Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 15th Sep 16, 10:58 AM
    • 10Posts
    • 9Thanks
    ralphicous
    Independent Appeal Service Declined
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 16, 10:58 AM
    Independent Appeal Service Declined 15th Sep 16 at 10:58 AM
    Hello all,

    I will try to keep this short and not drag on...apologies for any grammatical errors.

    Back in July 2016, we moved in to a new flat that included an allocated parking space.
    The development is being looked after by two management companies, Mainstay Group for the public areas etc. and Parking and Property Management Ltd for the parking areas only.

    On the 12th August a couple of my friends drove in from Norwich to see the new flat we just moved in to plus we had plans to drive up to Manchester on the same day to see a show in the evening. We all decided that we can all use my car to save petrol costs and that he can park in my allocated parking spot anyway.

    So my friend had parked on my space and just before we left I called P&PM to get a temporary authorisation permit. The agent could not hand out temporary permits to visitors so consequently I was given a "Maintenance/Builder" permit.

    We were away for one night and upon our return I can see that a PCN was attached to my friend's car. I took the ticket from my friend before they left because I wanted to take responsibility for it as I was the one who invited them over. I felt embarrassed enough that they were handed a PCN on my parking spot.

    I went to appeal the PCN with P&PM saying that I am a new resident and that this parking space is allocated to our property.

    Unfortunately they have declined my appeal and here is their statement;

    "We have considered your appeal carefully and take note of the points you have raised in mitigation,however we are sorry to inform you that your appeal has not been successful. The signage at the site is clearly visible and the information on the signage informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. Signage is prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee.

    It is the driverís responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking before leaving their vehicle.

    The fact you are a resident is not in dispute, nor is the fact you are a permit holder. However, as a permit holder you are aware of the fact a permit must be displayed and the result of non-display. As per the signage retrospective evidence of authority to park is not accepted. The parking scheme is in place due to historical parking issues at the development. The scheme offers security and exclusivity to resident bays by combating parking issues. For the basis of treating all residents unilaterally, all vehicles parking otherwise than in accordance with the conditions must be dealt with the same way. Otherwise the parking control provides no protection to the residents.

    The permit displayed in the vehicle expired on the 12th August 2016 and the PCN was issued on the 13th August 2016.

    It is unfortunate but the appeal is consequently dismissed.

    The reasons you have put forward for parking in a clearly regulated parking area do not justify parking otherwise than in accordance with the restrictions. You will appreciate that everyone has what they regard as reasonable grounds for parking. The location is private land and as such there is a need to ensure that only vehicles conforming to the advertised restrictions are allowed to park on site. You can pay by visiting the website. We appreciate that you may not agree with our decision."

    I went on to appeal this further to the Independent Appeals Services as per their advise in their letter. Almost two weeks later the IAS had unfortunately dismissed my second appeal for the same reason that no valid permit was being shown.

    I was about to throw in the towel and pay the PCN but I genuinely think that what they are doing is morally wrong. I have read forums threads after forum threads saying to ignore the PCN. Whereas the Citizen's advise bureau is telling me to pay the PCN once the appeal has been dismissed by the IAS.

    I am thankful that you have spent your time reading my outcry and will highly appreciate any advice you can provide.

    Ultimately I am scared that this will cause so much stress that I will receive a CCJ hen eventually Bailiffs will come knocking and will be shown on "Can't Pay, We'll Take It Away!" documentary!

    I am yet to read the title deeds if there are any mention of parking permits but I am keen to know if I still have a fight here?

    Looking forward to hearing from you!

    With much thanks!
Page 2
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 15th Sep 16, 8:43 PM
    • 1,547 Posts
    • 2,756 Thanks
    hoohoo
    . They don't seem to understand the core argument that it is MY own space.
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    They fully understand this, but the way these companies work is that once they have chased off people who are not authorised to park, the only people left are the genuine residents.

    You should therefore expect 2-3 parking charges a year so they can make the profits they want.

    They don't care 2 hoots that you are a genuine resident. In fact, you are their preferred target.
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 15th Sep 16, 9:37 PM
    • 2,808 Posts
    • 3,674 Thanks
    Half_way
    1.The title deeds only mentions that I should park motor vehicles on my space, no maintenance to be performed that could block the access to other residents. Nothing was mentioned about showing a parking permit.

