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

Dee140157

Ok so onto formulating a IPC appeal .

Ever since they received DVLA accreditation, they seem to be rejecting appeals without reading them throroughly, so I suggest a step by step very basic approach in words of one syllable why they are wrong.

It seems they can't read legal points very clearly so everything must be pointed out to them in easy words!

Coupon-mad

So on to IAS stage then. Do some in depth reading of the recent Link Parking and PCM threads which discuss IAS wording. It's not as easy as POPLA but I believe it's winnable if written more like a court defence, with evidence attached such as the non-existent NTK, annotated with each and every flaw which renders keeper liability not possible for them. If your evidence is the stronger version then you should win but this isn't like a POPLA appeal and should not be written like a template.

NobleSX

If the IAS stage is lost, what happens next?

Coupon-mad

Nothing, probably, unless you panic and pay - you really do need to search and read other threads such as Daps' thread where he lost his IAS appeal, as well as ALL the other recent IAS appeals being discussed (we can't repeat the same advice again and again - easier that you search and much more thorough for you in terms of finding more). The risk is a small claim of course but that's the same as it ever was before IAS or POPLA existed...please don't ask how likely it is, who knows, how long its a piece of string?!...but we can help with defences too which is what Daps is ready for if it goes that way.

You just need to use 'search this forum' next to 'forum tools' above the sticky threads. Keyword would be 'IAS' or 'PCM' or 'CMS' or 'Link' to find recent IAS appeals being discussed only this past week or two - there are several and much has already been said! Don't only read ones about your PPC.

An IAS appeal lost is NOT binding on the appellant (consumer).

NobleSX

Thanks Coupon. I've checked out all the threads you mention. There is a lot to wade through. I hadn't really meant to ask that question above, apologies. Rather my intent was to ask the court appearance ratio for IPC companies. A search hasn't brought up anything like that.

My searches have brought up that IPC compaines are generally rejecting all appeals in recent history. Perhaps indicating a fundamental change?

A search of this forum did spring up something interesting - a company called parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Are they legit? They claim that if they fail an appeal they wil pay the ticket. If this is true then their £16 fee is very compelling.

Dee140157

Parking ticket appeals is very legit and run by 2 trusted members of the forum. They do post on here too, but tend to help with more "serious cases". By that I mean the court cases etc I know nothing about.

So if you want to try them instead I wouldn't blame you with IPC.

Certainly beats the charge the IPC want to give you.

Coupon-mad

NobleSX wrote: »

Thanks Coupon. I've checked out all the threads you mention. There is a lot to wade through. I hadn't really meant to ask that question above, apologies. Rather my intent was to ask the court appearance ratio for IPC companies. A search hasn't brought up anything like that.

My searches have brought up that IPC compaines are generally rejecting all appeals in recent history. Perhaps indicating a fundamental change?

A search of this forum did spring up something interesting - a company called parkingticketappeals.org.uk
Are they legit? They claim that if they fail an appeal they wil pay the ticket. If this is true then their £16 fee is very compelling.

A handful of IPC firms have started to try small claims in dribs and drabs - e.g. District Enforcement (the pariah currently ruining the student experience at Staffs University - be warned, prospective students!). But they were litigious anyway even when they were in the BPA. But Link Parking are 'small fry' in my view and even a lost IAS appeal wouldn't save them if they tried a doomed and badly prepared small claim. For example PCN(NW) started some terrible small claims last year (laughable) and all were dropped. I see Link Parking as falling into that 'hopeless' bracket and we'll see in the long run if they even bother to pursue!

Most PPCs' modus operandi was always (before POFA 2012) and still is, to send a flurry of debt collector threatograms in the hope of scaring people to pay. And IPC members also now enjoy the use of a Gladstones Letter before Claim which Dyl Kuril of District Enforcement kindly confirmed to someone, cost the PPC just £2.50 (big deal!). So that's what I would expect a PPC to do, some letters and/or a Gladstones template LBC which would need a rebuttal.

