Parking but reason...
Discussion
Hi all
I was delighted to receive a parking charge notice in the post the other day.
I had indeed stayed longer than the time permitted after doing a spot of work and having a few coffees in a McD. But the extra time was becuase I couldn't get out the carpark!
It's near to a stadium and it hit concert chucking out time and the carpark was overwhelmed with a thousand teens wanting burgers and their DadTaxis trying to pick 'em up.
The extra time that took me over the threshold was spent, in my car, trying to get out of an absolutely gridlocked carpark. It was carnage! Over an hour I was sat there with nothing moving. Won't be going back there for sure!
But will my appeal fly? Can I claim for the trauma of being an unwilling guest of Ronald McDonald and having flashbacks of being rudely taken unawares by a scalding apple pie?
I was delighted to receive a parking charge notice in the post the other day.
I had indeed stayed longer than the time permitted after doing a spot of work and having a few coffees in a McD. But the extra time was becuase I couldn't get out the carpark!
It's near to a stadium and it hit concert chucking out time and the carpark was overwhelmed with a thousand teens wanting burgers and their DadTaxis trying to pick 'em up.
The extra time that took me over the threshold was spent, in my car, trying to get out of an absolutely gridlocked carpark. It was carnage! Over an hour I was sat there with nothing moving. Won't be going back there for sure!
But will my appeal fly? Can I claim for the trauma of being an unwilling guest of Ronald McDonald and having flashbacks of being rudely taken unawares by a scalding apple pie?
ds.bad company said:
I m astonished that anyone would even consider paying in such circumstances. Just reply telling them what happened as stated here.
I would be very surprised if the ticket was not pulled. You have the most reasonable of reasonable excuses. They will no doubt have complaints from other drivers similarly affected.rdjohn said:
I would be very surprised if the ticket was not pulled. You have the most reasonable of reasonable excuses. They will no doubt have complaints from other drivers similarly affected.
It may come as little surprise that the appeal was rejected 
because we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was on site over the permitted time....and of course, they gleefully point out that you can't go to POPLA without losing the opportunity to pay the discounted rate.
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
Pot Bellied Fool said:
rdjohn said:
I would be very surprised if the ticket was not pulled. You have the most reasonable of reasonable excuses. They will no doubt have complaints from other drivers similarly affected.
It may come as little surprise that the appeal was rejected because we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was on site over the permitted time....and of course, they gleefully point out that you can't go to POPLA without losing the opportunity to pay the discounted rate.
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
Pot Bellied Fool said:
rdjohn said:
I would be very surprised if the ticket was not pulled. You have the most reasonable of reasonable excuses. They will no doubt have complaints from other drivers similarly affected.
It may come as little surprise that the appeal was rejected because we consider the parking charge to have been correctly issued, as the vehicle was on site over the permitted time....and of course, they gleefully point out that you can't go to POPLA without losing the opportunity to pay the discounted rate.
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
Edited by Pot Bellied Fool on Monday 2nd March 14:26
bad company said:
Not sure I d even appeal to POPLA. I d just write back pointing out that your exit was impeded and you won t be paying.
Their only way forward is to sue and they won t want to be doing that.
No harm in appealing to POPLA though. That puts a lid on it. Otherwise OP will have years of threatening letters before they give up.Their only way forward is to sue and they won t want to be doing that.
I've written to McD but have also appealed with POPLA since they have to pay for every case that goes to POPLA...
Wasted more time on it than the value of just paying it but it's the principle innit bruv... (see what happens when you're stuck in a McD for so long? You start talking funny and flashing gang signs which really confuses the old dears in the Bridge club...)
Wasted more time on it than the value of just paying it but it's the principle innit bruv... (see what happens when you're stuck in a McD for so long? You start talking funny and flashing gang signs which really confuses the old dears in the Bridge club...)
Pot Bellied Fool said:
I've written to McD but have also appealed with POPLA since they have to pay for every case that goes to POPLA...
Wasted more time on it than the value of just paying it but it's the principle innit bruv... (see what happens when you're stuck in a McD for so long? You start talking funny and flashing gang signs which really confuses the old dears in the Bridge club...)
