Forgot to display permit for my own space

ncobo1664 wrote: »

My IAS appeal has been rejected. Here is their reasoning:

It is important that the Appellant understands that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to look at whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. The Adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and an Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
The guidance to this Appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances. The terms of this Appeal also state that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events
In this case the parking charge notice was issued because the Appellant parked the vehicle in question on private land and is alleged to have been in breach of the terms and conditions set out in the signage on site which regulate such matters. The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen.
The Parking Operator entered in to a contract with blank in August last year to provide a parking system for the benefit of the various owners and tenants of properties on this site so that only those who were entitled to could park there. The documentation provided to me that letters and permits were delivered by hand to all premises setting out in detail the nature of the system and how it would work and the consequences of any breaches. That was further confirmed by the blank News issue for October and the signage on site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was fully aware of the system and he clearly participated in it by displaying a permit in his car. The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue.
The responsibility for ensuring that a permit is securely in place in the windscreen so it's contents can be read by an attendant is the motorists and on this occasion the Appellant failed to discharge that responsibility because the permit fell on to the front seat out of view of the attendant according to the landlord's letter. The remit of an Adjudicator does not allow him/her to take mistakes or mitigation in to consideration when dealing with Appeals. In those circumstances I am satisfied that this parking charge notice was issued lawfully and as a result this Appeal must be dismissed.
The Appellant seems to place great reliance on the case of Laura Jopson heard by His Honour Judge Harris Q.C in the Oxford County Court last June. I have read that judgement with interest but know nothing more about it than the Judgement and the competing submissions of the parties. That case was clearly decided on it's own facts which were very different from the facts in this case and that decision is not binding on any decision made by another Judge in relation to this Appeal.

All pretty ridiculous! They claim "The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen" but then say "The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue". They've just completely contradicted themselves.

Keep all the paperwork and your evidence because these
scammers can pop up again anything up to 6 years