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
    • Luke Rick
    • By Luke Rick 16th Jan 17, 3:20 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Luke Rick
    IAS Appeal Lost - Now what?
    • #1
    • 16th Jan 17, 3:20 PM
    IAS Appeal Lost - Now what? 16th Jan 17 at 3:20 PM
    I've been one of the unlucky few around the same area that has a parking ticket thanks to the operators that "patrol" (they live here to enforce it...). The company in question is "Link Parking Ltd"

    Started an internal appeal to which, obviously, was rejected straight away. Went to the IAS to also appeal, and this has come back appeal rejected.

    Original reason for the ticket was that of "Not parking within a designated bay".

    My Appeal:
    "There were insufficient signage in proposed area of enforcement for parking in designated areas. Not even taking into consideration the apparent "designated parking bay" not having ANY lines other than "bricks" molded into the pavement, this is insufficient especially in the darker hours. The spot i was parked on had indeed enough room for 2 cars, to which no SIGNAGE in view, or any apparently relating to said parking spots only having the exceed limit of ONE motor vehicle. The sign pictured from the operator was that of a parking sign NOT IN DIRECT VIEW of the parking bays in question, but that of a SIDE CAR PARK leading from the main road. (As exhibited REF: EV01) - this displays the car park you are about to ENTER leading FROM the main road, THESE terms are met should you wish to park there.

    Going from the fact this sign is leading to believe this sign relates to the CAR PARK you will enter (REF: EV01), you cannot DIRECTLY see this sign, OR ANY OTHER SIGN, from where the car was situated once it received its PCN. You can see this with exhibit (REF:EV02) attached.

    Two DIRECT huge walls from the flats are that of PLAIN walls to which potential SIGNAGES could have been placed to enforce their terms on the ISOLATED 4 parking bays. This was not done so. As exhibited (REF:EV03), you can see NO SIGNAGE at all present when looking at this.

    Going further from this, exhibit (REF:EV02) clearly shows from google maps that this space was ONCE indeed a 2 car parking spot, so it's not "out of the ordinary".

    Exhibiting (REF: EV04) for clarity, NO DRIVING OBSTRUCTIONS were made in any shape of form, relating to any Traffic Offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988. As stated in exhibit EV04, no pavements, roads or any other MOTOR VEHICLE was at subsequent financial loss due to the parking of my MOTOR VEHICLE. The vehicle that was "blocked in", had my full authorization to park there and do so stop that car from moving, due to that spot being THEIR parking spot. [This is clearly unrelated but making it apparent that no offences were committed whilst parking in said "non-designated parking spot"]

    Should a SIGNAGE be posted at the ENTRANCE to the ROAD (HARSCOMBE DR) then cars entering will adhere to said terms. This is NOT the case. The signage in question is relating onto a wall, that is at the ENTRANCE of another CAR PARK, for residents/visitors.

    I exhibit all referenced articles as stated in the upload documents area, along with my original appeal to LINK PARKING.

    Summary: Grounds for appeal, INAPPROPRIATE SIGNAGE FOR SAID PARKING OFFENCE."

    EV01: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/cdf557d562.png
    EV02: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/cdffc9a19c.jpg
    EV03: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/cdf576fb10.png
    EV04: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/cdf572be8a.png

    ----------------

    Operator's Prima Facie Case:

    "The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 08/12/2016 07:42:40.

    The Operator Reported That...

    The appellant was the driver.
    The appellant was the keeper.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
    A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
    The ticket was issued on 28/11/2016.
    The charge is based in Contract.

    The Operator Made The Following Comments...

    The appellant parked their vehicle in an area we manage and incurred a charge as they were not parked in a designated parking area(not in a bay) The appellants own images confirm this. Our signage clearly advertises the parking requirements and the charges which apply if they are not met. The appellant received a PCN from us on the 01-10-16 which was paid so the appellant is well aware of the parking requirements"

    Their evidence: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce0375ca33.jpg
    Another : hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce0662389c.jpg

    ----------

    My next response:

    LinkParking operates the grounds but to what extent. No signage states where this starts/ends. The signage that is posted as evidence in the pictures provides LEADS any persons to believe the car park they WILL enter, will adhere to these terms. The entire occupants of the flat i visited at that particular time lacked "Mens Rea", to any unlawful doing with parking 2 cars on that spot, that can clearly fit, TWO cars.

    That SIGNAGE as posted as evidence is fixed on a wall, approx 26 meters away from said "undesignated parking" bay(s), one of which that i was parked on. This also does not state that the parking bay i was parked is contract to ONE vehicle, and ONE vehicle only.

    The SIGNAGE, as stated before, is NOT in view of the ISOLATED 4 parking bays, and leads persons to believe the CAR PARK they WILL enter leading from the MAIN road (Harescombe Drive) adhere to said rules of the SIGNAGE as posted for evidence via LinkParking.

    This SIGNAGE is absolutely, without a doubt, disproportionate with the size of the apparent enforced area . At nighttime, the SIGNAGE provided as evidence was not able to be seen in the dark. This is too far aware from these ISOLATED bays.

    The opportunity LinkParking have as a parking enforcement agency to post signs that DESIGNATE THOSE 4 PARKING BAYS is not unreasonable. They have a fence directly opposite, and two walls to the left and directly infront of the bays.

