On the 14th October 2017 the Family car entered Royal William Yard and parked, we have previously parked at this yard in the past and the method of paying was to pay on exit after entering the registration number into the machine, your photo would appear and the charge would be displayed, you pay and exit.
Apparently from 1st December 2016 - they changed the procedure and you now need to pay on entry.
The driver never saw any signs to this effect and was caught out and received a penalty charge notice.
As the owner of the vehicle (not the driver) I appealed using one of the Martin Lewis templates and received the reject letter as expected.
The appeal was based on the fact that the driver did go to pay before returning to the car, entered the registration number into the pay machine but no charge came up, tried this a couple of times and then looked at the car and saw there was a ticket on it.
They had every intention of paying but were caught out by the change in procedures, there were no signs advising of this change.
One of the family later said that when they parked there last time in the same car, they spotted some signs advising about the changes and paid before hand.
So the car that entered the yard had been seen to comply with change to parking procedures but did not on the most recent occasion as the driver was not aware the process had changed.
You will see from the reply we received, that they reference that the vehicle in question entered Royal William Yard car park and paid for a ticket.
I think they have made an error here and meant to say 'previously, so you were aware of the changes or something like that.'
I'm looking for opinions on this statement, have they shot themselves in the foot?
Thanks.
Apparently from 1st December 2016 - they changed the procedure and you now need to pay on entry.
The driver never saw any signs to this effect and was caught out and received a penalty charge notice.
As the owner of the vehicle (not the driver) I appealed using one of the Martin Lewis templates and received the reject letter as expected.
The appeal was based on the fact that the driver did go to pay before returning to the car, entered the registration number into the pay machine but no charge came up, tried this a couple of times and then looked at the car and saw there was a ticket on it.
They had every intention of paying but were caught out by the change in procedures, there were no signs advising of this change.
One of the family later said that when they parked there last time in the same car, they spotted some signs advising about the changes and paid before hand.
So the car that entered the yard had been seen to comply with change to parking procedures but did not on the most recent occasion as the driver was not aware the process had changed.
You will see from the reply we received, that they reference that the vehicle in question entered Royal William Yard car park and paid for a ticket.
I think they have made an error here and meant to say 'previously, so you were aware of the changes or something like that.'
I'm looking for opinions on this statement, have they shot themselves in the foot?
Thanks.
Comment