    2.I need to find out who hired P&PM Ltd, at the moment, all I know is Mainstay Group handles the communal areas of the flat and P&PM for the parking.

    3.When we moved in last July, we were told by the previous owners that we needed to register our car as a resident. Ironically I park my motorcycle on the same bay with no resident's permit showing and it wasn't even registered to P&PM.

    4. Not aware of any permits for opening our windows after 10:00pm - but just restrictions for parking caravans or storing anything else other than motor vehicles.
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    Simply because point 4 would be ridiculous, just as having a permit to park a vehicle on/in a space you are entitled to, or give permission for a vehicle to park in /on that space
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • yotmon
    • By yotmon 15th Sep 16, 10:59 PM
    • 301 Posts
    • 367 Thanks
    yotmon
    I realise that you have taken this on board to protect your friend, but seeing as they are the reg. keeper, make sure they realise that they also need to ignore any letters from the parking company and not to engage with them, otherwise all will be lost.
    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 16th Sep 16, 12:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    ralphicous
    Simply because point 4 would be ridiculous, just as having a permit to park a vehicle on/in a space you are entitled to, or give permission for a vehicle to park in /on that space
    Originally posted by Half_way

    This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

    "The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellantís vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

    The Appellantís representative claims they obtained a temporary authorisation for the Appellantís vehicle to park in their space. This is not disputed by the Operator. However, the Appellant claims it was not made clear this was only valid for one day. The Operator contends it is standard practice to explain the validity of the temporary permits and the name of the permit ends EXP for expiry then 120816 to signify the date it expires. I cannot accept the Appellant formed the view the code permitted the vehicle to park at this location forever. If they were aware the permit was temporary they must have asked or been told how long it was valid for. I cannot envisage how a conversation regarding a temporary permit can take place without involving some discussion of when the permit ceases t be valid.

    More importantly, in all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a parking charge was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

    In this case the Operator has satisfied me of the prima facie case. In respect of the Appellantís challenge there is no evidence to corroborate their claim they were not advised regarding the code. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant to undermine the lawfulness of the charge I must dismiss the appeal."
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 12:44 PM
    • 38,296 Posts
    • 49,767 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Huge thanks for your reply!!!
    I am glad I went here as I was razor close in paying the PCN last night when the IAS dismissed my appeal. I felt defeated and hopeless but have since gained confidence to fight back! Once again, Thank you!
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    How the heck did the IAS say you were liable when you are not the keeper or driver, as Umkomaas spotted? The Assessor calls you ''The Appellant’s representative'' so they know you are not the liable party. Did you have to name the driver/keeper in the IAS appeals pages (probably not but just checking)?

    What I would do is calculate the 56 days from the parking event in July and see if your friend is safely past that yet (presumably he has never been posted a Notice to Keeper and he OWNS his car, it's not a company car or hired?).

    If he is the owner/keeper and once he is safely past the 56 days, then they cannot serve a NTK to hold him liable as keeper, either.

    So, 100% neither of you should be even contemplating paying this! You are both not liable.

    'Popcorn time' for us...keep the thread informed and show us any letter than now arrives to you or the keeper.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Sep 16, 12:55 PM
    • 3,567 Posts
    • 3,960 Thanks
    beamerguy
    This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

    "The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

    The Appellant’s representative claims they obtained a temporary authorisation for the Appellant’s vehicle to park in their space. This is not disputed by the Operator. However, the Appellant claims it was not made clear this was only valid for one day. The Operator contends it is standard practice to explain the validity of the temporary permits and the name of the permit ends EXP for expiry then 120816 to signify the date it expires. I cannot accept the Appellant formed the view the code permitted the vehicle to park at this location forever. If they were aware the permit was temporary they must have asked or been told how long it was valid for. I cannot envisage how a conversation regarding a temporary permit can take place without involving some discussion of when the permit ceases t be valid.

    More importantly, in all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a parking charge was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

    In this case the Operator has satisfied me of the prima facie case. In respect of the Appellant’s challenge there is no evidence to corroborate their claim they were not advised regarding the code. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant to undermine the lawfulness of the charge I must dismiss the appeal."
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    WHAT Adjudicator ???

