High Point Village Hayes

4NN0Y3D · 17 September 2016 at 1:42PM

Hi All,
Very graciously asking for assistance.

Ill try and be brief. Ive read some of the previous High Point messagers, also the First timer notes.

Story so far: NTK from PCM delivered first to my address with DVLA details, to which I have submitted initial response based on template provided. Rejection received from PCM. Now appealling to IAS (still open), initial response submitted from PCM, I have 5 more days to re-respond.
Here is the situation:
1) Driver dropped off pregnant wife, stepped out of car, got bags from boot for wife, back in car and left. Total time stopped, less than a minute.
2) Road is private and marked with 'no stopping, dropping, collection' on entry (no terms on initial sign). Marked bays allow stopping for 20 mins for free, but were full.
3) Arguments to IAS appeal are thus (PCM response in brackets):
- NTK does identify creditor (IPC has audited site, authority provided)
- Inadequate signage (>6ft) (signs audited by IPC)
- No Grace Period - driver is required to stop in restricted area to read detailed t&c's, where marked bays were full - conflicts with 15.1 IPC Op guidelines - driver should be allowed sufficient time to park to read terms. ("...signs at the entrance make it clear this is private land and restrictions apply....photographs make it clear the driver made no attempt to consider the terms; therefore they are deemed to have notice of them")
- Therefore no contract with driver created.
- No parking occured, as car was not left temporarily, as per dictionary definition of 'parking'. (...operator argues that it is illogical to apply a definition intended for a vehicle to a person. That is to say, the definition that applies to the status of the vehicle...that it is left in the sense of remaining").
- No genuine estimation of loss - how can parking charge of £100 be reasonable for 1 minute stop? (It has been adjudicated that pre-estimate of loss is no longer relevant in cases of breach of contract on private land - citing Beavis 15')
- Charge is a disguised breach - as it assumes that ts&cs were breached.
- Finally a lack of business rates and VAT charge statement on invoice. (HMRC matter)

Im assuming the IAS to do as usual and reject.
MY QUESTION - anything else I can add in my remaining few days?
- What do I do next? Im expecting some threatening debt collector letters blah blah, then is it court? Any tips?
- also HAS ANYONE WON at High Point Village? at any stage?
- I understand there is a bit of a movement involving press and politicians but CANT SEEM TO CONNECT WITH ANYONE INVOLVED at the moment.
Happy to receive private message if you suspect this is being monitored.

Apologies for the long post. But I hope this will also bring comfort to others.
thanks

Fruitcake · 17 September 2016 at 2:10PM

The general advice is not to make an IAS appeal following the initial appeal to the parking company. I hope you didn't go for the 15 quid appeal jobby.

Without it I believe the IAS guarantee their members an 80% rejection rate. With the 15 version I believe they guarantee a 100% rejection rate. In other words, if you pay them money you make a binding agreement to abide by their decision when you lose.
In your appeals did you mention that your wife has protected characteristics as a pregnant mother in accordance with the Equality Act 2010?

There is nothing more you can do now. If/when you get your rejection you go into ignore mode for the next six years unless you get real court papers..
The only other thing you can do is complain to the landowners, adding the point about the breach of EA 2010 to which they are equally liable should you decide to take them to court as it's a criminal matter not civil like the parking charge.

System · 17 September 2016 at 2:49PM

HAS ANYONE WON at High Point Village? at any stage?

Not if you appeal to the IAS as their decisions are perverse to say the least.

Was this the station entrance? If it was there are a number ahead of you so may be best to wait (rather than appeal) and see the outcome.

As an aside, the signs are "forbidding". They are not offering a contract so there cannot be a breach. At best it is trespass.

Coupon-mad · 17 September 2016 at 7:11PM

Happy to receive private message if you suspect this is being monitored.

DO NOT reply if you get a pm from any poster with less than 1000 posts offering to 'help' because in fact this is worse than staying on the open forum. With the notable exception of IamEmanresu - who has almost 800 posts but is totally trustworthy if he pm's anyone - then be wary of the agenda behind any private message from any newer poster than us regulars with thousands of posts here.

Even if they appear to be assisting you, please name and shame them if you do get such a message. All is not as it seems sometimes.

The fact that you cannot win at IAS is NOT telling you to pay this, BTW, just so you know!

Post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQs thread tells you what will happen if you ignore the 'kind offer' of IAS. Everyone here just sits tight and ignores debt collector letters then defends any court claim (rare). Most cases just fizzle out in the end but come back if you get a Gladstones letter.

You would do well to forewarn yourself (just in case, so you know what NOT to ignore) by searching this board for 'Gladstones PCM claim'.

4NN0Y3D · 13 October 2016 at 5:08PM

Thanks for the feedback all, its much appreciated that you all take the time to hepl others out like this...

so the story continues...

