Vinci PCN - Cardiff

[Mjhlraggett]

Hi,

I'm hoping for some sound advice please regarding a parking notice (PCN) issued on my vehicle at Adam Street car park, Cardiff.

 

On 17th Jan, the required amount was paid and the ticket left on the dashboard as usual.

On return, there was a PCN notice stuck to the car with breach code 01 "parked without displaying valid payment",

asking for £100, reduced to £50 for early payment within 14 days.

Unfortunately the ticket was face down on the dashboard.

 

I appealed the notice with Vinci,

who rejected as expected,

and they provided me with photo evidence of the reverse side of the ticket.

 

The basis of my appeal is that the tickets are flimsy and feather-like, non-sticky, risking that the ticket has overturned (possibly even by wind in closing the door).

 

I have the ticket, and on receipt of their response,

I re-appealed to them, advising that my ticket number

(which I believe to be a unique code on the front and reverse of the ticket) agrees to the number on their photograph.

 

they are having nothing of it and have issued me with a standard response,

not disputing that I have paid,

but saying there is a failure to display,

thereby breaking the terms and conditions.

 

They have provided a POPLA form and I have a few weeks to get the POPLA appeal sent in.

 

Shall I pay the £50, ignore the letter or take this to Popla?

 

Many thanks.

[armadillo71]

Hi, I'm hoping for some sound advice please regarding a parking notice (PCN) issued on my vehicle at Adam Street car park, Cardiff. On 17th Jan, the required amount was paid and the ticket left on the dashboard as usual. On return, there was a PCN notice stuck to the car with breach code 01 "parked without displaying valid payment", asking for £100, reduced to £50 for early payment within 14 days. Unfortunately the ticket was face down on the dashboard.

 

I appealed the notice with Vinci, who rejected as expected, and they provided me with photo evidence of the reverse side of the ticket. The basis of my appeal is that the tickets are flimsy and feather-like, non-sticky, risking that the ticket has overturned (possibly even by wind in closing the door). I have the ticket, and on receipt of their response, I re-appealed to them, advising that my ticket number (which I believe to be a unique code on the front and reverse of the ticket) agrees to the number on their photograph. Anyway, they are having nothing of it and have issued me with a standard response, not disputing that I have paid, but saying there is a failure to display, thereby breaking the terms and conditions.

 

They have provided a POPLA form and I have a few weeks to get the POPLA appeal sent in. Shall I pay the £50, ignore the letter or take this to Popla?

 

Many thanks.

 

Why did you expect them to reject?

You paid for a ticket.

[f16]

Don't pay it !!!!! Was the car park attendant Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles, either way an idiot because he would have been able to se the serial no. on the ticket and know that it was issued on that day. Appeal to POPLA . You have paid.

[ericsbrother]

They are wrong, their claim must be for a breach of contract,

of which the conditions form the majority of that contract.

You paid and displayed the proof of payment and as you say there is a unique number that identifies when that receipt for payment was issued.

 

This means that you have paid the prescribed fee to park and fulfilled the important parts of the contract

and you did actually display a valid permit, just not in the way that makes it easy for them to read

but nonetheless the receipt was displayed.

 

there is case law on this so Vinci would be foolish to continue to press on with this matter.

 

however, if you want to take it to POPLA then use the ref code they are obliged to have issued to you when they rejected your appeal

and state quite simply that you paid the prescribed fee and that the receipt for payment was displaid with the receipt number clearly visible.

 

If the car par is local to you have a look at the conditions and see if there is one stating that it is a breach of the conditions to display the receipt upside down.

It should be the first one on the list of terms otherwise it cannot be breach of 01.

 

they have invented their codes to give themselves a cloak of pseudo-officialdom by masquerading their parking notices as having some legitimacy.

They might not like what you have done but they wont win a battle over it.

 

look up the case law by googling PATAS decisions reached on appeal to the high court

and you will find at least one on tickets that were placed upside down.

 

As this is appeal procedure is an ACOP then POPLA will have to consider the precedent or run the risk of being sued themselves.

[Mjhlraggett]

Good advice, thanks for the replies. I will check the car park terms re: breach code 01. The number on the front and back of my ticket is presumably a sequential number spewed out by the ticket machine, and hence as I have the ticket and it matches to their photo, this proves I paid. I challenged on this basis but Vinci rejected with the following:

 

Thank you for your letter regarding the above mentioned Parking Notice which was issued to your vehicle on the 17th January 2014 whilst parked at the Adam Street Car Park.

