Help for PCN from IPC PPC

magnoff

Hi there,

We've recently received a PCN charge/invoice for parking outside my daughters flat without displaying a parking permit. She'd only moved there recently and we had no idea we needed a permit to park - even for visitors.

I followed the advice on this forum and ignored the on screen ticket and waited for the Ntk which arrived a week ago.

Firstly its a company car so the NtK is addressed to the company rather than an individual. Not sure if this will complicate things.

The PPC is TSP Car Park Management Ltd. From what I've read up on them they are part of IPC rather BPA, so their appeals process is fairly new and untested (I have read posts where people have won so there should be some hope)

The Ntk is quoting schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 to recover the costs from the registered keeper if we don't name the driver

On the reverse of the NtK are details on how to appeal to the PPC :

"If your appeal is rejected you will be provided with details of how to refer the matter to an Independent Appeals Service (IAS) along with a unique reference number."

They don't say who the IAS is.

I've spent some time on searching this forum and perhaps I appeal against the charge on the following :

1. The signage does not meet the IPC guidelines
2. The NtK does not state a time period the vehicle was parked - only a specific time in the following format 12/11/2013 10:19:00 (this is not the actual time or date)
3. The NtK did not include any photographic evidence that the vehicle was parked there
4. They are not the land owner and therefore cannot recover any costs
5. The charge (£100) is unreasonable and does amount to genuine pre-estimate of loss
6. No Trespass as my daughter lives there

Any advice and help greatly appreciated

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Firstly its a company car so the NtK is addressed to the company rather than an individual. Not sure if this will complicate things

it does complicate things as only the keeper can appeal now (the advice in the NEWBIES FAQs would normally have been that you should have appealed earlier where you are not the registered keeper - unless this is your own company?).

Will the company let you appeal as them (in their name?). If not then you could start your appeal 'I am the usual keeper of this car reg xxxx and as keeper, this is my appeal...' {thereby still not naming the driver}. Can you use your company address so it matches the address they sent the NTK to?

Please show us a picture of the sign on site and the NTK (both sides). Much will depend upon the wording of both. As a newbie, post a broken link (remove the http:// and put a gap in the URL of where you host your photos on tinypic or photobucket).

magnoff

In terms of the appeal, I will be able to appeal in the company name as I do own the company. The appeal will come from the company secretary (ie the one listed in companies house, not the nice lady in the office )

Links to sign :

i59.tinypic.com / s6r502.jpg

Links to letter here :

i58.tinypic.com / mccduw.jpg
i57.tinypic.com / nd35hl.jpg

Thanks

HO87

Linkies:

Signage: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=s6r502&s=8

Letter: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=mccduw&s=8
and - http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=nd35hl&s=8

The signs make it clear that the charge represents a contractual charge. However, the signs also limit use to those with permits so there seems to be crossover trespass/contractual charge. Can't have both.

And no mention of VAT - which is payable (accountable) in respect of contractual charges.

Coupon-mad

'Date of Unauthorised parking event' eh?! On the NTK...schoolboy error = breach = must show loss. The signs don't help though.


So appeal as registered keeper only, thank them for their letter about this alleged 'unauthorised' parking event {use those words} and appeal as you have suggested, but I have added a bit and completely changed #6:


1. The signage does not meet the IPC guidelines
2. The NtK does not state a time period the vehicle was parked - only a specific time in the following format 12/11/2013 10:19:00 (this is not the actual PERIOD OF PARKING as defined in the POFA2012)
3. The NtK did not include any photographic evidence that the vehicle was parked there and as keeper, the company needs this evidence
4. They are not the land owner and therefore have no case to recover loss for 'unauthorised parking' - if so what loss has been caused and to whom and how has this sum been calculated?
5. The charge (£100) is unreasonable and does amount to genuine pre-estimate of loss - and the Notice to Keeper states it is for 'unauthorised parking'.
6. You are a company and cannot identify the driver so need to be sure about the position as far as keeper liability is concerned. So can they explain the omissions of various statutory wording required under paragraph 8 of POFA2012 schedule 4 and how they contend the IPC will still consider the NTK as POFA compliant?