Some time ago I spent ages on this dispute as I thought I was right. I won but it took a LOT of time.Wasted more time on it than the value of just paying it but it's the principle innit bruv... (see what happens when you're stuck in a McD for so long? You start talking funny and flashing gang signs which really confuses the old dears in the Bridge club...)
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I had this with Britannia Parking. Appeals to them & POPLA were a waste of time. They issued proceedings against me that I defended. I won and got token costs for postage and photo copying out of them.
Relevant extracts from my defence. Feel free to cut and paste as required if of any use;
3. On leaving the parking space, the Defendant was held up being able to actually exit the Claimant s car park onto Exeter Road for some time, due to an event ending at the BIC just prior. This was causing severe traffic congestion from other people trying to leave the Claimant s car park, and other BIC attendees leaving other car parks at the same time, as well as many pedestrians leaving the venue and congregating in Exeter Road.
4. The Claimant claims the Defendant breached a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant entered into when the Defendant parked his vehicle in the car park. The Claimant claims that the details of this contract were displayed on signage within the car park. The Claimant claims the breach of contract was caused by the Defendant s vehicle remaining parked for longer than the period for which they had paid. The Claimant is basing this timing on alleged CCTV images taken at the car park entrance and exit only, and not of the Defendant s vehicle being parked. The Claimant is claiming damages in respect of the alleged breach of contract which forms the basis of this Claim. The Defendant denies any alleged breach of contract.
5. The Defendant has repeatedly requested CCTV images of the Defendant s vehicle in the car park from the Claimant however they have never been able to provide such. The only images provided have been of a dark car at the exit with no registration number visible. No images of the Defendant s car parked have been provided either. No other records supporting the Claimant s claim that the Defendant s car remained parked for longer than had been paid for have been provided despite repeated requests.
7. The Claimant was refused planning permission to operate the car park on 27th July 2018, one of the reasons for refusal was that such a car park is likely to prejudice the condition of highway safety and impact on the free flow of traffic. The Claimant continued to operate the car park however and was served a planning enforcement notice by Bournemouth Borough Council on 9th August 2018, however they continued to operate the car park unlawfully during this time.
13. The Defendant denies the claim in full for reasons that the Claimant has not provided any evidence that the Defendant s vehicle remained parked for a longer duration than for which had been paid
Relevant extracts from my defence. Feel free to cut and paste as required if of any use;
3. On leaving the parking space, the Defendant was held up being able to actually exit the Claimant s car park onto Exeter Road for some time, due to an event ending at the BIC just prior. This was causing severe traffic congestion from other people trying to leave the Claimant s car park, and other BIC attendees leaving other car parks at the same time, as well as many pedestrians leaving the venue and congregating in Exeter Road.
4. The Claimant claims the Defendant breached a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant entered into when the Defendant parked his vehicle in the car park. The Claimant claims that the details of this contract were displayed on signage within the car park. The Claimant claims the breach of contract was caused by the Defendant s vehicle remaining parked for longer than the period for which they had paid. The Claimant is basing this timing on alleged CCTV images taken at the car park entrance and exit only, and not of the Defendant s vehicle being parked. The Claimant is claiming damages in respect of the alleged breach of contract which forms the basis of this Claim. The Defendant denies any alleged breach of contract.
5. The Defendant has repeatedly requested CCTV images of the Defendant s vehicle in the car park from the Claimant however they have never been able to provide such. The only images provided have been of a dark car at the exit with no registration number visible. No images of the Defendant s car parked have been provided either. No other records supporting the Claimant s claim that the Defendant s car remained parked for longer than had been paid for have been provided despite repeated requests.
7. The Claimant was refused planning permission to operate the car park on 27th July 2018, one of the reasons for refusal was that such a car park is likely to prejudice the condition of highway safety and impact on the free flow of traffic. The Claimant continued to operate the car park however and was served a planning enforcement notice by Bournemouth Borough Council on 9th August 2018, however they continued to operate the car park unlawfully during this time.
13. The Defendant denies the claim in full for reasons that the Claimant has not provided any evidence that the Defendant s vehicle remained parked for a longer duration than for which had been paid
Edited by catfood12 on Saturday 7th March 21:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff