Civil Enforcement Parking Charge notice issued to Disabled Friend.

[deadthings]

Hi,

 

I am writing this on behalf of a disabled friend, who has received a Parking Charge Notice through the post from Civil Enforcement, mid last week, around the 26th of Feb.

 

Some info:

 

Date of infringement: 15th Feb 2018

Issue Date 22nd Feb 2018

Date Received 26th or 27th Feb 2018

No photo evidence mentioned, but possibly auto cameras.

Cannot see any Section 4 mention on the letter. Just says Maximum Parking Allowance Exceeded.

Not appealed yet, we will, and I will detail in a moment what we are thinking to say.

Parking Company is Civil Enforcement

Spinning Gate, Leigh.

Says they have appeal procedure, and if unsuccessful, then Popla.

 

So most importantly, the car park in question is shared by Cineworld, Tesco, and several other food chains such as Frankie and Benny's. The entire car park has a 3 hour parking time limit.

 

We were parked at the side of the cinema, and during the 6 hours we stayed, we went into Tesco, and into their restaurant, and stayed well in excess of an hour as the disabled person was not feeling well (Primarily pain).

Once she recovered sufficiently well, we then shopped in Tesco for around 45 minutes to shop.

After that we attended a screening of the new Black Panther film. We went into the cinema early so that the disabled person could sit a while. This was around 45 minutes, including purchasing tickets, and getting sweets. We then watched the film, which has a running time of 2 hours and 14 minutes, but including trailers and advertising was closer to 3 hours, for the film alone.

 

As such the film alone would have taken much more than the three hours allowed, inclusive of obtaining tickets, food and seeing the entire film, so on the basis of this, we would have incurred a parking charge, simply for attending the film at the cinema and parking in their car park!

 

Given my friend is disabled, I thought to provide proof of her disability, with a copy of her blue badge, numbers redacted. The letter they have sent already has her name and address in full so they know who drove, and she is the sole driver.

I also intended to provide a photocopy of the cinema ticket to prove our attendance.

 

This and a covering appeal letter stating exactly what I have written here.

 

Should we appeal? I figured CE will just decline it anyway, and likely Popla too.

 

What happened if it is declined, and we don't pay? Surely if they took her to court they would lose, simply based on the fact we were parked to see a film in their car park, and in order to see that film we would have to be there longer than 3 hours, or miss the end of the film

 

Given the person being claimed against is disabled, obviously she is slow to move around, and needs a lot of help and support.

 

She is naturally very upset about all this absurdity.

 

Any advice on how to proceed would be most welcome.

 

Thank you.

[honeybee13]

Hello there, I'm sorry to hear that you've got this problem.

 

Please wait for the forum regulars and they'll tell you the right approach to take with this. Please tell your friend not to be upset, a lot of the rules they tell you off about are invented and not to be taken seriously.

 

More help will be along later.

 

HB

[Bazooka Boo]

Can you clarify what exactly it is you've received, is it a NTD or NTK?

[deadthings]

It is an NTK, sent in post, and arrived around 11 days after the date when we were parked there.

[dx100uk]

and there not 2 little photos of the car in/out on it

there must be as its an ANPR capture

 

can you scan it up to PDF please

read upload

[deadthings]

Hopefully this is correct. I have edited out all the information. It has her correct name and address, and full vehicle information.

 

This is the only letter she received, no photos or anything else.

 

Hopefully it is legible. Any problems let me know.

 

Thanks.

 

There are no barriers in the car park, anywhere. It is a free customer car park.

parkingticketce05032018.pdf

Edited March 5, 2018 by deadthings
Update info

[Bazooka Boo]

EB will pick this up or Dragonfly, IMHO though, that little missive is a joke, I could get my cat to type up a better threat letter on its etch-a-sketch...

 

These cowboys are well known, and have been using this particular area as a cash cow http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t103207.html

[silverfox1961]

Hi

As I see it, the letter is non complaint with PoFA 2012 in that it doesn't mention how they are able to get the keepers details from the DVLA.

 

CEL do take court action but not that often. Last year, they issued over 250,000 tickets and took court action in just 312. This does not mean they 'won' 312 cases!

