Parking Charges - Not Appealed

[jeffers999]

Hi, apologies if this is covered elsewhere, I have searched unsuccessfully for something similar on this site.

 

We are a small business with a couple of vans that received parking charges in May this year, at the time the only advice on the internet seemed to be to ignore them, which we did. If we'd found this site maybe we'd have acted differently, anyway no appeal was made within their 28 day limits.

 

One was with Excel Parking for a site in Manchester , they have now got DRP chasing us for £160 from the £60 original charge. Our driver got to the machine and was approached by someone who did not put enough on their ticket, so he took theirs and passed over £2.40. Clearly he felt he was doing someone a favour and no one was out of pocket as a result. His vehicle registration was not entered in the machine, resulting in a CCTV image and penalty being sent.

 

A second occasion occured not long later when at a University car park, the driver paid for a ticket and stopped in a restricted area next to the uni building to offload a scaffold tower. He found a ticket shortly afterwards when returning to the van for his troubles from CPP in Chorley.

 

We have since written to both companies who insist on these ever increasing charges stating we have no right to appeal and quote the Parking Eye v Beavis case.

 

We recognise that a ticket may not be transferable and a restricted parking spot is not ideal, but no company suffered financially as a result. Just this justify these charges? We believe not.

 

Would be interested to hear how we should best deal with these now if it is possible.

 

Many thanks.

[honeybee13]

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

The forum guys should be along later with advice for you. Ignoring isn't usually the end of the world, although if you have the problem again, I hope you won't do that next time. DR+ aren't much of a problem, the guys will tell you.

 

My best, HB

[ericsbrother]

Several thiongs to say about these charges and the way they handle appeals and they can be summed up as follows: bunch of liars.

let us now look at the detail. DR+ are unlicenced debt collectors and have no rights or say in any matters whatsoever. They cant decide to charge you £160 but they do this because people become scared of the title DEBT COLLECTOR and assume that there must be a debt so they must pay. As for teh event that caused the debt, well you paid the prescribed fee and despite not entering the rge properly the contract was properly formed so there is no breach of contract to cause the supposed debt.

The second one is about health and safety and the needs of the employer (university) to ensure that their responsibilities towards you as an employee or visitor are properly considered. If this means you park in a restricted area then you do and it has nothing to do with the parking co. Note that they just want the money rather than actually do anything that helps resolve a parking management matter so you can see that it is all smoke and mirrors when they say they offer parking management services.

As for their insistance on quoting PE V beavis, they know that this is still under deliberation so they shouldnt be using the argument unless they mention that it is subject to an appeal. This will get them into trouble if they fancy a day out at court so again, it is designed to coerce you into paying rather than actually being the final word on the matter. It may not be relevant anyway, that case just sets a level of a penalty clause in a contract and doesnt deal with the lack of contractual obligation.

Both companies should have sent you information on how to appeal to the "independent" adjudicator so give us the dates of the letters rejecting your appeals and we can see if there is still time to appeal. If there isnt that doesnt mean you ahve to pay up as there are lots of reasons for the contract offered not being formed so tell us everything you can and we will try and help.

[jeffers999]

We are aware of DR+ and their role in this as a debt collector on behalf of Excel. Would it be best to scan the letters and send as a PM?

[ericsbrother]

we have seen their letters before so just tell us the dates of the event and when you got the rejection letter from the parking co's Those rejection letters will tell us more than the DR+ drivel.

[ericsbrother]

Excel are members of the IAS so an appeal to the adjudicator would have been a waste of time other than to have a laugh at their determination. However, if they do say you have no right to appeal then I would be very interested in seeing that letter and know when it was sent in relation to any other correspondence as it is untrue unless you were timed out.

[jeffers999]

1st event occured 7th May, charge notice received 15th May. DRP started writing 25th August. They were told by us 09/09/15 we had no dealings with them and not to contact us again, which they did sending another camera image demanding money on 24th Sept.

 

2nd event 15th May, ticket issued same day. After initially taking no action again, we advised CPP that we had a valid ticket on the 9th Sept and were acting on behalf of their client. We received notice from them on 14th Sept that we no longer had a right to appeal quoting the infamous case.

 

 

Interested whether there is any legal right by them to impose a 28 day time limit on any appeal or whether this is just the parking industry timescale.

[armadillo71]

1st event occured 7th May, charge notice received 15th May. DRP started writing 25th August. They were told by us 09/09/15 we had no dealings with them and not to contact us again, which they did sending another camera image demanding money on 24th Sept.

 

 

Are they claiming that your company is liable or the charge?

 

2nd event 15th May, ticket issued same day. After initially taking no action again, we advised CPP that we had a valid ticket on the 9th Sept and were acting on behalf of their client. We received notice from them on 14th Sept that we no longer had a right to appeal quoting the infamous case.

 

 

Was the NTK received between 29-56 days of the parking event? And the same question as above.

 

 

Interested whether there is any legal right by them to impose a 28 day time limit on any appeal or whether this is just the parking industry timescale.

 

 

 

 

The Prankster has blogged about the IPC and their ADR , the IAS.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/independent-parking-committee-fail-to.html

[ericsbrother]

the PoFA give the keeper 28 days to appeal or idnetify the driver, this is on top of the time given in the notice to driver. The IPC have their own interpretation of this but they dont recognise that the driver and keeper are 2 separate persons so always make the assumption that thekeeper was driving and thus the time allowed is just one period of 28 days.

This has not been decided by Beavis, it has not even been put forward for consideration so usual twaddle from the IAS, giving their version of events as being the law when it clearly isnt.

[jeffers999]

Thank you all for your interest in this.

 

Both organisations requested the name of the driver which wasn't provided as we ignored all initial correspondence. Then as registered keepers we were told we were liable which we'd expect anyway.

 

First instance was for not displaying a valid ticket (although we had one for the correct day and duration of stay), the second for parking in a restricted area (valid ticket but offloading).

 

I have no idea whether the time limits they impose for appeals have any legal standing, or where we stand with any of this. We are a small business with a million things to do everyday without this additional burden. Best course of action ???

 

Thanks!

[ericsbrother]

For the first demand, you had a ticket and that is that. they can say what they want but it doesnt change the fact that their claim is for not having a ticket and you did. Your driver may have breached some other made up regulattion but their claim is very specific so that is easily put to bed.

The second one requires sight of the signage to see if there is such a contractual term to be breached that could cause them to take action. Again, I bet that the wordingof the sign if not that specific and if you had permission of the occupier or landowner that overrides their little money spinner anyway. Do not worry about what they have said about not having the right to appeal, if they do fancy their chances they have to send you a LBA and you can respond that they breached the protocols of the PoFA by refusing to consider an appeal form the keeper that was within the permitted time and failed to forward details of how to appeal to the independent adjudicator so there is no longer any keeper liability as the matter is now timed out. If they dont take any notice of that then they are very foolish indeed.