Appeal rejected by PCN Mgt - IAS??

mikeb2_2

Signage: hxxp://tinypic.com/m/ieqv6x/4

Ntk p1: hxxp://tinypic.com/m/ieqvbm/4

Ntk p2: hxxp://tinypic.com/m/ieqvc2/4

Dee140157

Signage: http://tinypic.com/m/ieqv6x/4

Ntk p1: http://tinypic.com/m/ieqvbm/4

Ntk p2: http://tinypic.com/m/ieqvc2/4

Dee140157

This is we see where your sign is not the same as Popcorn's. It may be the same company but not the same sign.

It has the magic words "failure to comply" non compliant language for a contractual fee model!

However it is difficult to read the rest of it due to angle etc. Is there any chance you can get a better picture?

In the meanwhile search IPC appeals and start to see what others are writing.
Put some ideas together and we will try to help you formulate a plan.

Coupon-mad

Yep look at other threads where people are currently creating an IAS appeal, we've seen several these past few days so you can search the forum for IAS or just read back a few pages and click on threads about PCM and other IAS members where posters are creating their appeal wording.

Do not copy a POPLA appeal, we are moving away from that approach.

mikeb2_2

Thanks. Will take a look at other threads. Can't easily get another picture - the site is quite a drive from where I live - the one pic came from my appeal rejection letter.

Is Popcorn's sign a later model? I see from what you say the "failure to comply" wording on mine is significant, although, all of this being new to me, the significance is lost on me!

Dee140157

1/ Breach of contract (failure to comply) = claiming for damages because the rules of the alleged contract were broken so the charge must be a genuine loss - therefore the POPLA challenge is that it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and if they can't prove that it is then it becomes an unenforceable penalty

2/ A contractually agreed sum is a fee specified within the terms of a contract i.e. the price to be paid for x amount of parking.

IPC prefer contractual fee models (version 2) which are harder to argue.
Your sign shows failure to comply which is breach of contract model. For this they can either a) sue for trespass which they aren't, or demand you pay them the losses they made by you parking but not complying. Losses can only be claimed to restore what they lost, not a penalty/punishment for the "offence" hence they must put forward a Genuine Pre estimate of loss a GPEOL. £100 is not a GPEOL.

However as this is IPC, you need to state everything clearly in Your appeal.
So read a few standard POPLA appeals and a few of the newer examples of IPC appeals we see going in and put together some thoughts and we will try to help you further.

Popcorn's sign is a contractual fee model, much harder to appeal.

You also need to pick holes in any flaws in the notice to keeper. This need to be compared to the IPC code of practice too.

It is a good idea to download the IPC code of practice and read some of the relevant pages.

mikeb2_2

Here's my draft letter based largely on Fausty's:

Dear Sir,


I wish to appeal the PCN on the following grounds:

1. The sign states that “failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a £100 parking charge notice”. This implies that if the driver uses the land other than in accordance with the terms and conditions then they are subject to a fixed fee. According to Schedule 5 of the Code of Practice, this fee must then be based on a “genuine pre-estimate of loss”. In their reply to the initial appeal, the PCM Appeals Team state that “the driver ahd clearly entered into a contractual obligation”. In fact this is not the case - the only sign mentioning any restrictions/charge is an old BPA signs where PCM used to charge for 'breaches of contract' and they have not updated their signs at all. As such, they have not created a contractual fee situation in the car park so the driver has not entered into any contract to pay a 'contractual fee' to be allowed to park as an 'unauthorised' driver - in fact the sign disallows unauthorised parking.
2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Instead of *inviting* the keeper to pay the charges or name the driver as set out in paragraph 8(2)(e), the Notice to Keeper states that the keeper is *required* to do so. The Notice to Keeper does not specify that it is the driver who should pay the sum as required under paragraph 8(2)(b).
3. None of the writing on the sign is larger than 50mm in height (please see photo). In particular there is no “Group A” text which is taller than the minimum height required under Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice.
4. There is no text on the existing sign that is more than 50% of the size of the text “Permit Holders Only”. In particular there is no sufficiently large text relating in any way to the Group B text outlined in Schedule 1 of the code of practice.
5. There is also writing on the sign that is less than 5mm in height which is the minimum allowed under Schedule 1.
6. There were no signs at the entrance to the car park to indicate that the property was subject to parking restrictions despite there being many obvious places to put such signage at the entrance, again in violation of Schedule 1.
7. The existing sign misleadingly carries the BPA logo.
8. There is no large “P” symbol on the sign.
9. The sign is perpendicular to the road, requiring the driver to turn more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead in order to read it.
10. At no point in the sign do Parking Control Management identify themselves as “the Creditor”. The sign neither communicates that the driver is entering into a contract nor committing trespass.
11. At no point have Parking Control Management provided any evidence that they have the permission of the land owner to provide the parking scheme.

Yours faithfully,

Guys_Dad

You don't seem to have a GPEOL paragraph which is probably the most important.

bod1467

Yes. Add in a new item 2 about GPEoL (As point 1 above shows that there is no contractual agreement then the amount requested must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Blah blah......) then renumber the following points.

Chances are the IAS will see point 1 and find for the motorist straight away due to the old BPA signage.

Coupon-mad

The above looks good to be sent although you could just add to the end of your point #1: ' Therefore the charge is not consideration but represents damages, the remedy for which would be to charge for any loss. As PCM have admitted their charge is not based upon a GPEOL and have not realised their signs create no contractual agreement to pay a tariff as consideration, their claim has no merit.

Make sure you also attach a copy of the NTK and a copy of the signage pics (don't assume PCM will supply them to the IAS and they are fundamental evidence for you).

We think you have a good chance as yours is an 'older' sign and they've muddled up the basis of the charge!