 

I would find out who is the landowner and complain to them. I would also check with the local council to see if planning permission for the signs were allowed at the time of parking.

 

The site in question would have ANPR cameras in place so you should be able to see them if you visit the web site of CEL. In theory the BPA says not to ticket disabled vehicles but that was dropped in later guidance. CEL will ignore the fact that there is a disability and will reject any appeal but that opens the way to appeal to POPLA. They must take facts into account and issue a reason why to approve or reject the appeal.

 

Personally, I would follow the appeals process and if you get rejected, sit it out until court papers arrive (if ever) and use the court to discredit them.

[deadthings]

Thank you. I was thinking it was odd that they didn't provide any photographs, but upon leaving it was very dark and raining heavy, so they may not have it clearly. It also does seem odd that they got the details so quickly, but I guess they have to to comply.

I figured I would go through the appeal, in the manner I described, and also request photographic evidence that the car was parked in violation of their terms.

 

We will try to find out the landowner, and will complain to Cineworld head office and Tesco head office, about the 3 hour time limit, not to mention the several restaurants that use the car park. How we are supposed to be able to shop, use a restaurant and go to the cinema is beyond me.

 

Regardless of the outcome, we will complain to the council, as it is clearly being used to make money in an unfair manner.

 

We were parked the entire time in the small side car park at the side of the cinema, which is not part of the main car park.

 

I will do the appeal, and wait for their rejection, and then update on this once we know more.

 

Thank you for your help!

[letsmakeamark]

Another angle on this. Correct me if wrong. The ticket is to the driver of the vehicle ? Then in this case write back and ask them for a picture of the driver so that you can let them know who the driver is. More than likely they will not have it and will cancel the ticket. If they do not then appeal against it and appeal on the basis that you do not know who the driver is. Simple.

[silverfox1961]

We will need to see pictures of the signs on site as I have just looked and in 2015 there was a 5 hour time limit. If it has been reduced to 3 hours they would have needed to apply for a variation of any planning permission.

 

As far as I can tell, there are no signs at the entrance to the complex warning of parking restrictions so pictures from there too. I also noticed that there wasn't that many signs considering the size of the place.

[DragonFly1967]

Another angle on this. Correct me if wrong. The ticket is to the driver of the vehicle ? Then in this case write back and ask them for a picture of the driver so that you can let them know who the driver is. More than likely they will not have it and will cancel the ticket. If they do not then appeal against it and appeal on the basis that you do not know who the driver is. Simple.

 

Oh, if only it were that simple!

 

Do appeal the NtK, but do not (ever!) tell CE who the driver was and wait until the last possible day before sending an appeal. ie, if their (arbitrary) 28 days starts on the day you received the NtK, do not appeal (in writing, not email) until day 24 or 25, depending on weekends. (You have to allow 2 working days for delivery).

 

This buys you a little time to do your own research at the site.

 

Go back to the Cinema and to Tesco, take proof that you were there if you can (till or payment receipts, a bank statement showing that they've had your money will do if necessary) and ask to speak to the Manager in both places. Tear them a new one! Loyal customer, won't ever come here again etc if they don't have this ticket cancelled. You get the idea.

 

They might say that there's nothing that they can do. 1. They're lying. But 2. You can then go to both head offices and tell them how unhelpful their Manager has been.

 

-

 

While all that is going on, and as you're there. Take pictures of any signage in the car park (whether it's related to car parking or not) and any signage at the entrance to the site from the road. That may prove important later. Upload that here in PDF format so that we can tear it apart.

 

Get on to the council planning department to ask them specifically if the signage relating to car parking on the site has "advertising consent". Don't accept them telling you that it has 'deemed consent', make them check. Also ask them to check if, and if so what, time limits for parking were included in the original planning application for the car park and whether or not that has been varied by application/approval to/of planning. This may also prove to be an important move on your part.

 

If CE want to use the law to fight for their money, then it's only right that the little people should also use the law to fight right back!

 

We'll get on to other aspects later, I think that's enough to be getting on with for now.