PTA is run by two members from here (not me) and yes you can trust them to handle it if you prefer, for £16.

NobleSX

I only have a few more days to finish this appeal to the IAS, but every time I try to tailor and legalese my response I just glaze over.
I tried contacting the PTA by email as their system does not accept Link Parking in their application process so I cannot proceed. I sent my email over a week ago and still no response at all.
So, I just need to get on with the appeal. Here goes:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle registration XXXXXX and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against this notice on the following grounds:
1: Non-compliant NtK. (Please see attachment Img1 & Img2)
In breach of the IPC CoP the Notice to Keeper (NtK) makes no reference to an appeals process, how to appeal or the existence of an IAS appeal.
At no point on the NtK is the 'period of parking' specified as a time period. Under Paragraph 8 (2)(a), it states that “The notice must – specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. Again, the IPC CoP raises this point under Part C, 3.1(h) in that the NtK must “Specify the period of parking and the time of the issue of the Notice to Driver”. The word 'and' shows the IPC intend that two distinct times must be shown. In the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the 'period of parking' is a time that must be recorded and shown on a Notice to Driver (NtD) and a NtK. In practice it must be a period of time spanning several minutes and it is not enough for an Operator to use generic wording to the effect that this is just the 'period that preceded the NtD'.

2) Inadequate and Insufficient Signage - no contract formed (please see attachments ImgS1, ImgS2 and ImgS3)
The signage on entry to the land is improper and insufficient. As such, the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, consideration, acceptance, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. Even if there was a contract, which is denied, then it is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs1999).

As suggested under Schedule 1 of the IPC CoP “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. After revisiting the site since receiving the NtK, signage on entry to the land does not meet this criteria.
Additionally, another sign in place is obscured by trees. In all instances the text is too small to read as demonstrated in attachments.
Finally, the sign lists three classes of vehicle where permission has been given to park (i.e. vehicles parked fully within the confines of a marked bay which display either a) a valid blue badge, b) a valid pay and display ticket or c) a valid parking permit).

Applying the principle of contra proferentem, it cannot be possible to form a contract.
Regards,
xyz

I’m sure I’m missing a lot. Any advice thankfully received.

Dee140157

It is a start but I would expect more flaws with the NTK and much more details about signage.

Don't forget you will need to send evidence in the sense that you send them a copy of you NTK with the relevant points underlined and photos of signage etc.

Have you read through the successful appeals in this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5052217

And have you looked at all the examples C-M links to in the newbie sticky?

You need to break each point down and explain exactly how it breaches either POFA 12 or the IPC code.

So eg looking at your signage

As suggested under Schedule 1 of the IPC CoP “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. After revisiting the site since receiving the NtK, signage on entry to the land does not meet this criteria.

The sign that is there at the entrance is at an angle of xx degrees away from the road ahead making not difficult to see. - this may not what is wrong with it, I haven't see it, but you need to say what is wrong.

Additionally, another sign in place is obscured by trees

Not only is it obscured by a tree, but you would have to push your way through a hedge to be able to get close enough to it to be able to read it. The height is such that anyone under about 7 foot tall would have to crane their necks to read it. It is certainly higher than the suggested height for signs in the code of practice - and quote the height in the cop.

And so it continues.you have so much more you need to say. Spell every little thing out.


And you need to do the same with the NTK as well. Put up a copy of it if you need to to see of there is anything else that can be found.


As it stands I worry that this would fail.

Coupon-mad

In breach of the IPC CoP the Notice to Keeper (NtK) makes no reference to an appeals process, how to appeal or the existence of an IAS appeal.

Should be (because breach of the POFA is far more important than a mere breach of a code of practice):

In flagrant breach of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, the NTK makes no reference to an independent appeals process. There is nothing at all about how to appeal or the existence of an IAS appeal stage.

Also if you are appealing as keeper with one argument being 'non-compliant NTK' you need to spell out what that means - i.e. say that because of these flaws and omissions in wording, the PPC has failed to met the mandatory requirements of the 'second condition' for keeper liability, within Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.