Tweet
I would like to ask for help regarding this ludicrous situation. I purchased a flat in Swansea and completed on 8/3/2019. I live in Dorset and so moved in with the help of a friend on Sunday 10/3/2019.
When we arrived we drove to our allocated space, number 21, but found that a vehicle was already in my space . Because of this we parked in the space immediately to the right of our space which is for abled bodied visitors marked “V”. I had already read my property lease details which say owners can use these spaces marked “V” on a first come first served basis. This is from the inland registry via my solicitor. There were plenty of other “V” parking spaces available at that time.
We started to move in our belongings but on return to the car found a ticket from Link Parking private parking company saying we would have to pay £60 within 2 weeks or £100 after that. I found after looking about there was a notice hidden under an evergreen tree nearby explaining in a convoluted way about this charge, saying I had entered into a contact by parking there without a visitors permit. I rang the number on the notice but it was dead and out of date.
I telephoned on Monday the number on the ticket to explain. I purchased a visitors permit immediately off them for £10 and explained everything and told them that I knew nothing about such permits, while purchasing the property nobody had mentioned such a permit was required. They told me to appeal using IAS. I did this and they rejected it saying the notice was clear and I had no excuse. Amazingly enough their own photograph taken of our car when issued with the ticket clearly shows the parking sign pole with the top part wording obscure by the tree’s foliage. *
I refused to pay and so now they have arranged for BWLEGAL solicitors to take me to small claims court in Northampton asking for £240.12 to be paid.
This I am finding very upsetting and stressful as it is ridiculous and totally unfair. It turns out that you can park with no restrictions on the court yard internal perimeter road right next to the parking allocations with no restrictions anyway even though this causes blockages for large vehicles to pass which in an emergency could be highly problematic. On the day in question incidentally, it was teaming down with rain, highly windy and the next car park for public use was ¼ mile away so moving in would have been impossible with the heavy boxes and we are elderly and my husband was waiting for a double hernia operation at that time. Also to purchase a permit would have been impossible due to not being the official owner until the Friday before which could not have arrived until the following week.
I attach link parking’s own picture showing the disable visitors car encroaching on 21’s space and our car on the abled bodied visitors space, as you can see the notice is onscured.
Every time I have dealings with this company I find it frustrating and distressing due to their inability to see reason and common sense decency. It seems to me they are merely intent on collection of a monetary fine no matter what it takes.
They point out they are employed by the landowners on the basis of preventing non-residents using the car park. Therefore, surely this should not apply to me. *I have given them proof with all dates and attached document copies of my flat ownership beginning two days prior to the PCN and also a copy of my lease I received from the land registry, stating, residents can use these spaces on a first come first serve basis. I cannot send proof there was a vehicle parked over space 21 because I had no reason at the time to take a photograph, the vehicle had gone on my return. Surely though, it is proof enough that if my space had been available I would naturally have used it instead of the “V”.
Their sign is obscured by foliage. I have sent many photos showing this to the IAS and also Link Parking. In their own photograph you can clearly see it is obscured. I only discovered this sign after searching when I had received the ticket.
Link Parking are accredited by IPC and must follow their code of practice. Part of this concerns the displaying of notices. (Please note there are no signs on the entrance to the car park). Extracts of this code of practice that apply to my case state:
*
8 *Obligations for Organisations Managing Land Requirements for the Conduct of Private Parking Management.
Signs
8.1 The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.
8.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 1.
*
Schedule 1
Signs must fixed in place and must be immediately apparent to the Motorist *that they convey important information regarding the Private Land upon which they are placed.
*
Entrance Signs Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs
(NB there are no entrance signs)
*
Entrance Signs should:
a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land;
b) refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and conditions. Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist.
*
Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions
The Operator must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Motorist.
*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyone out there who can help or adise me what to do? If I go to the small claims court would I win? Surely this is absolutely ridiculous?
When we arrived we drove to our allocated space, number 21, but found that a vehicle was already in my space . Because of this we parked in the space immediately to the right of our space which is for abled bodied visitors marked “V”. I had already read my property lease details which say owners can use these spaces marked “V” on a first come first served basis. This is from the inland registry via my solicitor. There were plenty of other “V” parking spaces available at that time.
We started to move in our belongings but on return to the car found a ticket from Link Parking private parking company saying we would have to pay £60 within 2 weeks or £100 after that. I found after looking about there was a notice hidden under an evergreen tree nearby explaining in a convoluted way about this charge, saying I had entered into a contact by parking there without a visitors permit. I rang the number on the notice but it was dead and out of date.
I telephoned on Monday the number on the ticket to explain. I purchased a visitors permit immediately off them for £10 and explained everything and told them that I knew nothing about such permits, while purchasing the property nobody had mentioned such a permit was required. They told me to appeal using IAS. I did this and they rejected it saying the notice was clear and I had no excuse. Amazingly enough their own photograph taken of our car when issued with the ticket clearly shows the parking sign pole with the top part wording obscure by the tree’s foliage. *
I refused to pay and so now they have arranged for BWLEGAL solicitors to take me to small claims court in Northampton asking for £240.12 to be paid.
This I am finding very upsetting and stressful as it is ridiculous and totally unfair. It turns out that you can park with no restrictions on the court yard internal perimeter road right next to the parking allocations with no restrictions anyway even though this causes blockages for large vehicles to pass which in an emergency could be highly problematic. On the day in question incidentally, it was teaming down with rain, highly windy and the next car park for public use was ¼ mile away so moving in would have been impossible with the heavy boxes and we are elderly and my husband was waiting for a double hernia operation at that time. Also to purchase a permit would have been impossible due to not being the official owner until the Friday before which could not have arrived until the following week.
I attach link parking’s own picture showing the disable visitors car encroaching on 21’s space and our car on the abled bodied visitors space, as you can see the notice is onscured.
Every time I have dealings with this company I find it frustrating and distressing due to their inability to see reason and common sense decency. It seems to me they are merely intent on collection of a monetary fine no matter what it takes.
They point out they are employed by the landowners on the basis of preventing non-residents using the car park. Therefore, surely this should not apply to me. *I have given them proof with all dates and attached document copies of my flat ownership beginning two days prior to the PCN and also a copy of my lease I received from the land registry, stating, residents can use these spaces on a first come first serve basis. I cannot send proof there was a vehicle parked over space 21 because I had no reason at the time to take a photograph, the vehicle had gone on my return. Surely though, it is proof enough that if my space had been available I would naturally have used it instead of the “V”.
Their sign is obscured by foliage. I have sent many photos showing this to the IAS and also Link Parking. In their own photograph you can clearly see it is obscured. I only discovered this sign after searching when I had received the ticket.
Link Parking are accredited by IPC and must follow their code of practice. Part of this concerns the displaying of notices. (Please note there are no signs on the entrance to the car park). Extracts of this code of practice that apply to my case state:
*
8 *Obligations for Organisations Managing Land Requirements for the Conduct of Private Parking Management.
Signs
8.1 The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place.
8.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in Schedule 1.
*
Schedule 1
Signs must fixed in place and must be immediately apparent to the Motorist *that they convey important information regarding the Private Land upon which they are placed.
*
Entrance Signs Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs
(NB there are no entrance signs)
*
Entrance Signs should:
a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land;
b) refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and conditions. Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist.
*
Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions
The Operator must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Motorist.
*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyone out there who can help or adise me what to do? If I go to the small claims court would I win? Surely this is absolutely ridiculous?
Comment