One small step for man …
Both regular contributors – and indeed visitors to this organ – will be aware that, for the most part, we do our level best to avoid harping back to the past when “in our day” (supposedly!) virtually every aspect of the human condition was more sensibly ordered and just “better” than it is today.
That fact registered, today I bring to the notice of our readers an incident which, quite by chance, I was involved in recently and subsequently emerged with something of a minor victory in my ongoing and losing battle against the modern world.
I received in the post a Parking Charge Notice (hereafter “PCN”) issued against me by the operators of a private car park somewhere in Southern England. Amidst the mountain of detailed terms and conditions contained with said PCN was set out the means by which – if I chose – I could appeal against the fine now being imposed upon me which incidentally, if I paid up within 14 days, I could “escape” by paying only half the stated full amount.
Not being one entirely unfamiliar with “tilting against windmills” generally, I decided to exercise my right to appeal and did so in the following fashion [please note that – in order to protect all concerned including myself – I have effectively “redacted” all specific information that might reveal where and when this alleged car parking incident took place]:-
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to appeal against this Parking Charge Notice for the following reasons:-
Firstly, let me state for the record that I dispute neither the “arrival time” nor the “departure time” as recorded in the photographs contained in the Parking Charge Details sent to me.
However, the facts of the matter are these.
When both arriving at – and leaving the car park – I (the owner/keeper of this vehicle) was sitting in the front passenger seat and my wife was driving it.
Upon entering the car park, which was quite full at the time, it took us a minute or two to locate a space in which to park the vehicle. I then went to the nearest “pay station”, where I discovered that I was unable to pre-pay for our stay because I did not have the means necessary to do so. I therefore returned to our vehicle and my wife then went to said pay station and paid (I believe via “capturing” a bar code square on her smartphone and then doing “whatever was necessary” to pre-pay for a 2 hour stay).
We then went shopping in the nearby town’s shopping mall and later returned to the car park laden with several shopping bags full of the purchases we had made there. As we re-entered the car park and returned to our vehicle we were pleased to note that we still had at least 4 minutes remaining on our “two hour (paid-for) stay”.
We then loaded our purchases into our vehicle and drove out of the car park, ALL STILL WITHIN OUR PRE-PAID-FOR PERIOD.
Those were/are the facts of this matter.
Accordingly, my appeal today is based upon the fact that, apparently, the [details of the car park concerned and its location omitted] is set up to “begin the time from which its calculation of any “paid-for” stay in the Car Park” commences as the moment that any vehicle “arrives/enters” the Car Park … AND NOT AT THE TIME UPON WHICH ANY STAY IN THE CAR PARK IS ACTUALLY PAID FOR.
The argument I therefore submit to you is that this is both illogical and unfair.
As far as I am concerned – and I suspect any right-thinking person with an ounce of intelligence would agree with me – whenever one enters a car park at which “pre-payment for a period” has to be made, said period begins at the moment one pays for it – AND NOT BEFORE THAT.
Please therefore can you explain to me how and why [your organisation] can possibly justify claiming that the a “pre-paid period” begins WHENEVER A VEHICLE ENTERS ITS CAR PARK, i.e. BEFORE THE OWNER/DRIVER OF A VEHICLE HAS EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO CHOOSE A PERIOD THAT THEY WISH TO PAY FOR … AND THEN DO SO?!
In my case – again I refer to the Penalty Charge Notice [date and reference number omitted] – which incidentally alleges that my contravention is “Non Payment” – I would submit that, on the face of it, it is as clear as a pike-staff that [your organisation] is potentially misleading every single person who ever parks a vehicle in this [particular] car park (and for all I know, perhaps may also does this in other car parks that it operates – I have no personal knowledge of any other).
Let me put it this way.
If [your organisation] wants to make the “start point” for “the clock to begin ticking” (on any vehicle staying in its car park) the moment that said vehicle first arrives at it, it jolly well out to make this clear to the public before they buy their choice of “pre-paid for period”.
For example, when my wife and I bought what we thought and understood was a “pre-paid 2 hour duration stay” in this car park on [date omitted] [your organisation] should have made known to us in advance that – in our case – we hadn’t actually bought a “2 hour stay” at all – AS WE THOUGHT – but in fact, as far as [your organisation] was/is concerned, a stay of only “1 hour and 55 minutes” .
Arguably, had [your organisation] done that, we could then at least have had the opportunity to take account of the “reduced period that we had pre-bought” situation and e.g. perhaps could then have made sure that we returned to our vehicle earlier than we did.
As it was, [on the date concerned], we believed we had bought a pre-paid “2 hour period” – WE HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE – and we subsequently departed said car park before that 2 hour period had expired.
Lastly, this is to advise that – if my appeal is turned down – as per the details supplied with the PCN I would then intend to appeal against the “turn down” to the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) and will need to be sent the address of POPLA and a unique appeal reference. I would also then intend to bring my views on this matter to the attention of both the Chairman [of your organisation] and my local MP.
Yours sincerely etc.
………………………………………
Dear readers, I am pleased to report that my appeal was accepted and the PCN “dropped”.
