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
    • Snoopycat44
    • By Snoopycat44 7th Dec 17, 9:07 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Snoopycat44
    Parking appeal dismissed by independent adjudicator
    • #1
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:07 PM
    Parking appeal dismissed by independent adjudicator 7th Dec 17 at 9:07 PM
    Hi

    Iím being pursued by a private parking operator as the registered keeper of vehicle that entered a National Parks car park managed by them. The vehicle was in the car park for 21 minutes, the first 10 minutes of which was Ďfreeí, starting at approximately 10.45 at night.

    Iíve advised the operator that I will not be naming the driver in accordance with POFA, but my main grounds for appeal are that, whoever was driving, he or she could not have entered into a contract with the operator as the signage at the site could not be read at night. Other than a ticket kiosk, which gives off a small amount of light, there is no artificial lighting in the area either from the adjacent main road or within the actual car park itself. Signage is limited to the entrance (one large and two small) with no repeat signage anywhere else on site. The operatorís code of practice states that signage needs to be illuminated and there needs to be sufficient repeater signage as well.

    When submitting my appeal to the adjudicator, I did attach photographs of the site at night but these were very grainy due to the fact that the area is, with the exception of the ticket machine, pitch black. Theyíve dismissed my evidence on the grounds that it proves nothing whilst pretty much taking everything submitted by the operator at face value. This includes the fact that the photographs of signage submitted by the then where of a different car park (they manage another one close by) but the operator chose not to respond to my points on this and the adjudicator totally ignored it. The points Iíve raised about the code of practice have also been ignored and the adjudicator has simply sited a criminal case (ELLIOTT v LOAKE) as precedent stating that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a vehicle keeper can be deemed to be the driver and as I have not provided such evidence my appeal is dismissed.

    Iím assuming the operator will now take this through the courts as Iíve no intention of paying or naming the driver. As this is my first foray into the world of challenging a private parking ticket in my 30+ years as a driver, Iíd appreciate any advice or comments from users of this forum.

    Thanks
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Dec 17, 9:09 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,744 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:09 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:09 PM
    It might help if you told us who the parking company is.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ryandavis1959
    • By Ryandavis1959 7th Dec 17, 9:10 PM
    • 170 Posts
    • 50 Thanks
    Ryandavis1959
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:10 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:10 PM
    At least you engaged with the IAS, which you will be able to show to the judge that you have done everything you can to resolve the dispute, which shows your compliance with the new PAP. If it does go to court then use this to your advantage if you get to claim costs. You have done all you can now, time to wait out the next six years if a claim does not land on your doormat.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Dec 17, 9:36 PM
    • 4,788 Posts
    • 3,141 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:36 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:36 PM
    ...which shows your compliance with the new PAP.
    Originally posted by Ryandavis1959
    Is there anything in the 'new PAP' that an individual needs to comply with?

    The very first sentence of The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims is:
    1 INTRODUCTION

    1.1 This Protocol applies to any business (including sole traders and public bodies) claiming payment of a debt from an individual (including a sole trader).
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Dec 17, 9:40 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,744 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:40 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:40 PM
    At least you engaged with the IAS, which you will be able to show to the judge that you have done everything you can to resolve the dispute
    With the flip side of this coin being that the PPC now has further confirmation that their charge was legitimate and potentially enforceable - as confirmed by the independent appeals service which specialises in private parking charge disputes.

    @Ryan - you’re either pretty ill-informed about this stuff and are giving advice that is suspect, or you are following some other agenda - neither of which is helpful to the OP.

    If it does go to court then use this to your advantage if you get to claim costs.
    As might the PPC - with a vengeance!

    But firstly we have no idea who the PPC is, nor do we know whether the independent appeals service was the IAS or POPLA.

    @OP - please confirm.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 7th Dec 17, 9:50 PM
    • 611 Posts
    • 1,571 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    • #6
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:50 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Dec 17, 9:50 PM
    Its seems to have the hallmarks of Park With Ease Ltd - hopefully the OP will soon confirm which PPC they're dealing with.

    I assume that the adjudicator was from the IAS - I doubt that POPLA would stoop so low as to try to rely on Elliott v Loake.
    • Snoopycat44
    • By Snoopycat44 7th Dec 17, 11:06 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Snoopycat44
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 11:06 PM
    Ppc
    • #7
    • 7th Dec 17, 11:06 PM
    The operator is indeed PWE; trying to be opaque as possible as Iím given to understand that PPCs scour these forums for information in support of their claims.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Dec 17, 10:12 AM
    • 6,477 Posts
    • 8,308 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #8
    • 8th Dec 17, 10:12 AM
    • #8
    • 8th Dec 17, 10:12 AM
    The operator is indeed PWE; trying to be opaque as possible as Iím given to understand that PPCs scour these forums for information in support of their claims.
    Originally posted by Snoopycat44
    Yes they do scour these forums but as long as you
    do not show personal/private info, it's ok

    As we know, the IAS is the biggest scam in the UK and
    we know they are stupid but ..... it is the height of stupidity
    for them to quote Elliott v Loake.

