Tweet
Hi All,
I have a question and would appreciate any opinions.
A parking company (I'll call them the claimant) made a claim against me for overstaying in a carpark. I feel it is unfair and will go to court to fight it, but was wondering, based on the details that I will give, is it worth putting in a counter claim. Even better would be, could I make a claim against them later if I win the case? I don't deny that I was there, and stayed as long as they claim, but I do not think that the carpark signage was at all adequate.Sorry for the long post, but the situation is a bit weird.
The details are as follows:
The driver entered a carpark which is partially controlled by an APNR system operated by the claimant.
The carpark is actually a very unusual layout. It is shared by 3 businesses, one of which has it's own small section, section A, that is *not* controlled by the claimant, the other two businesses share the second seciton, B, which is controlled by the claimant via an ANPR system.
However, the carpark still only has one entrance, and one exit to the city street and once past the shared entrance, vehicles enter a one-way system that takes them first through section A, then into section B and past the APNR system and then to an exit. i.e. even cars just wishing to park in section A must pass through section B to exit. Note, there is no signage at the main entrance indicating that you will have to pass through an APNR once you enter.
The only distinction between sections A and B is that there is an awkward arrangement of bollards with a speed bump, i.e. there is no physical barrier separating the carpark sections. And these bollards don't look like an entrance, they just look like traffic calming measures. About 10-15 metres beyond the speedbump there is a sign stating that you are entering a controlled parking zone, but at the time of entry in this instance, one of the mounting brackets had broken, and the sign had slid down its pole and twisted round so that it was at a reasonably shallow angle to incoming motorists, so not very prominent or readable.
There is signage in the carpark that states it is a controlled zone, with 3 hours Max, and a fine of £100 for overstaying, they have is a small ANPR logo in the corner, they are placed at the ends of the rows of parking bays, however there are also signs from one of the businesses that simply state "Costa coffee, customer parking only, 3 hrs max stay", no mention of a fine, and no mention of APNR. These are placed directly facing the parking bays closest to Costa.
The driver parked in near a Costa parking sign, and did not pass anywhere near claimant's signs between the parking spot and Costa, only seeing the Costa signs.
The driver stayed approx 3hrs in costa, drinking a couple of coffees, and then left. He paid by cash and did not keep his receipt as he did not think it was necessary.
The registered keeper received a notice in the mail from the claimant, requesting payment for overstaying, with timestamped images showing a stay of 3hrs 15 mins
The registered keeper followed the parkingeye instruction to resolve the issue, telling them about the damaged sign, competing Costa signage with evidence.
The claimant refused to back down.
The registered keeper followed the POPLA appeals process, again with evidence, explaining the damaged and competing signage
POPLA sided with the claimant.
The registered keeper returned to the carpark at which the ticket was issued, and saw that the sign at the entrance to the controlled zone has been repaired, and was now more prominently displayed.
The claimant followed up with demand letters, and eventually put in a claim with small claims court for £175.
My opinion is that my case is absolutely reasonable, and has been made stronger by the fact that the claimant fixed the sign (I still don't think it is clear enough, as the place where you are expected to read the sign is at a point where the layout is difficult to navigate and confusing (It is an area with a lot of pedestrians, the bottle neck is a narrow, curved section, with bollards on one side and bushes on the other, the carpark has obviously been modified to allow this weird splitting, and the road markings don't match with the current traffic flow defined by bollards) so your attention is taken up by navigating the area.
I am planning to go to court at this point, but my question is whether I should bring a counter claim. I feel that by fixing the sign, they have admitted that there signage was inadequate at the time I entered, but they still chose to pursue me all the way to court, even if I win, I'll have spent a lot of time dealing with this and would feel like I still lost in reality.
I would really appreciate opinions of more knowledgeable people.
Many thanks!
I have a question and would appreciate any opinions.
A parking company (I'll call them the claimant) made a claim against me for overstaying in a carpark. I feel it is unfair and will go to court to fight it, but was wondering, based on the details that I will give, is it worth putting in a counter claim. Even better would be, could I make a claim against them later if I win the case? I don't deny that I was there, and stayed as long as they claim, but I do not think that the carpark signage was at all adequate.Sorry for the long post, but the situation is a bit weird.
The details are as follows:
The driver entered a carpark which is partially controlled by an APNR system operated by the claimant.
The carpark is actually a very unusual layout. It is shared by 3 businesses, one of which has it's own small section, section A, that is *not* controlled by the claimant, the other two businesses share the second seciton, B, which is controlled by the claimant via an ANPR system.
However, the carpark still only has one entrance, and one exit to the city street and once past the shared entrance, vehicles enter a one-way system that takes them first through section A, then into section B and past the APNR system and then to an exit. i.e. even cars just wishing to park in section A must pass through section B to exit. Note, there is no signage at the main entrance indicating that you will have to pass through an APNR once you enter.
The only distinction between sections A and B is that there is an awkward arrangement of bollards with a speed bump, i.e. there is no physical barrier separating the carpark sections. And these bollards don't look like an entrance, they just look like traffic calming measures. About 10-15 metres beyond the speedbump there is a sign stating that you are entering a controlled parking zone, but at the time of entry in this instance, one of the mounting brackets had broken, and the sign had slid down its pole and twisted round so that it was at a reasonably shallow angle to incoming motorists, so not very prominent or readable.
There is signage in the carpark that states it is a controlled zone, with 3 hours Max, and a fine of £100 for overstaying, they have is a small ANPR logo in the corner, they are placed at the ends of the rows of parking bays, however there are also signs from one of the businesses that simply state "Costa coffee, customer parking only, 3 hrs max stay", no mention of a fine, and no mention of APNR. These are placed directly facing the parking bays closest to Costa.
The driver parked in near a Costa parking sign, and did not pass anywhere near claimant's signs between the parking spot and Costa, only seeing the Costa signs.
The driver stayed approx 3hrs in costa, drinking a couple of coffees, and then left. He paid by cash and did not keep his receipt as he did not think it was necessary.
The registered keeper received a notice in the mail from the claimant, requesting payment for overstaying, with timestamped images showing a stay of 3hrs 15 mins
The registered keeper followed the parkingeye instruction to resolve the issue, telling them about the damaged sign, competing Costa signage with evidence.
The claimant refused to back down.
The registered keeper followed the POPLA appeals process, again with evidence, explaining the damaged and competing signage
POPLA sided with the claimant.
The registered keeper returned to the carpark at which the ticket was issued, and saw that the sign at the entrance to the controlled zone has been repaired, and was now more prominently displayed.
The claimant followed up with demand letters, and eventually put in a claim with small claims court for £175.
My opinion is that my case is absolutely reasonable, and has been made stronger by the fact that the claimant fixed the sign (I still don't think it is clear enough, as the place where you are expected to read the sign is at a point where the layout is difficult to navigate and confusing (It is an area with a lot of pedestrians, the bottle neck is a narrow, curved section, with bollards on one side and bushes on the other, the carpark has obviously been modified to allow this weird splitting, and the road markings don't match with the current traffic flow defined by bollards) so your attention is taken up by navigating the area.
I am planning to go to court at this point, but my question is whether I should bring a counter claim. I feel that by fixing the sign, they have admitted that there signage was inadequate at the time I entered, but they still chose to pursue me all the way to court, even if I win, I'll have spent a lot of time dealing with this and would feel like I still lost in reality.
I would really appreciate opinions of more knowledgeable people.
Many thanks!
