Overstayed supermarket parking period question

[ppap]

Hello,

We've got a "CONTRACTUAL PCN" from GS4.

Circumstances:
- My wife parked there in the evening, the parking period is limited to 90 minutes (she used the car park for 107 minutes). The usual arriving and leaving 2 photos are on the PCN as proof. Tbh, there was a lot going on, she used the car park to load and unload shopping and waiting for the kids to finish a sport tournament there, which was delayed (the leisure centre where it took place is not connected to the supermarket, it has its own small car park but it was full).
- We have no proof of purchase in the actual shop (paid by cash), but she is regular customer there.

We don't want to pay the fine. What is the best plan of action? Please only give advice that is up-to-date, actually works, and doesn't land us in just more trouble.

Thanks in advance for all your help.

P

[charitynjw]

It would be an advantage to see the original Notice(s), windscreen &/or postal, front & rear as applicable. Redact personal identifiers, but leave all .times & dates visible.
Also a clear legible photo of the site sign t&cs.
107 minutes is on the cusp of being allowable. I'm sure that GS4 will say no.
Do you live in England/Wales?
Is the vehicle a hire/lease, company vehicle, or privately owned?
Have you been in contact at all with GS4 (or anyone acting for them &, if yes, was the driver ID'd?
More questions than answers, I'm afraid.

[ppap]

Sorry... a little technical glitch. Answer is in my next reply.

[atticus]

Please only give advice that is up-to-date, actually works, and doesn't land us in just more trouble.

The first thing that is needed if we are to be able to meet these laudable requirements will be dates.

Date of parking.

Dates of all letters you have received, and dates of receipt.

[ppap]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I attach here the relevant photos. Maybe also worth to note, it was dark and rainy, and the signs are actually not that visible, but probably debatable if sufficient.

[charitynjw]

You are coming perilously close to identifying who was driving. Could you edit your opening post? (The driver parked, etc).

[ppap]

Ooops, that one does not have and Edit or Delete option...

[atticus]

The dates shown on the PCN do not help you. Parking on 2 February, notice clearly received within 14 days (you posted a copy on 15 February).

[charitynjw]

The Notice looks bulletproof to me.
I guess it's possible that the signs were/are not adequately illuminated, you would need to take a look during darkness hours.
The sign itself looks compliant.

[ppap]

The Notice looks bulletproof to me.
I guess it's possible that the signs were/are not adequately illuminated, you would need to take a look during darkness hours.
The sign itself looks compliant.

Yeah, the signs are correct, however, I think the visibility can be VERY debatable. I will check in the dark.
The Notice says all the wrong things in my opinion (such as LEAVING the car in the car park, well, actually it wasn't just left there.... plus it says CONTRACT, where there was no real contract... they INVITE me to give details or pay, i guess invitation can be declined... )

[ppap]

The dates shown on the PCN do not help you. Parking on 2 February, notice clearly received within 14 days (you posted a copy on 15 February).

Thank you, Yes, I am aware

[charitynjw]

Yeah, the signs are correct, however, I think the visibility can be VERY debatable. I will check in the dark.
The Notice says all the wrong things in my opinion (such as LEAVING the car in the car park, well, actually it wasn't just left there.... plus it says CONTRACT, where there was no real contract... they INVITE me to give details or pay, i guess invitation can be declined... )

Imho, the sign states enough to satisfy the requirements of a unilateral contract.
Acceptance of terms is via performance. (Eg Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 Q.B)

[atticus]

The OP needs to think carefully if he is to achieve his objective of not making things worse.

Leaving the car in the car park (i.e. parking) is an act of acceptance of the offer communicated via the notices, creating the contract. There is a lot of case law confirming this.

The requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2014 appear to have been met as regards this company's ability to claim against the driver or, if different, the registered keeper.

[des8]

There might be an argument to be had in that the signs clearly state "Customer Parking Only"

This means that a non customer parking there is trespassing, as non customers are not to park there.
Now it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden, which means that their claim for contractual damages must fail unless they can show the parker was a customer of the store

Now I understand the driver parked there whilst awaiting to collect persons who were in the nearby sports centre.
There were no available spaces in the sports centre hence the need to park in B&M's (near empty?) car park.
As the car park was near empty, B7M's losses caused by the trespass would be nil, so they have no realistic claim for damages for trespass.

Be an interesting defence to run, putting G4S to proof of driver's actions after parking

[atticus]

The OP says they are regular customers, and that they paid cash in the shop.