PCN for Overstay at a Cinema and Restaurant

[charitynjw]

Highly unlikely.

The address for MET on that document would have been correct at the time of execution, and indeed when you look at the filing history on Companies House it confirms that their previous address was 125 London Wall. The other point to note is that the document records MET's company number and that doesn't change so they are clearly identifiable as being a party to the contract.

On reflection, I reckon you're right, R0b.
I couldn't make out the date of commencement on the contract, but it does appear to be before the move from London Wall.

[HeinrichJ]

I do seem to be short of options then.

[charitynjw]

Tbh, the sticking point (not in your favour) is that they have evidence that you were 48 mins or so over the allotted time allowed.
Even taking grace periods into consideration, you have exceeded the time stated in the T&Cs.
& as this is very firmly on all fours with Beavis v ParkingEye, without a good verifiable explanation for the disputed time of arrival, you have an uphill battle.
You might have had some kind of chance if you'd been (just) held up as a result of the cinema problem.
But going for a meal afterwards..........?

[HeinrichJ]

Therein lies the problem that I cannot prove otherwise. The fact that I have not done anything wrong and was using the places that the car park was for seems irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
I am hoping that my unfortunate experience will be useful in helping someone else against these money grabbing companies.

[charitynjw]

Would it be possible to post up a pic of the site signage?
Maybe there's a technical defence there?
(Entrance signs, signs within the car park etc.)

[HeinrichJ]

Here is a copy of the sign.

[charitynjw]

Imho, I think that sign is compliant with the Code of Practice & meets 'Beavis' standards.

[HeinrichJ]

Could see anything of use myself. Seemed to be a bit of a contradiction regarding disabled users but not any use to me.

[charitynjw]

Could see anything of use myself. Seemed to be a bit of a contradiction regarding disabled users but not any use to me.

Clearly, a parking co's signage cannot usurp any rights which any person has in law, especially not someone who may need reasonable adjustments per the Equality Act.
This is embodied in the parking co's Codes of Practice.

[HeinrichJ]

As I seem to be out of options, I have reluctantly paid.