I received my obligatory appeal rejection letter from IAS, and have had a subsequent reissuing of the £100 charge from PCM.

Couple of questions I have on ignoring subsequent letters:

- They have threatened Debt Collection Agencies, who will add any reasonable admin costs, and also threated County Court action, with the further threat of additional Court Fees and Solicitor Costs to be incurred.
I have read on this forum somewhere that any court action can only result in payment of the original £100 fine, is this correct? or would I be liable for the additional costs if it ever went to court?

Also because I have been through the IAS 'process', (which I did not pay for), does this weaken my case as the process is seen to have gone through some kind of legitimate appeal?

I would be more than happy to stand up in court to argue my case.
Is this my strongest argument as suggested above? That the sign on entry states: 'No stopping, waiting etc' but fails to state a £ charge. ie. it is a forbidding threat rather than an invitation to enter a contract?
OR
Should I be pleading that a reasonable person would see that stopping for less than a minute to drop off a pregnant woman, can in no way be deemed to be entering into a contractual arrangement to accept paying £100 for the priveledge.

Again much appreciate your time, effort and concern.

4NN0Y3D · 18 October 2016 at 6:35PM

In addition I have recently been in touch with Local Councillor for the area Janet Gardner and Helen Lowder from John Mcdonnels Office (Local MP), who have been working to raise this issue both directly with the landowner of High Point Village, Ballymores. Do get in touch with them directly through the appropriate council websites.
PCM were barred from Windsor and Maidenhead Councils, so it may be possible to apply pressure this way by raising this as an issue.

pappa_golf · 18 October 2016 at 6:39PM

4NN0Y3D wrote: »

In addition I have recently been in touch with Councillor Janet

its a "civil" matter sir ,,,,

Coupon-mad · 19 October 2016 at 11:49AM

4NN0Y3D wrote: »

In addition I have recently been in touch with Local Councillor for the area Janet Gardner and Helen Lowder from John Mcdonnels Office (Local MP), who have been working to raise this issue both directly with the landowner of High Point Village, Ballymores. Do get in touch with them directly through the appropriate council websites.
PCM were barred from Windsor and Maidenhead Councils, so it may be possible to apply pressure this way by raising this as an issue.

Good pressure, especially as you know and have told them that PCM are marauding, notorious ex-clampers who were banned by those other Councils. Did you know they were recently exposed on Watchdog talking about appeals (which they almost never allow) saying they 'make it up most of the time' when replying to an appeal?

The Parking Prankster has a blog about that 'PCM' Watchdog episode, easy to find. Also Google search 'Parking Prankster Gladstones bungle' to see what happens when they try a claim and they lose (quite often!).

See this thread for links showing people beating PCM at hearings:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71475486#post71475486

And an IAS 'pseudo-decision' holds no sway in county court so you are not especially disadvantaged, except in your mind if you let it bother you or think you might have no case. You do!

Finally, as a registered keeper, POFA Schedule 4 (which you need to read) states that the sum that can be recovered is the sum shown on any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. And the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA, worth a read too, Google it) states that terms have to be transparent and legible with onerous terms not hidden in small print, so the £100 was probably in small print and any 'added costs' were not on the sign at all, not as a stated sum.

So a defence can argue that the signs are inadequate as 'notice of the charge' with the defendant relying upon the POFA Schedul4 and the CRA 2015. Plenty of examples of Gladstones defences on here! NONE with defences from MSE forum have proceeded to a hearing AFAIK, they've all gone very quiet.

If you get a court claim, no panic - search this forum for the words 'Gladstones defence incoherent' or 'Gladstones defence roboclaim' to find recent examples of defences that people have submitted. Here's one I wrote about a 'parking in my own space' claim from Gladstones:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...39#post71415539

As Henrik777 said recently, a PPC can't 'bolt on random crap' after the contract concluded. So they cannot add extra costs and pretend they were incorporated into the contract all along - we know the signs did not state an extra £sum and that the £100 was likely to be buried in small print.

4NN0Y3D · 23 June 2017 at 8:05PM

UPDATE - AFTER SOME TIME AND MORE AND MORE LETTERS THE DOGS LEFT ME ALONE TO CHASE AFTER AN EASIER BONE.

DO NOT PAY DO NOT PAY DO NOT PAY.

CHECK OTHER THREADS BY SEARCHING HIGH POINT VILLAGE, AS I BELIEVE THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE INVOICES HAVE BEEN PROVEN ELSEWHERE.

ALSO PLEASE MAKE SURE TO KEEP WRITING TO JOHN MCDONNELL MP &
JANET GARDNER Cllr
GOOD LUCK

Coupon-mad · 24 June 2017 at 12:27AM

Glad to hear it!

High Point Village Hayes

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free