them? (I'm assuming not)

Anyway, here are the images of the machine and surrounding signage as requested - split into 2 PDFs.

Best Regards,

--skeet23

2018-11-16-CAG-Images-02a.pdf

2018-11-16-CAG-Images-02b.pdf

By the way, the original jpegs I uploaded ... if you right-click them and select "open in a new tab" ... you get them the right way up and zoomable.

(Yes I am an IT nerd!)

--skeet23.

the point I am trying to make is WHAT contract was accepted by you, the signs arent a contract and the ticket machine determine the normal conditions but the bloke can vary any contract offered and you can then make a counter offer, which he has the authority to accept or decline.

So as the ticket machines Dont mention paying fines and the bloke didnt say anything then there is no contractual obligation for you to consider regarding paying them money other then the £2.50 to park.

they Dont get it but you must so you can argue the points if need be.

Your defence could be the bloke said you could park for free and that you must put the ticket in your window upside down so he can deny this when his bosses check up on him.

If they have to drag him away from his job to deny this then they will lose more money than they could possibly earn form one dodgy claim so even if this may seem a ridiculous statement to make unless it was true it is for them to show that you are incorrect in thisassertion. They have no evidence that there wasnt a collusion between you and bloke and what if you were telling the truth?

Not saying you should write all of this down but consider the chain of evidence they need to keep intact to prove that you accepted the terms on the signs and these were not altered by any other action or offer and that you read and accepted them.

ticket machine and sign next to it says nothing about paying them £10000000000 for placing ticket in car upside down so no breach of contract. that takes into account the bloke is deaf and dumb so unable to offer or consider any other terms.

Now some people might think that bloke might just tell you to make sure the ticket was clearly visible and if he didnt it is his fault that the supposed contract was breached. As bloke failed to mitigate things they cant claim.

Happy New Year, Everyone!

As you correctly predicted, the "independent" appeals service dismissed my appeal, stating that everything was done properly ... text pasted below.

-------------------------------------------------

"It is important to understand that the adjudicator is not in a position to give 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 the Appellant is 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 guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The conditions of parking at the location in question are such that drivers must ensure that a valid pay and display ticket is clearly on display at all relevant times. Signage stating these terms exists throughout the site and having viewed images of the site I am satisfied that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the conditions of parking, particularly as in this case the Appellant obtained a ticket from the attendant at the site.

I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the Operator that no valid ticket was properly displayed in the vehicle. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued as no ticket was properly displayed in the vehicle. The Appellant states in their appeal that they purchased a ticket, but the evidence provided means that I am satisfied that no ticket was properly available for inspection at the time the PCN was issued.

It appears to be accepted that the ticket obtained blew/fell from the position in which it was placed, coming to rest face down so that the details on the ticket were unavailable for inspection.

photographs, taken at the point of issue, show the Appellant’s vehicle without correctly displaying a valid ticket.

As stated above, the guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. For this reason, I am satisfied that as no ticket was correctly displayed in the vehicle at the time the PCN was issued, as suggested by the Operator, that the prima facie case has been proven. I am satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued.

It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that a ticket is purchased and that this ticket is correctly displayed in the vehicle. By allowing the vehicle to be parked without a valid ticket properly displayed, even if mitigating circumstances exist, the Appellant became liable to pay a charge. It is clear from the evidence provided that no ticket was properly available for inspection at the time that the PCN was issued.

I note the Appellant may have obtained a ticket however this point is largely irrelevant, as the issue here is that the ticket was not correctly displayed. I note the Appellant's comments however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

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

Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

"

----------------------------------------------------------

So if the operator is NOT alleging breach of contract or disputing payment, Whatdoes all this legalese guff mean ???

--skeet23

Oh yes ... and another nice letter from HX demanding £125 within 7 days !!!

I see you are reading around now eventually..

you'll get the idea that appealing was totally pointless soon..

That was as expected though.

Quick question - I note they say you have to purchase & display a ticket but they don't say which way up it has to be, as they are being pedantic about everything else then ...........?

@ploddertom ... the P&D ticket purchased form the attendant (not the machine) does not state anything regarding orientation …

it shows the name and address of car park, date (stamped), Car £4 Van £5, parking at own risk / have a good day and VAT number.

So is it reasonable that you pay for and recieve a coloured ticket at the entrance,

then have to park up and read two notices

- one on a wall and one on a ticket machine

- to gain a full understanding of some supposed contract that you are allegedly signing up to ?

As you say, they are being totally pedantic,

so would it be worth pursuing the argument that one of the "terms" is to park in a marked bay,

when there is not a single marked area on this car park ..

. therefore they are in breach of their own contract for not providing marked bays ?

Was the attendant stood by the entrance when you paid them? Would that be their usual position when issuing a receipt for parking?