At IPC stage this will be a little more complicated than most so the second stage appeal will need some input from us. We need to make sure the focus is NOT on the signs seeing as the 'purchasing/contract decision' made by a keeper is made ONLY based on the words on the NTK (seeing as a 'keeper' doesn't see signage).

bod1467

Coupon-mad wrote: »

'Date of Unauthorised parking event' eh?! On the NTK...schoolboy error = breach = must show loss. The signs don't help though.


So appeal as registered keeper only, thank them for their letter about this alleged 'unauthorised' parking event {use those words} and appeal as you have suggested, but I have added a bit and completely changed #6:


1. The signage does not meet the IPC guidelines
2. The NtK does not state a time period the vehicle was parked - only a specific time in the following format 12/11/2013 10:19:00 (this is not the actual PERIOD OF PARKING as defined in the POFA2012)
3. The NtK did not include any photographic evidence that the vehicle was parked there and as keeper, the company needs this evidence
4. [STRIKE]They[/STRIKE] You are not the land owner and therefore have no case to recover loss for 'unauthorised parking' - if so what loss has been caused and to whom and how has this sum been calculated?
5. The charge (£100) is unreasonable and does not amount to genuine pre-estimate of loss - and the Notice to Keeper states it is for 'unauthorised parking'.
6. You are a company and cannot identify the driver so need to be sure about the position as far as keeper liability is concerned. So [STRIKE]can you[/STRIKE] please explain the omissions of various statutory wording required under paragraph 8 of POFA2012 schedule 4 and how you contend the IPC will still consider the NTK as POFA compliant?

Subtle edit.

magnoff

Thanks Coupon & Bod1467.

I'll write up a soft appeal to PPC (cut and paste of above) and see what comes back - Should this be done via email or snail mail ?

Should I add anything about charging them for my time etc. or should we wait for the next stage before adding anything along these lines ?


Thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

HO87 wrote: »

Linkies:

Signage: http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=s6r502&s=8

The signs make it clear that the charge represents a contractual charge. However, the signs also limit use to those with permits so there seems to be crossover trespass/contractual charge. Can't have both.

Not just "both" but all three (contractural charge, breach of contract, trespass).


I would say it's claiming breach of contract by saying "otherwise in accordance of above" but they are attempting to dress it up as a contract. As said in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87160&view=findpost&p=917415:

You cannot claim for breach of contract and then say it is an agreed term. Only losses can be claimed for breaches.
You also cannot agree to pay a contractual sum upon breach of terms and conditions, because this is the same.
Finally, in either case the doctrine of contra proferentem would make this whole discussion hypothetical because the signs' ambiguity will be held against the Operator so the case would become a discussion about losses in any case.

Coupon-mad

Should this be done via email or snail mail ?

Whichever you prefer but if the PCN allows email I would use that, as you can be sure they can't pretend it's not received, as long as you use the stated email addy or online appeal page.

magnoff

OK - appeal sent by email (and also on their website) The funny thing was their website refers to the BPA code of conduct and POPLA with no mention of the IPC ??

Unfortunately I didn't get a screen shot and I can't go back to check - Doh !

magnoff

I guess it should come as no surprise that the PPC rejected my appeal.

They've given me the option of paying the full outstanding amount or appeal to the IAS within 28 days

This was the wording given by the PPC for rejecting my appeal :

"The appellants car was parked on private land at xxxxxxx without displaying a valid permit. The signage at this location clearly states a fee will be payable in these circumstances. The signage indicates that by parking without displaying a permit, a person agrees to pay the fee. It is a term of the contract, not a consequence of a breach. By parking without displaying a permit, the appellant has agreed to pay the stated fee.

All photographic evidence can be viewed at www paypcn net
"

An IAS appeal form was enclosed with the response and a hand written Unique IAS number was written on one of the pages

What are my options ?

Thanks