    If they don't understand that the courts have said
    many times that Elliott v Loake is NOT relevant, then
    they are truly incompetent

    However, if they think that is the key factor, you will win.

    Sooner or later, you will probably get the inventor
    of the scam, Gladstones Solicitors contact you with an LBA
    and they are more incompetent than the IAS
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 8th Dec 17, 10:45 AM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 5,464 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #9
    • 8th Dec 17, 10:45 AM
    • #9
    • 8th Dec 17, 10:45 AM
    the terms IAS and independent adjudicator do not make a match.
    To start with, what was the name of this independent adjudicator?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Snoopycat44
    • By Snoopycat44 8th Dec 17, 12:53 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Snoopycat44
    Independent Ajudicator
    Thanks to everyone whose responded on this. The appeals service in this instance was the IAS and the full text of their response is as follows:

    "The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicatorís role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

    The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver not paying the correct tariff for parking within 48 hours of leaving the site, agrees to pay the parking charge.

    The Appellant claims there was insufficient notice of the contractual terms due to the lack of visible signs at night. The Operator has provided a number of photographs of the entrance, most of them from the internet, and two others of unclear provenance, which depict nothing. Even if I accept all of this evidence, I am unable to allow the appeal. There is no evidence to show that the signs within the parking area could not be seen, which would be required to satisfy me there was insufficient notice.

    The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

    The Appellant claims the Operator has not suffered loss. Loss is irrelevant as the charge is the amount the driver agreed to pay for parking without paying. Once the driver has agreed to pay the Operator does not have to justify the amount based on how much they lost.

    The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellantís vehicle leaving the land they manage twenty minutes after it arrived and evidence no payment was made for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed."

    There's a typo in the second sentence of the third paragraph though where the ajudicator refers to the operator when, in fact, they obviously mean the appellant.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Dec 17, 1:03 PM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,227 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Its the IAS. Theyre a bunch of crooks. 83%+ of appeals are turned down.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 8th Dec 17, 1:07 PM
    • 1,307 Posts
    • 1,698 Thanks
    Castle
    The operator is indeed PWE; trying to be opaque as possible as Iím given to understand that PPCs scour these forums for information in support of their claims.
    Originally posted by Snoopycat44
    Have you checked to see if Byelaws apply?
    • Snoopycat44
    • By Snoopycat44 14th Dec 17, 4:57 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Snoopycat44
    IAS appeal dismissed
    Thanks Castle. I believe the land is owned by a private trust but Iíve written to the National Park authority to establish if any byelaws are in effect at the site.

    Iíve also written to PWE to say that, in my opinion, the IAS response to my appeal is flawed and that I shanít be paying. They donít seem to accept that they have any responsibility to illuminate signage in order to enforce parking in the hours of darkness, and have simply responded to say that they will pursue via legal action or debt recovery.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Dec 17, 5:06 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,744 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    have simply responded to say that they will pursue via legal action or debt recovery.
    If you want to be arsey, tell them not to p|ss about with debt collector letters, but to get on with serving court proceedings so you can get this in front of a judge, where PWE can explain why they think that an unilluminated sign can create a contract in the hours of darkness and where the judge can read the IAS dismissal, then deliver a totally impartial judgment in this case.

    Otherwise you’re saddled with debt collector hassle (letters) and the uncertainty of whether PWE will suddenly issue a court claim, for the next 6 years.

    Never cower to a bully, smack them on the nose!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Snoopycat44
    • By Snoopycat44 14th Dec 17, 8:06 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Snoopycat44
    Parking appeal dismissed by independent adjudicator
    Thanks for the sound advice Umkomaas. I did state in my e-mail to them that their only options were to cancel the invoice or take me to court, making clear that they should not share my personal details with any third parties but I guess itís standard practice to threaten debt collectors in these cases. Iím going to ignore any further letters from them or their agents unless itís an actual court summons. Cheers!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Dec 17, 8:44 PM
    • 15,951 Posts
    • 24,744 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks for the sound advice Umkomaas. I did state in my e-mail to them that their only options were to cancel the invoice or take me to court, making clear that they should not share my personal details with any third parties but I guess itís standard practice to threaten debt collectors in these cases. Iím going to ignore any further letters from them or their agents unless itís an actual court summons. Cheers!
    Originally posted by Snoopycat44
    Good option.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 14th Dec 17, 9:54 PM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 5,464 Thanks
    Half_way
    You should also get in touch with the landowner if possible.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
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

3,674Posts Today

5,894Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin