DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45571--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: b789
Date: November 14, 2024, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have a less than 5% chance of winning an IAS appeal. It's up
to you if you want to try. Your points should be on
signage/markings.
The markings on the ground are worn and not very clear and the
fact that you reversed into the bay means that it was difficult
to notice you were not in a visitor bay. You paid for the
parking session and there was no material loss to the operator.
Here are some points you could use. Remember that mitigation is
not considered. Only points of law and the Code of Practice
(CoP).
1. Ambiguity in Visitor Parking Terms
The sign indicates, “Parking bays labelled with a ‘V’ or
‘Visitor’ are solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an
address of a Tait Court resident.” This language implies that
these specific bays are exclusively for visitors, but it does
not clearly prohibit visitors from using other unmarked or
general bays.
Under the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) section 3.1.3(i),
signage must be unambiguous and leave no room for alternative
interpretations. This ambiguity creates uncertainty, as a
visitor might reasonably believe they can park in any unlabelled
bay, especially since the sign does not explicitly state that
visitors are restricted only to the “V” bays.
2. Lack of Clear Restriction for Non-Visitor Bays
The sign states, “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked
in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking
exists.” However, it does not clarify that every bay outside of
visitor-designated bays requires an e-permit, nor does it
explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.
This creates further ambiguity, as there is no clear indication
that visitors are not permitted to park in other bays. Under the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, unclear or ambiguous terms must be
interpreted in favour of the consumer (in this case, the
visitor), meaning that visitors should not be penalised based on
unclear terms.
3. Insufficient Clarity on Permit Requirements
While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit, it
does not specify that this applies strictly to all non-visitor
bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions must be
clearly visible and understandable to drivers.
Given this lack of clarity, a visitor might reasonably conclude
that paying for a session (as instructed by the sign) suffices
for compliance. The signage does not make it clear that even
with paid parking, an e-permit is mandatory in certain areas,
which fails the transparency test.
The SCoP requires operators to display signage that adequately
informs the driver of all terms and conditions. The lack of a
clear, unequivocal statement about visitor restrictions in
non-visitor bays or a mandatory e-permit in non-visitor bays
means the signage does not meet the necessary standard of
clarity.
4. Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Single Code of Practice
Compliance
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be
fair and transparent. The ambiguous e-permit requirement fails
this standard, as it does not clearly indicate whether visitors
are required to obtain an e-permit in addition to paying for
parking.
In the absence of a clear statement, the terms should be
interpreted in the consumer’s favour. Therefore, the visitor’s
reasonable interpretation that payment alone was sufficient
should be upheld, making the parking charge notice
unenforceable.
In your appeal, conclude that:
[indent]• The signage is ambiguous and does not clearly state
that visitors are restricted only to “V” bays.
• The requirement for an e-permit in non-visitor bays is not
made clear to a reasonable visitor, creating confusion about
where visitors are allowed to park.
• Given these ambiguities, the terms of the purported contract
are not enforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the
signage does not meet the IPC Code of Practice's requirements
for clarity and transparency.
• If the e-permit requirement is a recent addition, SCoP Section
3.4 requires additional notice of this material change. Request
that the IAS require the operator to evidence when the terms
were last updated to include the e-permit system.
• Request that the IAS cancels the PCN on the grounds that the
signage fails to clearly inform visitors of the parking
restrictions and creates an unenforceable ambiguity.[/indent]
#Post#: 45695--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 15, 2024, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You have a less than 5% chance of winning an IAS appeal. It's
up to you if you want to try. Your points should be on
signage/markings.
>
> The markings on the ground are worn and not very clear and the
fact that you reversed into the bay means that it was difficult
to notice you were not in a visitor bay. You paid for the
parking session and there was no material loss to the operator.
>
> Here are some points you could use. Remember that mitigation
is not considered. Only points of law and the Code of Practice
(CoP).
>
> 1. Ambiguity in Visitor Parking Terms
> The sign indicates, “Parking bays labelled with a ‘V’ or
‘Visitor’ are solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an
address of a Tait Court resident.” This language implies that
these specific bays are exclusively for visitors, but it does
not clearly prohibit visitors from using other unmarked or
general bays.
>
> Under the Single Code of Practice (SCoP) section 3.1.3(i),
signage must be unambiguous and leave no room for alternative
interpretations. This ambiguity creates uncertainty, as a
visitor might reasonably believe they can park in any unlabelled
bay, especially since the sign does not explicitly state that
visitors are restricted only to the “V” bays.
>
> 2. Lack of Clear Restriction for Non-Visitor Bays
> The sign states, “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked
in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking
exists.” However, it does not clarify that every bay outside of
visitor-designated bays requires an e-permit, nor does it
explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.
>
> This creates further ambiguity, as there is no clear
indication that visitors are not permitted to park in other
bays. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unclear or ambiguous
terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer (in this
case, the visitor), meaning that visitors should not be
penalised based on unclear terms.
>
> 3. Insufficient Clarity on Permit Requirements
> While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit, it
does not specify that this applies strictly to all non-visitor
bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions must be
clearly visible and understandable to drivers.
>
> Given this lack of clarity, a visitor might reasonably
conclude that paying for a session (as instructed by the sign)
suffices for compliance. The signage does not make it clear that
even with paid parking, an e-permit is mandatory in certain
areas, which fails the transparency test.
>
> The SCoP requires operators to display signage that adequately
informs the driver of all terms and conditions. The lack of a
clear, unequivocal statement about visitor restrictions in
non-visitor bays or a mandatory e-permit in non-visitor bays
means the signage does not meet the necessary standard of
clarity.
>
> 4. Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Single Code of Practice
Compliance
> Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be
fair and transparent. The ambiguous e-permit requirement fails
this standard, as it does not clearly indicate whether visitors
are required to obtain an e-permit in addition to paying for
parking.
>
> In the absence of a clear statement, the terms should be
interpreted in the consumer’s favour. Therefore, the visitor’s
reasonable interpretation that payment alone was sufficient
should be upheld, making the parking charge notice
unenforceable.
>
> In your appeal, conclude that:
>
> [indent]• The signage is ambiguous and does not clearly state
that visitors are restricted only to “V” bays.
>
> • The requirement for an e-permit in non-visitor bays is not
made clear to a reasonable visitor, creating confusion about
where visitors are allowed to park.
>
> • Given these ambiguities, the terms of the purported contract
are not enforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the
signage does not meet the IPC Code of Practice's requirements
for clarity and transparency.
>
> • If the e-permit requirement is a recent addition, SCoP
Section 3.4 requires additional notice of this material change.
Request that the IAS require the operator to evidence when the
terms were last updated to include the e-permit system.
>
> • Request that the IAS cancels the PCN on the grounds that the
signage fails to clearly inform visitors of the parking
restrictions and creates an unenforceable ambiguity.[/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
Very helpful. Thank you
#Post#: 46829--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 24, 2024, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appealed via the IAS and received the operators response. I
now have a few days to go back. Is that now necessary and, if
so, to say what?
I have already stated my claim (copied below)..
You completed the appeal on 15/11/2024 10:44:37.
The signage and parking markings are ambiguous. One of the
residents informed me many people park there and pay as I did. I
reversed in an on the day there was a big puddle covering the
visitor sign on the floor which is quite worn. I have taken a
picture and included on a drier day for you to see how the
puddle forms. I reversed into the bay which makes it even harder
to notice if its a visitor bay or not. The way the signage is
makes it look like all of the bays are pay and display.
The fact I actually paid means there is no material loss to the
operator.
The sign states "Parking bays labelled "v" or "visitor" are
solely for the use of visitors whilst visiting an address of a
Tait Court resident" - This language implies that these specific
bars are exclusively for visitors but it does not clearly
prohibit visitors from using the unmarked or general bays.
The sign states "Vehicles must have an e-permit and be parked in
a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated parking
exists" - However it does not clarify that every bay outside of
visitor-designated bays require an e-permit, nor does it
explicitly prohibit visitor parking in these bays.
While the signage mentions the requirement of an e-permit it
does not specify that this applies strictly to all non visitor
bays. The SCoP mandates that terms and restrictions should be
clear and visible and understandable to all drivers.
Given this lack of clarity a visitor may reasonably conclude
that paying for a session as instructed by a sign suffices for
compliance. An e-permit being mandatory in certain areas is not
clear by the signage which fails the transparency test.
Under the consumer rights of act of 2015, contractual terms must
be fair and transparent.
In absence of this clear statement should be interpreted in the
consumers favour. Therefore by dint of payment alone should be
sufficient making the parking notice unenforceable.