 

The Adam Street car park is managed by Vinci Park Services Ltd on behalf of our client Land securities we manage the site as per the terms and conditions set out by the client.

 

On the date and time on question the enforcement officer had cause to issue a Parking Charge Notice as he believed that your vehicle was parked in breach of contract code 01 - parking without displaying a valid payment.

 

The main stipulations for parking at the Adam street site is to park you vehicle correctly within a marked parking bay, purchase a valid payment ticket and display said payment ticket on the dashboard / windscreen area of your vehicle.

 

As with any pay and display car park, the terms “PAY & DISPLAY” are both equally important and both have to be honoured in order for parking to be authorised.

 

Purchasing a valid ticket doesn’t automatically cover your parking; it also has to be displayed clearly in order to be deemed as valid.

 

It is the vehicles owner / drivers responsibility to ensure that a payment is clearly on display in the dashboard/ windscreen area prior to leaving the vehicle, so that it can easily be observed by our enforcement officers.

 

Having reviewed the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the above Parking Charge Notice, I am in agreement that the parking notice should remain and am in full support of the original decision to uphold this parking notice.

 

I have attached the photographic evidence in support of my decision to uphold the parking charge notice.

 

Payment at the reduced rate of £50:00 for the parking notice, will be accepted if received within 14 days of the date of this letter.

 

Should you remain dissatisfied with this decision, you may refer this matter to the Parking on Private Land Appeal Service (POPLA) details of which can are available upon the enclosed appeal form.

 

Please note that should your appeal to POPLA be unsuccessful, Vinci Park reserves the right to pursue the full amount outstanding as stated on the PCN, and will look to recover any associated costs in relation to the PCN in accordance with our terms and conditions of parking.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Mjhlraggett

[Nimrod205]

Strongly suggest that you edit your post to remove the ticket number.

[ericsbrother]

They say "deemed as valid" Deemed by whom? and how valid is valid or not if it is the receipt issued? the ticket is a receipt of payment ane is itself proof and their claim about deeming it to be valid is a load of cow droppings. Go and buy something at Argos and you get a little collection slip. Can you imagine the uproar if they suddenly decided that showing the slip wasnt proof of purchase but had to show the person behind the counter a photocopy of the banknotes you have just paid with. Where I live the stores have been burnt down for less than that.

by the wya, if you want a good laugh look up Vinci Parking Services accounts and cashflow since nov 2012. When yo have do it to any other parking co except PE and you will soon know why they are so keen to get you pay

[Mjhlraggett]

They say "deemed as valid" Deemed by whom? and how valid is valid or not if it is the receipt issued? the ticket is a receipt of payment ane is itself proof and their claim about deeming it to be valid is a load of cow droppings. Go and buy something at Argos and you get a little collection slip. Can you imagine the uproar if they suddenly decided that showing the slip wasnt proof of purchase but had to show the person behind the counter a photocopy of the banknotes you have just paid with. Where I live the stores have been burnt down for less than that.

by the wya, if you want a good laugh look up Vinci Parking Services accounts and cashflow since nov 2012. When yo have do it to any other parking co except PE and you will soon know why they are so keen to get you pay

 

Cheers, a good spot and will refer to it in my POPLA appeal.

[armadillo71]

VINCI , Adam Street Car Park.

 

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

 

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has

determined that the appeal be allowed.

 

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

 

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.*

At 13:34, on December 31 2013, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s

vehicle parked at the Adam Street car park.

 

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking

conditions by parking without displaying a valid payment.

 

The Appellant made representations stating his case. He raised a number of

points and one of them was that the entirety of the charge has to be a

genuine pre-estimate of loss.*

 

The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a

genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some

explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has

produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate

of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification.

 

The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the

potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s

failure to park without making a valid payment. The Operator has produced

a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and

not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.

 

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient

evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate

of loss.

 

I need not decide any other issues.

 

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

 

 

OP- All you need is genuine pre estimate of loss.....

This was a recent POPLA win on MSE.

[ericsbrother]

Well done with that.

I an interested in the line "I need not decide on any other issues"

I read this as POPLA want to avoid making deliberations on anything when GPEOL is put before them as it could cause confusion as to whether a "loss" can be tied into the other evidence, in this case the display or otherwise of a ticket.