    Anyone know who "I" is ??? Could it be either Will Hurley or John Davies

    There is no adjudicator that we know of that is real or genuine with the IAS. The IPC/IAS/GLADSTONES fail to name the adjudicator so we can only assume this is a fake reply in an attempt to extort money on behalf of their operator
    Last edited by beamerguy; 16-09-2016 at 1:19 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Northlakes
    • By Northlakes 16th Sep 16, 2:38 PM
    • 736 Posts
    • 978 Thanks
    Northlakes
    This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

    "The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellantís vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

    "
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    Lawful? You have to hand it to these guys they're 'brass necked' as we say in Lancashire.
    The definition of 'brass necked',
    a type of behaviour where someone is extremely confident about their own actions but does not understand that their behaviour is unacceptable to others
    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 16th Sep 16, 4:53 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    ralphicous
    How the heck did the IAS say you were liable when you are not the keeper or driver, as Umkomaas spotted? The Assessor calls you ''The Appellantís representative'' so they know you are not the liable party. Did you have to name the driver/keeper in the IAS appeals pages (probably not but just checking)?

    What I would do is calculate the 56 days from the parking event in July and see if your friend is safely past that yet (presumably he has never been posted a Notice to Keeper and he OWNS his car, it's not a company car or hired?).

    If he is the owner/keeper and once he is safely past the 56 days, then they cannot serve a NTK to hold him liable as keeper, either.

    So, 100% neither of you should be even contemplating paying this! You are both not liable.

    'Popcorn time' for us...keep the thread informed and show us any letter than now arrives to you or the keeper.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    I think this is because the IAS has this clause before you proceed and appeal with them;

    "You reported that the appellant was the driver but not the registered keeper at the time the parking charge was issued.
    You reported that the appellant is being held liable for the parking charge."

    Unfortunately I ticked "agree" to this before I went on to appeal with IAS.

    The parking charge was actually issued on the 13th August so it has been 34 days since.
    I will keep this thread updated once they execute their scare tactic.

    Pop-corn time indeed
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Sep 16, 4:57 PM
    • 3,567 Posts
    • 3,960 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Lawful? You have to hand it to these guys they're 'brass necked' as we say in Lancashire.
    The definition of 'brass necked',
    a type of behaviour where someone is extremely confident about their own actions but does not understand that their behaviour is unacceptable to others
    Originally posted by Northlakes
    Or as we say in the deep south ..... Plain bloody stupid"
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 6:28 PM
    • 38,296 Posts
    • 49,767 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think this is because the IAS has this clause before you proceed and appeal with them;

    "You reported that the appellant was the driver but not the registered keeper at the time the parking charge was issued.
    You reported that the appellant is being held liable for the parking charge."

    Unfortunately I ticked "agree" to this before I went on to appeal with IAS.


    The parking charge was actually issued on the 13th August so it has been 34 days since.
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    I would be ready to respond to any letter by clarifying that you certainly were not the driver and that the IAS appeal 'service' (which you subsequently discovered is considered by right-thinking consumers with years of knowledge of the private parking industry, to be a 'kangaroo court') asked a question which could not be answered properly by an appellant who was neither driver nor keeper.

    However, you are happy to clarify - to stop the operator from wasting costs on an ill-fated court case - that this is not your car, you are neither the keeper nor owner nor driver of it. To be clear, you only appealed because you are the resident who in all good faith and for the right reasons, wanted to protect the visitor from rogue enforcement of a charge which bears all the hallmarks of a scam.

    As such, you suggest they take the matter up with the driver if they have evidence of the identity of that party. As the resident you have no obligation to assist and if they wanted the driver (or keeper) to appeal they should have said so when you first appealed. They should have realised they did not know who the appellant was (a person who appeared to be a third party) and should have refused to allow the matter to proceed to IAS with an appellant who has no lawful liability whatsoever for the charge.

