Link Parking

Redx

it doesnt tell you, because I just looked , but they have changed to this new system last month where the PCN number and VRN are used for online appeals after they have been logged by the operator

what worries me is that you have not drafted your appeal and posted it here for checking before trying to appeal online to the IAS

I would have thought that as its a one-shot deal you would have prepared this appeal beforehand, prior to starting the online process

cart before the horse ?

Coupon-mad

jamesrees wrote: »

We will send a letter back to Link on her behalf in standard template but with extra added informing them they've failed to contact the registered keeper.

I've just attempted to start an appeal for my PCNs via the IAS website, however it doesn't recognise any of the PCN numbers, I've tried a number of orientations by adding preceding "PCN" or zeroes, but no luck.
Website says I should contact the issuer - how should I contact them? By letter or phone, what's in my best interest & should I keep a paper trail.

We must assume (but we'd prefer to be sure) that you've checked 'How to win at POPLA' - the link in the NEWBIES top sticky thread which says 'read this first' - and based your appeal wording on the same advice for POPLA as for the IAS? If you were thinking of writing the mitigating circumstances (the story of what happened) you'd lose, so don't do that.

You only have 21 days all told from the date of the rejection letter. So you need to get the appeal right and get it to be accepted on the system. The NEWBIES thread also tells you how to complain to the IPC if the PPC has not followed due process - but DON'T do that without trying everything to get a decent IAS appeal in the website in time.

Davidtomdavid

I will be using a rejection worded similarly to the first one linked to in the NEWBIES thread but changing POPLA to IAS and changing the name of the PPC etc. Would post a link but I'm not allowed to yet as a new user.



The complaint will also contain details of how the PPC has incorrectly:
1. one of the PCNs refers to a date previous to when the PPC became a member of the IPC
2. several of the NTKs were received after 56 days after the window ticket, thus contravening POFA 12
3. I suspect that seeing as all the NTKs were received on the same day, they only contacted the DVLA once for my details, instead of each time.
4. I had to contact the PPC directly in order for the PCN number to work on the IAS website.


I'll also be complaining on the above to the IPC.


Any other suggestions?
Thanks.

Coupon-mad

You could post up your draft IAS appeal here first if you like, for scrutiny by the regular posters.

Davidtomdavid

Here's a copy of my IAS appeal - any feedback would be great.










Dear IAS,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because there was no loss of potential income in visitor parking area of a free car park.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
I see that the signs are placed high up and is unlit, so that in darkness no signs are visible and the words are unreadable. I put LINK PARKING LTD to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no entrance sign, no lighting on site and the signs are not prominent, not reflective & placed too high to be lit by headlights. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
LINK PARKING LTD has no title in this land and no IPC compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

I put LINK PARKING LTD to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). LINK PARKING LTD have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that LINK PARKING LTD are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require LINK PARKING LTD to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the IPC Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the IPC Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

4) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012
On the NTK, the 'period of parking' is not shown, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN. In addition, the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

Schedule 4 para8(1): 'A notice which is to be relied on as a {NTK is given} if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt paymentand the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available'

The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

The NTK was also received over 56 days after the original windscreen PCN was issued, which also contravenes POFA2 2012. [THIS BIT WHERE APPLICABLE]

5) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

An unlit sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from 'transparent'.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Redx

please check for spelling mistakes etc

it says ISA in the opening part, lol

Davidtomdavid

Whoops - wrong entry on my part for the global find & replace.
Ignoring that error, any comments?

Davidtomdavid

So is there any issue with my IAS appeal above?

Umkomaas

You've got the main heads covered. It might look a bit better if you did the following:

1. Put a numbered bullet-point list of the appeal headers at the opening of your submission - it will draw the Assessor's attention to the fact you've got the necessary points covered.
2. Your capitalisation of LINK PARKING LTD makes it pretty obvious it's been a 'find and replace' exercise, and in my opinion reduces the strength of your appeal (real or perceived is somewhat immaterial if it doesn't help you). So I'd rework it with Link Parking Ltd.
3. Not sure whether you've more to add here?

The NTK was also received over 56 days after the original windscreen PCN was issued, which also contravenes POFA2 2012. [THIS BIT WHERE APPLICABLE]

Dee140157

"This bit where applicable" are words copied from the template I guess where C-M is saying to add the words if they are applicable! Again you could pick out the relevant section of POFA 12 to back up this point.

I don't know what it means when you say something is a nullity. Perhaps you could explain or if not, leave out?

Did you check with the DVLA to see if your details had been applied for individually with rach of these? If you did and you have proof I would include that in the appeal too as it could mean they got your details as registered keeper incorrectly.