    As stated by LinkParking, their information is false. I was NOT aware of the parking requirements as i have parked there for the last 6 months, with no previously tickets applied. I have had only one from another area in their enforcement area, for not displaying a parking permit, to which i paid in full. within 2 days.

    I the "defendant", lacked "Mens Rea", to any wrong doings with these allocated 4 parking bays. Inappropriate SIGNAGE is the sole purpose I am appealing this PCN.

    --------------

    Our signage clearly informs the motorist of the area we cover, and has been audited by the IPC.

    The appellant received a previous ticket on the same estate and we have attached prove of this so we are unsure why he claims it was in another area. This was issued in the month prior to the ticket now on appeal. This supports our claim that he was aware of the parking requirements.

    They attached their sitemap... : hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce2f31d196.png

    Take note here. This is THEIR own evidence that they have supplied... i have circled the yellow to where the road is in question. Also, i have done an orange box to show where my car where. Look at their drawing and how they have circled and crossed where their signs are, THEN they draw a bound box to where their enforment areas are!!!!! It's not even in the area yet my PCN was still dismissed!!! HOW?!?!?!

    (They attached the copy of the previous ticket) - Bit of background here. I stated this parking ticket to declare i knew that i was in the wrong with THAT parking ticket.

    --------

    My next response:

    Your SIGNAGE does NOT specify to which area you cover. You have multiple SIGNS, which do NOT dictate to where their respective areas cover. Your evidence which shows these areas are clear once a ticket HAS BEEN GIVEN but NOT before.

    New Evidence attached shows the AREA in question to which the SIGNAGE in question is not within an ACCEPTABLE position relating to the 4 ISOLATED parking spots, one of which i was parked in.

    "PCN New Ev 001" - Shows the bounding box to which the SIGNAGE APPEARS to enforce with the FACT it is on a wall ADJOINING to a SEPERATE CAR PARK leading from the MAIN ROAD (HARESCOMBE DRIVE).

    "PCN New Ev 002" - Illustrates this (apologies for the AA Van, was grabbed from Google Maps) BOUND box that the SIGNAGE IS ADVERTISING to adhere to.

    "PCN New Ev 003" - Viewing ENTERING the road (Harescombe Drive). The SIGNAGE as drawn in ORANGE shows upon leaving HARESCOMBE DRIVE and ENTERING A CAR PARK, YOU WILL follow these terms if you wish to park there. How does this even suggest this also includes the 4 ISOLATED CAR SPOTS that is 25 METERS + FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD?

    "PCN New Ev 004" - Another view looking UPWARDS from where the CAR WAS PARKED at the time of the PCN issued. LinkParking has a duty to FULLY display PARKING REQUIREMENTS that is RELEVANT TO SAID "DESIGNATED PARKING BAYS". How is it that ONE SIGN, 25 METERS AWAY, is deemed as SUITABLE? As drawn in by PINK, there is MORE than enough places to display APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE for these 4 ISOLATED PARKING BAYS.

    New EV01: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce38253535.jpg
    New EV02: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce382296fc.jpg
    New EV03: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce382756ab.jpg
    New EV04: hxxps://i.imgsafe.org/ce382adf57.jpg

    -------

    Adjudicator's Decision:

    The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site which make it clear any driver failing to park within the confines of a marked bay agree to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on land they manage, in close proximity to a sign advertising the terms, and a signed statement of truth that the vehicle was outside of a bay. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge was lawfully issued.

    The Appellant first claims the bay is not clearly marked. Had this claim been based on the Operator’s evidence alone I may have agreed, but the Appellant’s evidence makes it quite clear that the area in which they parked their vehicle was not a bay and, although it is not relevant, causing obstruction.

    The Appellant claims the signage was insufficient. I was unsure whether the evidence provided was sufficient on this point as it did not show the whole area around the vehicle. However, the Operator’s evidence that this is the second notice received on this vehicle in a little over a month means I am satisfied the Appellant was aware and had notice of the terms on this occasion, irrespective of the situation before the first notice.

    The Google maps are not current and the legislation referred to has no jurisdiction over private land. The issue of ‘mens rea’ is irrelevant as this relates to criminal law, and there is no requirement to show any intent or recklessness on the part of the driver for the charge to be lawful.

    The appeal is dismissed.

    -----


    So that's it, can i do anything from here? They're basically doing this on insufficient evidence on my part? The bay itself is showing by lines, and does not show it is restricted to one car, at all. In fact, the occupants of the flat to whom the parking space is linked to, said they've parked there with two cars before and had no hassles/issues/complaints and more importantly, no tickets!!

    Any information would be much appreciated!
    Last edited by Luke Rick; 16-01-2017 at 3:32 PM. Reason: Edited
Page 3
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 7th Jul 17, 9:43 AM
    • 39,770 Posts
    • 79,607 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    The Prankster has two mentions of Link Parking in the last few days on his blogspot.

    You should complain to your MP about this, and point him in the direction of Stephen Dougherty, MP for Cardiff as he has been getting a lot of complaints about Link.

    Also mention in court that Link have been the subject of a Parliamentary question as they have been causing lot of problems for residents in other cases where they have no business harassing genuine residents and their visitors.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,734Posts Today

7,724Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin