Help with Appeal to the IPC: Park with Ease

oops1234

Hello everyone,

So, I got a 'fine' from a Nature Reserve that I visited in April. I received the NTK in May 2014. I didn't realise that you had to buy a ticket as previously they had barriers but they stopped that and now its all automated cameras.

So, anyway I decided to appeal it using the template on the sticky and this is the response I got:

"Dear Mr xxxx


Thank you for your email


I will deal with your appeal below in the order you have presented it


1. There is no requirement for it to be a pre estimate of losses. The site has a contractual agreement which by entering you agree to.

2. Our Signage has been audited by The IPC our ATA and is fully compliant

3. We are not trying to bring a claim for trespass

4. There is no requirement for all payment machines to be operable as we provide the option for payment upto 48 hrs after parking via our website. However we have checked the terminals on the day in question and they were all functioning correctly.

5. We are within our rights to issue the notice to keeper however we acknowledge that for the purpose of POFA this would not be compliant

6. We do not agree with your point

In conclusion we do not uphold your appeal. Your vehicle was parked at the site and failed to pay for parking on the times and date stated within our notice.

We therefore await your payment. We reject your offer to enter into contract for your time spent dealing with this matter

If you are dissatisfied with our response then you have the right to an appeal. IPC Your ref is :xxxxxxx

Regards

Park With Ease"


Any ideas what to do?

Thanks in advance.

Redx

oops1234 wrote: »

Any ideas what to do?

Thanks in advance.

yep , read the NEWBIES THREAD , specifically post #03

4consumerrights

[B[/B]]

oops1234 wrote: »

Hello everyone,

So, I got a 'fine' from a Nature Reserve that I visited in April. I received the NTK in May 2014. I didn't realise that you had to buy a ticket as previously they had barriers but they stopped that and now its all automated cameras.

it is not a FINE !!!



1. There is no requirement for it to be a pre estimate of losses. The site has a contractual agreement which by entering you agree to. You cannot enter a contract by breaching a term - i.e. in this instance alleged non payment of parking. A contractual charge for a genuine offer to park is subject to VAT - so where is the VAT invoice? It is obvious that the sum claimed is clearly designed to be punitive and thus unrecoverable as a penalty. Any contractual charge must be deemed reasonable and fair under CPUTR and this is supported by the Office of Fair Trading's statement on parking charges.

A parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where no loss exists.

I contend therefore that this parking charge amount claimed of xxxx is punitive and does not reflect any loss in relation to the alleged unpaid parking tariff.

It is my belief that the parking tariff payments go directly to the landowner - therefore the offer to park is by the landowner only and that Park with Ease raise all their revenue from alleged breaches. This business model therefore has no commercial justification as it is clearly designed to be punitive.

I refute the recent county court judgment between parking eye v beavis as there is no comparison with parking at that site and this.

The charge must be representative of a genuine of estimate of loss for breach of terms.

2. Our Signage has been audited by The IPC our ATA and is fully compliant -
who charge you for the privilege - did Gladstones write the signage see also point below - no contract made with driver due to insufficient signage


3. We are not trying to bring a claim for trespass -

4. There is no requirement for all payment machines to be operable as we provide the option for payment upto 48 hrs after parking via our website. However we have checked the terminals on the day in question and they were all functioning correctly.

I dispute that any signage present alerted the driver that there was a payment system in place on the date of this parking event. It is known to the register keeper that at this particular car park - there was a simple barrier at the entrance an exit. Therefore it is clearly apparent that parking terms had been altered and that the driver was not sufficiently notified of these changes due to signage not being prominent to form any contract. The criteria for making a contract have no been met offer/consideration/acceptance.


5. We are within our rights to issue the notice to keeper however we acknowledge that for the purpose of POFA this would not be compliant

As your notice to keeper is non compliant under POFA to invoke keeper liability and you confirm that your notice is defective, I cannot be held liable as registered keeper for this parking charge. I am also not obliged under POFA to identify the driver on the day.


6. We do not agree with your point

In conclusion we do not uphold your appeal. Your vehicle was parked at the site and failed to pay for parking on the times and date stated within our notice.

We therefore await your payment. We reject your offer to enter into contract for your time spent dealing with this matter

If you are dissatisfied with our response then you have the right to an appeal. IPC Your ref is :xxxxxxx

] My appeal letter made it perfectly clear the terms for dealing with this matter. As you have obviously read the letter by the statement above, it is preposterous to suggest that by some token your signage makes a genuine contract. The registered keepe cannot be held liable by your own admission and nor was the driver made aware that parking terms had changed at this site.




]I dispute that there is a valid contract in place with the landowner which permits park with east to offer drivers the legal rights to park at this site. I further contend that there is no contract in place granting Park with East the requisite locus to pursue any alleged parking charge through the courts, as a creditor in their own name as any offer to park is with the landowner.

I further dispute by the alleged actions that there was any financial loss incurred by the landowner as Park with Ease failed to alert the driver to the payment system available. I also contend that there was sufficient other parking spaces available which did not deprive the landowner of any revenue.

It is my assertion that there is no planning in place for the ANPR nor did any signage alert the driver that this was in force at the time. This is a requirement of the IPC CoP and the ICO to meet basic criteria. I also contend that the system in place fails to meet requisite standards of calibration and there is no proof of accuracy.

*******************************************

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

*************************************************************

[/B][/B][/COLOR]

A PICTURE OF THE SIGN HERE WOULD BE GREAT - AS PARK WITH EASE ARE SO HARD TO FIND




USE THE IAS CODE IN TIME.

blahblah23

After a little digging on the web from wanting to know where Parking with Ease offices are. I found a few links to names and other associated companies:

Company Name
ANPR TECHNOLOGIES EUROPE LIMITED

Registered Office
UNIT F THE COURT KESTREL ROAD
TRAFFORD PARK
MANCHESTER
M17 1SF

+44 (0) 161 660 4472


A name that also links the two companies together.
Jonathan Flatman

Run a search at companycheck for information!

I hope this helps you to contact Parking with Ease.

The_Deep

This is the first post for six months, it looks to me as though the PPC do not wish to pursue it, Perhaps the mention of v.a.t. scared them off.

Umkomaas

Despite the extensive effort put in by 4CR to help the OP, there's been no feedback on what action he/she took as a result and what outcome was achieved.

Probably the most annoying aspect of giving up time to provide advice on here.