[deadthings]

OK, that sounds great. I will take photos of the signs at the site, but no there aren't many there. I can only ever recall seeing one sign, and that is right outside the cinema, but I will double check. Going into the lot, there is Tesco petrol station, and slip road to side of that, and I'm pretty sure there are no signs on entry, but I will double check and photo if so.

 

I think I will write to Cineworld manager in Leigh, and to their head office, as well as Tesco local manager and head office, so I have a written record that I have complained.

 

I will chase up with Council also about whether they had planning permission for the signs, and if further permission for the variation. I wondered if either going through her local councillor, or disabled person's local MP to get them to check for us and at the same time complain to them about this worthless 3 hour time limit.

 

Other car parks have such a limit, but have machines where you can pay for more time. Surely if this car park has no such machines, then the only option is to either up and leave, perhaps halfway through a meal or film, or accept a £100 parking charge. Either option is patently absurd.

 

Thank you for your help and advice.

[ericsbrother]

there are a number of things wrong with their notice but they dont care.

 

However, they are shy of going to court these days because they are the only parking co that has been prosecuted twice for their crooked behaviour.

 

The land will belong to a lage developer like British land who treat their tenants such as the store you mention badly you wont get much joy appealing to them and sertainly not to CEL.

 

As for the details of why you were there, these are immaterial, the only thing that matters is the quality of the signage offering the contract and their positioning so give us details of them.

dont respond to the letter either

[DragonFly1967]

The less signs the better (from your point of view). Get some nice 'overall' shots of the car park as well that show the lack of signage.

 

Go to the Cinema and Tesco's personally. That way you can speak directly to the Manager(s). Take them a letter by all means, but at least by doorstepping them you'll know that you're dealing with the Managers themselves and not just the person that opens (and ignores) the post.

 

Only if the Managers on site refuse to do anything do you write to their respective Head Offices. Keep your powder dry on that one for now.

 

Keep the disabled argument out of it (except the local Managers) for now. There's a time & place for everything, but showing your hand too early means that CE may get to see what you're doing and 'make up' their excuses. We will come to that.

 

I wonder, in places like this, what would happen if, as I have done, you go for a meal before the cinema and they're showing something the length of 'Titanic' or 'LOTR: Return of the King' which were 3hrs 14 and 3hrs 21 respectively. How are they going to enforce it? That alone would lead me to believe that the cinema Manager would have the power to tell CE not to be so stupid.

[DragonFly1967]

My approach differs to EB. I like to start the sabre rattling early on.

 

This way you can show that you've taken all reasonable steps to get the matter sorted, and would ultimately show an outsider (the Court if they wanted to go that far) how unreasonable that they had been. But your approach is entirely up to you of course.

[deadthings]

OK, I will take photographs on Thursday, and upload them here. I can't be 100% certain, but I'm sure the car park we went into, the small one at the side has no signs, and besides has little lighting, and it was very dark and raining, so wouldn't be clear anyway. I'll double check, photograph the whole area, and upload them and take it from there.

 

Thanks.

[ericsbrother]

I have had a chance to look at the signs on Google streetview and they are troubling as far as CEL are concerned because they dont contain a contract or list of contractual terms so the driver can happily ignore them.

 

Free Parking Terms Apply isnt an offer of a contract.

It is an invitation to treat at best.

 

Also the position of the sigange is a bit suspect as it is not clear to me as to whether they are on a public highway (Derby St) or private land and whichever it is it isnt on Spinning Jenny Way, a road that has 4 car park entrances and none of those have anything to do with CEL.

 

Taking dragonfly's views into consideration and knowing that CEL do tend to run away from trouble a suitably worded letter may well suffice.

 

Seeing the signage inside th car park will be of enormous help as they determine the contract, whether the driver accepted or rejected them (or even saw them. Lighting around the signs will also be relevant as if you cant see something you havent agreed to it

Edited March 6, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[deadthings]

OK, can I first apologize, but the signs actually say 5 hour time limit.

The disabled person had never noticed a time limit or signs before, most people around there had no idea they were there.

 

I only ever saw a large sign outside the far front of the cinema and thought it said 3 hours, but that sign no longer exists. There are a lot of smaller signs all over, as my attached photos will show.

