Fake PCN For Parking In Visitor Space (IPC Company) (UPDATE: IAS Appeal Rejected)

The_Deep

The driver was parked in a space clearly marked 'visitor', which to me clearly overrides any other signs present. How on earth can it be a reasonable requirement for a visitor to have to obtain a permit before parking in a visitor space when visiting friends? Ridiculous.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. How do you stop residents with two cars cheating?

esmerobbo

The_Deep wrote: »

It seems perfectly reasonable to me. How do you stop residents with two cars cheating?

A resident would not be a visitor would they?

Coupon-mad

Below is the text of the email I have written up. I was going to email it to the chief exec of the DVLA, however do any of you know any better contacts at the DVLA to email it to?

You should be complaining to the IAS and the IPC as well (just as we would suggest people complain to the BPA and to the POPLA Chief Adjudicator when POPLA muck it up).

It strikes me the worst two dismissals of your appeal are:

- the dismissal of the errors in the statutory document of the Notice to Keeper (without which it would be a fact of law that there is no keeper liability). After all you did state what the omissions were, yet the reply says you didn't.

- the dismissal of the fact there is no GPEOL seeing as the PPC actually gave the game away about the intentions of the charge as a deterrent: ''Despite this you chose to park where you did whilst not complying with these restrictions. Your vehicle should have displayed a valid permit to meet the restrictions but it wasn't.'' That's not a contract agreeing to let anyone park 'any old how' for a fee - and without providing permits they cannot impose a permit scheme.


The IAS reply almost sounds like it came from the PPC. Which address did you send the IAS appeal to or was it sent online on the IAS website? I am not legally trained but this doesn't read as though a legally trained person responded. Sounds biased and missed the points.

Daps

Coupon, I submitted it on the IAS website. The IPC website states that the adjudicators are independent and practicing lawyers - I agree, it definitely doesn't read as if the person who wrote that has any legal training or understanding at all!

The Deep, I don't know how I would stop residents with two vehicles from cheating - I'm sure if there are a couple living there an easy loophole would be for one of them to say they are living there, and the other is visiting, allowing them to park in the visitor spaces. But that's besides the point.

The driver was visiting occupants of a flat, the signs do not explain how to obtain a permit, the driver asked the occupants for a visitor permit and they said they did not have one and did not know how to obtain one.

The entire idea of a permit requirement for a visitor space is utterly ridiculous. If a person hypothetically parked in a visitor bay, went up to meet the occupants to obtain a permit, they would have still, according to the signage, agreed to pay the "contractual fee" just by parking there for the time they needed to get the permit, so how can it possibly be legally enforceable.

I think you're letting your own experiences as a landowner cloud the issue for you on this. Residents using up visitor spaces with second vehicles may be a problem for you, but the correct solution cannot possibly be PPCs issuing £100 charges to genuine visitors.

The_Deep

Residents using up visitor spaces with second vehicles may be a problem for you, but the correct solution cannot possibly be PPCs issuing £100 charges to genuine visitors.

It is not. IMO the correct solution would be for PPCs to issue PCNs for £10-15 for such behaviour.

Daps

The_Deep wrote: »

Residents using up visitor spaces with second vehicles may be a problem for you, but the correct solution cannot possibly be PPCs issuing £100 charges to genuine visitors.

It is not. IMO the correct solution would be for PPCs to issue PCNs for £10-15 for such behaviour.

And don't you think it should also be a requirement that visitor permits are actually issued to all flat occupants and/or an explanation provided on the signs of how a permit can be obtained if one is required?

Coupon-mad

Daps wrote: »

And don't you think it should also be a requirement that visitor permits are actually issued to all flat occupants and/or an explanation provided on the signs of how a permit can be obtained if one is required?

Yes because otherwise their inaction has frustrated any alleged contract - you can't display a permit that no-one has been issued with!

Stroma

Daps wrote: »

!

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
Date Issued: XXX

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed


The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"The Appellant raises a number of well rehearsed arguments, all of which are without merit.
1 - Genuine pre-estimate does not apply. This is a pre agreed term of a contract which applies in the event of an act or omission. The Appellant accepts the omission in this case, namely failing to display a valid permit or ticket.
2 - No contract with the landowner. The Appellant has claimed the Operator is not the landowner or has no contract with the same, but they have provided no evidence in support. The Operator has confirmed they do have a contract and have also failed to provide any evidence in support of their contention. The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claim and on a balance of probability there is no reason to believe one account over the other. Consequently this ground fails.
3 - Contradictory signage. The signage is perfectly clear and understandable I do not feel the need to say anything further on this point.
4 - No keeper liability. The Appellant provides no evidence in support of his contention that the procedures under PoFa were not followed.
5 - No contract between the driver and the Operator. By parking on land managed by the Operator the driver entered into a contract to agree to the terms set out in the signs displayed.
"
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

The Independent Appeals Service"

How can you prove something doesn't exist such as contracts? Surely this is down to the operator to prove they have a right to operate?

Daps

Hi there all.

Following my rejected appeal by the IAS I have received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors requesting payment. It threatens that their client "may now instruct us to take legal action in the County Court". I've taken a picture of the letter:

http://tinypic.com/m/if2zae/4 (Gladstones Letter)

Would I be correct in thinking that this is NOT an LBC and is merely just a scare letter?

I have replied to Gladstones (who I would not be surprised to find out ARE the IAS as well which is what makes this entire operation so completely ridiculous!) to let them know that I deny the existence of any debt to LinkParking, and making them aware that I have complained to the DVLA (and to my MP) for releasing my information incorrectly to a company that does not belong to an association with an INDEPENDENT appeals procedure.

Do I need to do anything else now? Can I just ignore everything else unless I receive an LBC? And if so, will the LBC be clearly identifiable (I have read the stickies but examples of this all seem to be PE or Excel, unless I've missed it - I haven't seen an IPC/Gladstones one)? Will it be headed LBC/LBCCC etc., and will it state that the client IS beginning court proceedings, rather than just threatening that they might?

All help much appreciated as always!

Stroma

They must send you a compliant letter before claim before any court action, them being solicitors means they should get this 100% correct. The reality is though that they won't as they are just a grubby company trying to rip people off! You got two options either wait for a claim or pay them.

You have made complaints to the landowners I guess ?