Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

[AS_Textiles]

Good afternoon

Hope someone can help me here? Thank you

Background:
3AM - saw a sign "All day parking £5"
Parked and caught a train to London.
Returned after 18 hours to find a PCN claiming I over-parked.
Excel claims the parking was meant to be for 12 hours only.

--

I appealed on the basis that the signage was misleading and provided the relevant pictures

I will post my full appeal on the following post - incase it is of help to anyone.

[AS_Textiles]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking scam"

My full appeal attached -

Gist -

1. The charges are penalties.
2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers and poorly detailed.
3. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
4. Failure to adhere to the IPC code of practice.

Summary quote:
"I have provided a picture of their signage in big banner outside the car park inviting in unwary drivers, marked unabashedly – “All day parking £5.00” - also other images show that the car has hardly any other signage at all. If it is indeed the case that Excel Parking charges £ 5.00 for 12 hours only, as per their claim, then their signage is wrong for two reasons:

First, a “day” by any reasonable definition is 24 hours. When parking at night – how can Excel Parking justify “all day” to mean 12 hours for even those parking at night?
Second, Excel Parking has made no reasonable effort to point out that “all day” is restricted to 12 hours.

The IPA should take serious note, as drivers feel hoodwinked and tricked in to this commercial trap. The IPC and BPA will also be notified.

I would also contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts,2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a car park with much lower tariffs available."

[AS_Textiles]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

Below is the response from Excel and I am desperate for some help - if anyone can kindly offer some advice - will very much appreciate it. Thank you.

-

1. The Fazeley Street Car Park is private land and motorists are allowed to enter that land to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed Terms and Conditions. The signs on site clearly state, “A valid Pay & Display ticket must be displayed inside the front windscreen of your vehicle with the date and time clearly visible at all times”.

2. There are 3 x highly prominent signs on site: 1 x Entrance Sign (1220mm x 660mm), 1 x Tariff Board (1200mm x 1000mm) and 1 x £5 All Day Parking Sign (2000mm x 1000mm), which is situated on wooden posts facing out of the car park on Fazeley Street. Photographs confirming that signage can clearly be observed throughout the car park, including at the entrance, are supplied herewith.

3. When the Parking Attendant issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) they stated, “Expired Ticket. Not on Ringo”. The Parking Attendant observed the vehicle in situ for 10 minutes from 15:46 until 15:56 before issuing the PCN. We refer to the reverse of the PCN where the Parking Attendant has completed the PO’s checklist and they have signed their statement as a true and accurate statement of fact.

4. Contravention Photos supplied show the appellant’s vehicle parked as observed by the Parking Attendant with an expired ticket on display. These photos are time and date stamped. The appellant’s ticket had expired at 15:46; 10 minutes before the PCN was issued.

5. In their appeal, the appellant has stated that they arrived at night, and purchased the incorrect ticket, lasting for 12 hours rather than the 24 they intended.

6. Site signage, proofs of which have been provided, makes it clear that a valid Pay & Display ticket must be displayed inside the front windscreen at all times. It is the motorist’s responsibility when entering the site to make themselves aware of the Terms and Conditions of parking and to comply with them or accept liability for a PCN. Our signage meets all current IPC requirements.

7. In their appeal, the appellant has further stated that they could not read the expiry time on the P&D due to the darkness. The appellant purchased their ticket at 03:46.

8. The time of expiry is clearly shown on the appellant’s P&D ticket, as can be seen in the contravention photographs supplied. Irrespective of the time of purchase, and whether this was during the hours of darkness it was solely the appellant’s responsibility to check their ticket for it’s expiry time.

9. In their appeal, the appellant also stated that the site signage is unclear as to what constitutes a ‘day’ for £5 with regards to the Pay & Display tickets offered on site. We refer the adjudicator to the tariff board (supplied) which clearly shows that on Mondays to Saturdays a parking period of 5-12 hours is charged at £5 and a full 24 hours is charged at £10. This tariff board makes the charges for parking on site clear to users and it is their responsibiilty to ensure they have read and are happy to abide by the Terms and Conditions displayed.

10. The appellant refers to the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd vs. Martin Cutts of 2011 in relation to our signage. The case referred to by the appellant relates to another car park, in another town, was 5 years ago and is not relevant to this appeal.

11. There is a helpline number located at the bottom of all the signage on site which is available to all motorists who have any queries or are experiencing difficulties. The appellant did not make use of this helpline. Had the appellant contacted us on the date of contravention provision could have been made for them, which could have prevented the PCN.

12. In response to the appellant’s comments in relation to the amount of the PCN charge, our charges are neither extravagant nor unconscionable and as such, are commercially justified and legitimately enforceable. We would refer to the recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].

13. The appellant has raised as an issue that we do not have the required authority to operate on this site. We would refer the Adjudicator to the signs which form the basis of this charge. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. Whilst we maintain that we do in fact have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract), the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.

14. The appellant has requested a copy of the contract between the landowner and Excel Parking Services. As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal, which may be accessed and circulated by the appellant.

15. The signage makes it clear that any motorist who parks in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of parking displayed will be liable for a PCN.

16. The appellant became liable for a Parking Charge Notice by parking after the expiry of their pay and display ticket.

[mystery1]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

Much will depend on the signs, in truth. What do they actually say and did you include them with your IAS appeal ?

M1

[AS_Textiles]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

Yes, I provided evidence to IAS - attached is a picture showing the signage.

In their response, they did not provide this image - instead they uploaded some PNG files of the signs, pictures which are stretched over-exaggerating their size. Whilst completely ignoring the sign under question - which mentions £5 all day parking.

[mystery1]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

Well that seems pretty clear. The IAS isn't the straightest organisation in the world but if you lose they'd appear to have an issue they'd find difficult to over come in a court.

M1

[AS_Textiles]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

Well that seems pretty clear. The IAS isn't the straightest organisation in the world but if you lose they'd appear to have an issue they'd find difficult to over come in a court.

M1

I am readying my response, which I will share on here in hope it benefits someone else.

Are there any particular cases you consider relevant to kindly refer me to, so I could strengthen my response? Thank you.

[mystery1]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format...hoe)+AND+(lane)

Essentially the 1st sign creates the contract unless it says there are further terms. A later sign cannot change the terms if the contract is set. However, if the terms at the pay point are different that's an issue because the contract is not set until you pay.

M1

[AS_Textiles]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format...hoe)+AND+(lane)

Essentially the 1st sign creates the contract unless it says there are further terms. A later sign cannot change the terms if the contract is set. However, if the terms at the pay point are different that's an issue because the contract is not set until you pay.

M1

Thank you.

After reading the SC decision in 2015, ParkingEye v Beale - I'm starting to feel my appeal will be futile.

I will, however, keep this thread updated with the results of the appeal.

[mystery1]

Re: Excel Parking - Poorly worded signage "All day parking" Scam

The circumstances in Beavis were different. The signs were clear etc

The IAS is chronic but they do allow a low percentage of appeals.

M1