 

However the signs are tiny, 30cms wide and 60cms tall, they are attached to the large street lighting, and have no proper lighting above any of them. They are very hard to see, and at night, impossible. As I said it was dark, and raining when we went in.

 

The road going into the car park from outside has 2 small signs, shown in Doc3.pdf Doc6.pdf.

Doc7 and 8 are the small car par we parked in.

 

To the left is a small sign, and to the right is another, Doc12 and 13 showing clearest from where we parked, a small sign, which is at an odd angle and is single sided (They all are) but it is obscured by trees, and hardly lit at all at night.

 

From there you can see the cinema, the door is to the near front and we went straight in.

 

Hopefully from these you can get a picture of the signs and what not, and I have attached also one of the actual parking sign close up, very close, because from more than a few feet they are hard to see, and as I say single sided, so impossible to know what they are if you are not looking straight on.

 

I also saw this on the CAB website:

 

you take longer than others to buy your ticket or return to your car because you're older, disabled, pregnant or have a very young baby. You could argue you've been discriminated against under equality law.

 

I would expect that disabled people have a right to take longer and this could surely be argued in court if necessary, that no allowance has been made for a disabled person needing much more time, especially if attending all of the facilities onsite.

 

There is now a gym there too, so gym, tesco, cinema, restaurant, how could one use all of those facilities and expect a ticket? Seems impossible.

 

I'll post more photos in follow up post now.

 

Thank you.

 

Doc7 is as you drive into the small car park. They are angled and positioned so you cannot see them, and again at night are impossible to see.

 

It is worth saying the disabled person has very thick glasses, beyond which she has a large range if disabilities, and uses a wheelchair.

 

Doc11 shows the sign in the small car park, facing towards the cinema. There is no sign facing outwards for as you drive in. It is not lit at all.

 

Doc13 shows the other sign in the small car park, obscured by trees, and again reliant on the main street light to see, and again it is very difficult to see at night.

 

 

Anything else you need from me, please let me know. I will continue to complain to the outlets onsite, especially given the person is disabled and that it is affecting our ability to use their facilities.

 

Thanks.

 

15 pdfs merged to one multipage pdf else people will be here all night downloading single pixs

3 posts containing them merged - dx

pixs.pdf

[ericsbrother]

stop waffling, it doesnt make you case any stronger (or weaker) but it does lead you up a blind alley so concentrate on what was offered and what the NTK CEL sent out.

 

as they dont abide by the law they are stuck when it comes to making a claim unless you respiond to their NTK which is why we say NEVER do this until you have taken advice.

 

So, you have now identified the driver at the time and admitted the breach so that leaves you very little wriggle room on the face of it which is why we need to see the signage and know exactly where it is relative to where you were parked and also about the illumination of their signs so they can be read at 11 oclock at night.

 

Now, we have other ammunition but the courts look upon this less favourably on its own so get on with your homework

Edited March 9, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[deadthings]

I'm a bit confused by this response. Waffling? You asked for photos, and I went and got them, and added them as a post above yours. Then you say stop waffling, and then go on about having identified the driver. Where did I do that?

 

Sorry but this reply makes no sense.

 

I did post each image individually, and noted what each meant, in relation to where we parked and how well lit it was etc. Have you not even seen the post above yours? I mean look at this:

 

"However the signs are tiny, 30cms wide and 60cms tall, they are attached to the large street lighting, and have no proper lighting above any of them. They are very hard to see, and at night, impossible. As I said it was dark, and raining when we went in."

 

Which is a quote from the post above yours, in which I said lighting was poor etc.

 

So what are you on about?

[ericsbrother]

waffle= all of the irreleant detail about why the vehicle was parked where it was. Likewise your treatise on what CAB says, they give very poor advice on parking matters

 

You are not being chased because of parking, you are being chased because of breaching a contract and it is irrelevant why you broke it, that is mitigation at best and worthless as far as defending any action that may resuly from this.

 

Now, the signage is the contract so that is wht we want to see. The size of then is again irrelevant as they will say they are within the BPA CoP (which is nonsense anyway as planning regs are supreme here), the position etc is. We can neither see them in relation to the layoput of the car park nor see their content so as yet we have nothing to work with.

