DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 30, 2024, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Point #1 is your strongest, and yet is only very briefly
outlined. I think you need to make this point much clearer. It's
not clear from reading that draft, for example, that payment
only needs to be made before leaving (rather than a car park
that requires payment in advance), or that the machine is
supposed to calculate the vehicle's stay automatically, with the
driver not being presented with any option to amend the tariff
being demanded in order to pay the 'correct' amount.
#Post#: 24475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 30, 2024, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How is this for a revision of point 1?
"1. On the date in question, when the driver used the payment
system provided, Euro Car Parks system failed to display the
correct time. As stated in EURO CAR PARKS NtK and SIGNAGE
EVIDENCE, payment (stated as 'pay on foot') only needs to be
made BEFORE leaving the car park (rather than a car park which
requires payment in advance). The operators car park is supposed
to calculate the vehicles's total stay automatically. As you can
clearly see from *evidence of reciept* the *START TIME OF
PARKING SESSION* is time stamped at 10:38pm which is a direct
contradiction of the vehicle time arrival of 17:55:41 Euro Car
Parks have provided through ANPR *add evidence here*. After
being presented a time of 10:38pm via the operators payment
machine, the driver was not presented with any option to amend
the tariff being demanded in order to pay the 'correct' amount.
The number provided by EURO CAR PARKS 'for any enquiry' as
quotes from the payment receipt and signage played an automated
message which at the time of writing this still offers no way to
speak to any employee nor file a concern.
Furthermore, upon further investigation it appears that both the
car park used by the driver 'Five Ways Car Park - Tennant
Street' and the adjacent car park also operated by EURO CAR
PARK, the suspiciously similar named '5 Ways Car Park' have been
subject to suspicious malfunctions in their operating system.
Several users have reported ticket machines displaying false
times for drivers upon attempting to pay with no option of being
able to amend this payment. There is a clear breach of interest
a negligence shown from this operator which I believe should
absolve the driver of all liability. Please refer to the
evidence provided below. Variously the PPC is in breach of an
implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the
required payment) and trying to hold the driver liable for their
failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure
of their machine."
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 24511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 30, 2024, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Try and simplify matters by focusing on the key matters and
leaving out the nonsense about planning etc. Sorry, but it's a
waste of time.
As can be seen from Exhibit 1, *** car park is a Pay on Exit car
park which operates in the following manner:
Car enters car park and VRM and time of entry are recorded
automatically.
On leaving, the driver is required to enter their VRM and the
system then calculates and demands payment which is displayed
on a screen;
On payment of the sum demanded the barriers rise and the
vehicle may exit.
There is no input required from the driver other than to enter
their VRM and no changes or variations to the sum demanded are
possible even if the driver wanted to do so.
While a tariff board is displayed, this is for information only
as regards the driver who is obliged to pay the sum calculated
by the check-out system and is not free to calculate their own
estimate of product of their parking period and the respective
tariff.
The circumstances of this case are that on exit the driver
entered their correct VRM(which is not disputed by the creditor)
and paid the sum demanded by the creditor's system, and
therefore the creditor(again, this point is not disputed by the
creditor).
Subsequently, the keeper received a PCN which alleged that the
driver did not pay the correct tariff for their period on site
because their system wrongly calculated what was due. The
specific times and tariffs are contained in the creditor's
evidence, but the issue is not one of details but of principle
and accountability.
In a nutshell, the creditor is trying to seek payment of a
parking charge in respect of their(their system's) failure. I
submit that as a matter of law, common-sense and fairness this
claim must be rejected.
Or something similar.
#Post#: 24703--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 2, 2024, 3:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Thank you, reading this through I definitely prefer the no
nonsense approach. Does this all serve as just for my main
point? Would you recommend I still include my other arguments or
would your suggestions suffice?
#Post#: 24709--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2024, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Harmonyguru link ---
>
> I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am
appealing against above charge. I propose that this has been
issued incorrectly and have evidence to prove this. I contend
that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following
grounds and would ask that they are all considered. EURO CAR
PARKS failed to display the correct time upon payment, within
their NtK there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the
charge, they have not provided evidence of landowner authority
and the signage fails to meet the required British Parking
Association standards.
>
> 2. There are also failures in their NtK that prevents them
from transferring the liability from the driver to the the
keeper due to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as
required by the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that
requirement is missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the
requirements of PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the
driver to the keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
As already discussed, you said admitted to being the driver in
your initial appeal. Therefore, there is no point in referencing
PoFA or keeper liability. The driver is always liable and you
have admitted to being the driver.
#Post#: 25011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: June 5, 2024, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank everyone here for their selfless input into my
appeal. My final idea is to include more on 'No Evidence of
Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of
full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice'
This links to the fact that the number given by the operator was
only an automated message with no option to speak to anyone for
assistance and no other support was offered.
Could anyone please give guidance on how I may bolster this
argument with a 'no nonsense' approach?
Thank you all once again
#Post#: 25044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 5, 2024, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to cover these points, then IMO consolidate them
with a short intro sentence such as..
In addition to those matters upon which the assessor must
satisfy themselves as regards the creditor's compliance with
their ATA's Code of Practice e.g. landowner authority etc,
before considering the substantive points of the creditor's
claim, I am appealing on the following points...
I don't like this 'put to strict proof..' because IMO it's
unnecessary, you do not need to raise matters upon which the
assessor must be satisfied in this way BEFORE progressing to
substantive matters as regards the creditor's claim. But it's a
personal thing!
By putting this in you make it clear that you are entitled to
examine the creditor's evidence in this regard(not that without
it you wouldn't).
#Post#: 25050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 5, 2024, 2:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> I don't like this 'put to strict proof..' because IMO it's
unnecessary, you do not need to raise matters upon which the
assessor must be satisfied in this way BEFORE progressing to
substantive matters as regards the creditor's claim. But it's a
personal thing!
>
--- End Quote ---
Except often, if you don't raise a matter explicitly, the
assessor won't consider it (whether they should is another
matter, but one that is rather immaterial if they don't). That
said, any of these 'kitchen sink' type points should be made
last, after any more substantive/meritorious matters specific to
the case in question.
#Post#: 25055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 5, 2024, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We'll have to disagree on this.
It's not 'kitchen sink', IMO it's fundamental to a creditor's
legal standing to bring a claim. It cannot be something which an
assessor can overlook, not if they're doing their job correctly.
Just as a traffic order, service of a PCN and NTO are essential
conditions of a council's claim - before one considers what they
contain and allege- so it should be, and I believe is, with IAS.
OP, you have different views: IMO, it's front and centre whereas
others differ.
Make sure it's in somewhere.
#Post#: 25057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 5, 2024, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> We'll have to disagree on this.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure we're disagreeing - I'd read your post as
suggesting that you don't bother raising issues like landowner
authority in detail at all, and instead replace them with the
single sentence you were proposing. If you're saying that you
should make all those points in detail, but preface them with
that sentence, then that's fine.
I would however stand by my point that in this case, the OP
should lead with the point around the machine being faulty.
(My use of the term 'kitchen sink' was deliberately flippant;
I'm in favour of including any points that might win, but
leading with the strongest/most meritorious, which in this case,
is the dodgy machine)
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page