I request the IAS cancels the PCN on the grounds the signage
fails to clearly inform visitors of the parking restrictions and
creates unenforceable ambiguity.
Response was as follows.....
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 20/11/2024 10:39:03.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 23/10/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 17/10/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where
Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are
communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located
throughout the site. All signage, as well as the overall site,
has been independently audited and approved by our Accredited
Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community
(IPC). The signage states “Vehicles must have an e-permit and be
parked in a bay corresponding to the permit where allocated
parking exists”, going on to state that “Breach of any
contractual terms and conditions will result in the driver being
liable for a Parking Charge of £100”. And “By entering or
remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the
contractual terms”.
Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, the signage makes
clear that all vehicles within this bay must be registered to a
valid e-permit. The appellant has stated and provided evidence
of the visitor parking payment, however, as per the Pay4Bay
sign, it clearly states ‘this bay' which indicates that this is
only for the bay that the sign is within, not the bay the
vehicle was parked within. Therefore, the appellant didn't have
a valid permit for the bay they were parked in, in accordance
with the signage on site. While we note the appellant's
comments, it remains the responsibility of the driver to ensure
that they are parked in accordance with the advertised Terms and
Conditions. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all
motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the
contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this
opportunity however, by entering or remaining on this private
land without reading the Terms and Conditions, then they are
deemed to have accepted them immediately.
The vehicle was observed from 09:45:08, with the Parking Charge
being issued at 11:11:00. This constitutes a parking period of 1
hour, 25 minutes and 52 seconds; during which time the vehicle
was observed remaining on-site whilst not registered to a valid
e-permit. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample
opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided,
the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should
the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they
were required to immediately remove the vehicle from site.
As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of
the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had
accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge has
been issued correctly.
#Post#: 46853--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 24, 2024, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, your appeal to the IAS has two separate limbs:
1.Against your liability as 'keeper', and
2.Against the driver's liability for the charge.
As regards 1.
I appealed at **** on Nov. 6th.
I received what is claimed to be a considered response at 8.30am
the following day after less than 10 hours had elapsed.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA
2012.
However, in my appeal I repeatedly identified myself as the
driver. Their pursuit of the keeper might possibly follow from
the in-depth consideration which they gave to my appeal in the
first instance and which they appear to have ignored
subsequently
It must therefore follow that any claim against the keeper must
fail because the operator is barred from pursuing them as per
para. 5(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because they
know the name of and serviceable address for the driver.
You could then go on to 2.
If 2 succeeds, then no-one owes anything. If not, then at least
you'd have their reasoning to help you, as driver, consider
whether to carry on should they pursue you.
If 1 only succeeds then they should be required to pursue you as
the driver and start a process afresh. But as against the keeper
IMO they have no claim in law.
As referred to in another thread, this business of operators
treating driver and keeper as interchangeable must be
highlighted. If the law recognised this approach then you might
as well kick PoFA into the long grass.
I wonder what the assessor would make of this?
#Post#: 47047--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 26, 2024, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you HC Anderson. Excuse my ignorance, so you think I
should go back to them now citing that first paragraph?
#Post#: 47276--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 27, 2024, 9:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am just going to copy out your first paragraph. I dont
understand what was meant by number 2 option sorry.
The deadline for it is tonight so will get it done now.
Anyone else find it annoying that you cannot cut and paste on
the IAS website?
Bet they do that on purpose!
#Post#: 47277--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 27, 2024, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore. I read again and I understand. Thanks for the help. I
will try that
#Post#: 47386--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: Nick325i
Date: November 28, 2024, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just got a very quick response. Do I now just leave it to go to
court?
The operator made their response on 28/11/2024 08:32:20.
The appellant has stated about the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 regarding knowing the driver of the vehicle, however, they
did identify themselves as the driver and the keeper, and
therefore we are still pursuing the same person. Please find
attached the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant, and the
appeal from the appellant which clearly shows that the driver
and the keeper are the same person, and therefore we are still
compliant within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
#Post#: 47387--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking - Vehicle not registered on permit database
DIR By: b789
Date: November 28, 2024, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You’ve already been advised that an appeal to the IAS has a very
tiny chance of success. I don’t think I advised any mention of
PoFA in the suggested appeal points. So, where has this response
from the operator about PoFA come from?
As the odds of success at IAS are so low, a rejection means
nothing going forwards. In effect, you are waiting to see if
they decide to try litigation to scare you into paying.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page