 

Having a million signs that are in the wrong place is less uselful in offering a contract than 1 sign in the right place so we need to see images of the entrance to the land from the public highway . I have already comm`ented on what can be seen on google so we need the belt and braces on this.

Edited March 12, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[ericsbrother]

letsmakea mark- too late, the driver has been identified.

[deadthings]

OK. well I have attached photos. I'll add an explanation for each page to the pdf, which explains what each photo represents, and you can decide if you can figure out what is meant.

 

This isn't my ticket, I am simply supporting and caring for a disabled person, one of several I support.

I live in Warrington, she lives in the area the ticket was given, but the Council for that area is actually Wigan, so it is complicated, and I struggle with time to deal with this. Making comments such as stop waffling and giving attitude isn't the least bit helpful. I Showed her your response, and she got very upset.

 

You talk of signage, and I am aware of the contract supposedly being entered into, but that doesn't preclude the rights of the disabled, and considerations of discrimination. The woman in question uses a wheelchair, so when I say the position of the signs matters, to her it does, because when they are 7 feet high up, on a post that has poor lighting, and is obstructed by a kerb, and all of them are like that, then it lacks consideration for her disability, and that of others, and is clearly discriminatory.

 

If she cannot approach the kerb and get sufficiently close to the sign to be able to read it, then again she is being discriminated against, because there should be signs lower down and easier access for disabled people in wheelchairs to see properly.

 

Can you see what I am getting at?

 

Beyond that, as a matter of contract, isn't there a thing such as unfair contracts? If Cineworld are offer an unlimited card, and encouraging us to sign up to see as many films as we like, knowing full well the car parks outside their cinemas are time limited, isn't this a conflict of interest? Isn't this an unfair contract?

 

Somebody has to be liable in this respect, surely?

 

I will past here, my explanation of the photos I took, hopefully you can see what they refer to from this, from the pdf attached in a previous post.

 

If it comes to court, I would be happy to attend court and argue against what I see as blatant discrimination, given the lack of suitable signage for people who due to disability cannot read them in the position they are set at.

 

Also, can you given an indication of what the worst costs could be if we lost in court? Is it the £100 charge, plus £80 court costs, or would they likely be higher?

 

--

 

Page 1

 

road into car park from very outside, there are no others signs facing outside of the car park

 

page 2

 

is the car park she was parked in, at the back of there. There are no signs there, except to the left of the edge of the car park which is shown in another photo I'll list here.

 

page 3

 

this is the sign itself. They are all like this.

 

page 4

 

this is to the left on the slip road as you go in, there are no other roads in or out.

 

page 5

 

this is the actual slip road into the main car park. Straight ahead at the bottom of there, is the small car park where she parked. There is the sign listed on page 4.

 

page 6

 

A parking sign, shown on page 3.

 

page 7

 

Cineworld, view from the small side car park where she parked. Hidden within the trolley shelter, on that tall light, is a sign, also obstructed by trees.

 

page 8

 

Another view, front on to the small car park she parked in.

 

page 10

 

The sign attached to the lamp is the to the actual left side of the small car park she was parked in. Facing towards the car park.

 

--

 

Hopefully you will find something from this which is useful. I would love to know how they got all her details so fast.

[silverfox1961]

After reading this thread again, it seems to me that it would be reasonable for parking operators to allow up to 25% extra time for disabled people.

 

You seem to be thinking along the same lines as me in that no signs are low enough to be read clearly by a wheelchair user and usually placed where it would be difficult to see them [ attached to posts in front of a parking bay]

 

Where private land has been modified to include disabled people(dedicated parking bays, lowered kerbs) then the landowner has a duty to ensure no discrimination takes place. CEL only see £ signs and will ignore any appeals. POPLA haven't covered themselves in glory either as they tend not to think on these levels. Only a court would make a decision on this and as CEL do take action in a few cases, their failings would be shown to a judge which is why I don't feel they would be silly enough to try.

 

I still think an appeal is the best way to go (unless she is out of time) and go all the way to POPLA. Even if she lost, CEL would have to take court action to get their pound of flesh but based on what I have read, it's unlikely.