    You can finish by saying, you note that the period of 56 days since the parking event has already expired, so any application to the DVLA for the keeper's data now will be too late for any 'reasonable cause' and would breach the KADOE contract/DVLA rules. As such, you have informed the keeper of this fact and they are fully primed and prepared to report the operator to the DVLA and Information Commissioner, should their data be accessed unlawfully at this late juncture.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2016 at 6:32 PM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 17th Sep 16, 7:00 AM
    • 2,056 Posts
    • 2,455 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    the above advice is the best you will ever get .......

    Ralph

    foreign corespondent
    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 21st Sep 16, 12:51 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    ralphicous
    Quick update;

    Not surprised that my friend received a "Reminder Notice - Do not Ignore this notice" from PPM Ltd stating that he should pay the £100 charge within 28 days.

    They also stated, "The case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed. The overdue charge will increase to £150 in the first instance to further action."

    I specifically told PPM by email to contact me should they wish to pursue the ticket. But completely ignored that and still went on to chase my friend.

    I am so close to going to their head office and pay them £100....in pennies.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Sep 16, 1:00 PM
    • 3,567 Posts
    • 3,960 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Quick update;

    Not surprised that my friend received a "Reminder Notice - Do not Ignore this notice" from PPM Ltd stating that he should pay the £100 charge within 28 days.

    They also stated, "The case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed. The overdue charge will increase to £150 in the first instance to further action."

    I specifically told PPM by email to contact me should they wish to pursue the ticket. But completely ignored that and still went on to chase my friend.

    I am so close to going to their head office and pay them £100....in pennies.
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    Arrr don't do that, cannot pay scammers.

    So, any debt collector they employ will just send you junk mail, they will probably be related to the Nigerian Scammers anyway.

    Could go on for months and if so you ignore. If they fail with you, which they will then they pass it back to PPM AND LET'S SEE what they do. Just in case, get yourself a good defence ready, all the answers will be on this site.

    Think Nigerian scammers
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 21st Sep 16, 2:45 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    ralphicous
    Thanks for your advice @beamerguy

    However I really don't want them to pester my friend. That's why I have emailed them immediately after they rejected the appeal back on the 27th August to chase me and not my friend. Which they have clearly ignored.

    Can I send them another email detailing that they should chase me? Is it worth it?
    Can I call them angrily telling them to chase me, the resident and lease holder of the parking space they are trying to make a profit off of?
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Sep 16, 2:48 PM
    • 3,567 Posts
    • 3,960 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks for your advice @beamerguy

    However I really don't want them to pester my friend. That's why I have emailed them immediately after they rejected the appeal back on the 27th August to chase me and not my friend. Which they have clearly ignored.

    Can I send them another email detailing that they should chase me? Is it worth it?
    Can I call them angrily telling them to chase me, the resident and lease holder of the parking space they are trying to make a profit off of?
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    But, they will not and cannot chase you as you are nothing to do with ticket
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 16, 3:00 PM
    • 38,296 Posts
    • 49,767 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am so close to going to their head office and pay them £100..
    Anyone who does that is looked down on here.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71337219#post71337219

    It isn't just about the one PCN. If everyone stopped paying like sheep, the entire industry would die.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ralphicous
    • By ralphicous 21st Sep 16, 3:15 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    ralphicous
    I've gone this far so no I will not pay them unless a judge tells me to do so if and when I lose in court.

    I wish it is as simple as "It's my parking space as stated in the Lease, so with my consent, anyone can park in/on it."
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 21st Sep 16, 8:24 PM
    • 1,574 Posts
    • 2,124 Thanks
    fisherjim
    If you were neither the driver or the keeper you will be ignored, unless of course you pay the invoice, they will take your money as that's all they are interested in.

    But that would be silly!
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Sep 16, 12:14 AM
    • 38,296 Posts
    • 49,767 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I've gone this far so no I will not pay them unless a judge tells me to do so if and when I lose in court.

    I wish it is as simple as "It's my parking space as stated in the Lease, so with my consent, anyone can park in/on it."
    Originally posted by ralphicous
    A bit like the appeal point used at POPLA by IanMSpencer as discussed here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71339517#post71339517

    I like that wording and it's certainly able to be adapted into a defence for anyone where they were perfectly 'authorised' to be there and (arguably) none of the commercial justification bull from the Beavis case applies.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

193Posts Today

1,784Users online

Martin's Twitter