Is this company classed as a small company in the flowchart?

Coupon-mad

And as your 21 days is now up by the looks of it from that screenshot, I am glad you got it submitted now. The NTK flaws alone, as long as you attached as evidence, that red-marked NTK, should be enough to win it.

NobleSX

Thanks Coupon-mad. The appeal has been submitted: http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...ps8ba8af85.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/NobleSX/IASsubmission_zps8ba8af85.jpg

Thanks to everyone for taking me this far. I guess I'll know in a few weeks. I'll be sure to post here as soon as I get a response.

elraymonds

NobleSX wrote: »

Hi,

PCN company in question is: Link Parking Ltd.

Do they qualify as a small company in the flowchart?
Thanks.

there is no way to do that in a flowchart check here --> creately.com

Dee140157

NobleSX - sorry I bailed last night, but I was falling asleep at my ipad.

You will know sooner that a few weeks with IAS. They seem to turn them round in days if not hours! So you may even know later today.

NobleSX

I submitted on the 9th but still haven't heard back from the IAS. I had email confirmation that the appeal was received. Perhaps they're busier than usual?

bod1467

NobleSX wrote: »

Perhaps they're busier than usual?

Or they're trying to find a way to work around well-crafted appeals so that they can justify rejecting them?

Coupon-mad

NobleSX wrote: »

I submitted on the 9th but still haven't heard back from the IAS. I had email confirmation that the appeal was received. Perhaps they're busier than usual?

Have you checked your junk mail? This is a late one by their standards.

NobleSX

Speak of the devil, I received this last night (Sunday). It's not good.

Dear ,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): __________
Vehicle Registration: _______
Date Issued: __________

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed


The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"The Appellant raises a number of well rehearsed arguments, which are entirely without merit, and others which bear consideration. I will respond to those without merit first.

4 - Genuine pre-estimate of loss and 3 - Intention to impose a charge for breach/trespass. It is not a charge for breach of trespass. By parking on land managed by the Operator th e Appellant (assuming they have notice, which I will deal with in a moment) is entering into a contract. In return for parking they are agreeing to abide by the terms set out on the sign. These terms make it clear that if the driver parks without displaying a permit/ticket/blue badge they agree to pay a fee. The driver did not display any permit/ticket/blue badge and therefore he agreed to pay a fee in return for being allowed to park. Consequently, there is no breach of contract or trespass or need to show genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is a term of the contract, in simple terms the price to pay in return for the service provide i.e. a parking space.

The next two arguments are capable of being valid.
2 - Inadequate signage. However, having read the sign I do not find any of the arguments made regarding the content to be valid. As for the position of the sign, this is an argument that might have found favour but for the photographic evidence of the Operator showing t he Appellant\'s vehicle just a few feet away from the sign.

1 - Inadequate notice to keeper. Whilst it is always preferable for codes of practice to be followed a breach does not impact on the validity of a charge. However compliance with PoFA does when, as in this case the Operator is claiming liability under PoFA. The Appellant refers to paragraph 8 but if the Operator has not sent a notice to driver under paragraph 7 they can send a notice directly to the keeper under paragraph 9. In any event the point made by the Appellant regarding paragraph 8 applies equally to paragraph 9 that a period of parking must be recorded. This appears in paragraph 9(2)(a) as well as 8(2)(a). The Appellant goes on to say this must be a period of time over several minutes. This may be true but the Appellant provides no authority or supporting evidence for this contention. The onus is on them to prove their claim and therefore on a balance of probabilities this claim is dismissed.

However, the notice to keeper should contain information as to how the Appellant can resolve complaints either formally or independently and they have provide evidence that this was not done. The Operator has not responded to this and therefore, even though I am certain there is another page of the notice to keeper which has not been supplied by the Appellant, applying the same balance of probability test I cannot be satisfied that the claim under PoFA meets the necessary criteria. However, the Operator is also claiming that the Appellant is the driver. The Appellant is unprepared to state who the driver is and so I am safe to assume the Appellant is the driver and the appeal therefore fails."



As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours sincerely

Dee140157

Not good news. It will take a little time to process what has been said, but it seems the reason it has taken time is that they need to find wriggle room. I am to sure how valid their arguments are. Too tired after lvery busy day to work through this at the moment but will try to process it later.

However do remember it is not binding on you. You can chose not to pay and see if they decide to do court.

It certainly seems they expect you to prove you were not the driver. Not happy about this at all.

NobleSX

Thanks Dee, I'll wait for your response.