I consider this car park to be an absolute disgrace. I bought a ticket to park and the ticket machine printed my ticket WITHOUT my car registration details. Parking Eye Ltd for Colne Road Car Park then sent me a parking fine for £100. I provided the ticket as proof of paying for parking and there is photo evidence I did not overstay my parking. I am disgusted with the service and highly advise against using these facilities. They are deliberately targeting people and please see their reasons below:
____________________________
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: XXXX
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant’s case is that when they paid for parking the payment machine was faulty and did not print out their vehicle registration. They that they paid the correct amount and did not overstay the time paid for. The appellant states that it is not their fault that the machine was faulty. They state that they do not have any evidence to support this except for the ticket which does not show the vehicle registration. The appellant has not provided any further comments in response to the operator’s case file. The appellant has provided images of their ticket as evidence to support their appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention, I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay. The operator has provided copies of its signage including a site map which states: “Parking tariffs apply”, ”How to pay”, ”At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park -Your full, correct vehicle registration will be required”, ”Failure to comply with the Terms & Conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Further the operator has provided photographs showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 11:01 and exiting at 11:58 on the day of the incident. The operator maintains a list of vehicles which have made payment on the day against individual vehicle registration details. In this evidence it has demonstrated that no payment had been made against the vehicle XXXX on the date in question. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states that when they paid for parking the payment machine was faulty and did not print out their vehicle registration. They that they paid the correct amount and did not overstay the time paid for. I note the appellant’s comments however, the site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no payment against the correct vehicle registration can be located a PCN is issued. While I appreciate that the appellant has demonstrated the intention to make a valid payment, the payment they made was invalid for the vehicle to park as it was not logged against their vehicle registration. I have reviewed the appellant’s evidence and I can see that the vehicle registration number was not printed on the ticket. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. After reviewing the signage I am satisfied that the signage complies with Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice. This states “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The appellant states that it is not their fault that the machine was faulty. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. The appellant chose to stay, therefore accepting the terms and the parking charge that the operator has subsequently sent to them. I would have expected the appellant to purchase another ticket to ensure that their payment had been recorded and to avoid receiving a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site and failed to pay for the duration of stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. I am satisfied that the parking charge notice has been issued correctly. Therefore this appeal must be refused.
16-04-19
Tags:
, awful, bad parking, bad value, exploitation, not good
