PCN from PCM Ltd. Stage 2: IPC/IAS Appeal

Dee140157

[url]Http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/TSD16/media/VATR1_zps3696fca2.jpg.html[/url]
[url]Http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/TSD16/media/VATR2_zpsed00fcaf.jpg.html[/url]

Dee140157

I think this is as good as it gets. Make sure you attach all evidence. You have picked everything apart and hopefully you will win. However as you are aware this is IPC!

I don't think I have anything else to add. And they certainly did not get the bit about the VAT.

Have you actually checked the rates for this car park here

Coupon-mad

It looks as good as you can do, especially with the attachments as evidence. I think it should be addressed to the IAS not the IPC, and the Assessor at the end should be called the 'IAS Assessor' not the IPC Assessor.


Just saw some typos:


Consequently, should a contract be found to exist between the landowner and the driver, PCM not having been indetified as a creditor


The NTK from PCM indicates that they are a member of the IPC and abide by the committees’ CoP. (should be committee's with the apostrophe before the s)


Furthermore, due to the high positioning along with the overall minute size of text used, the signage is barely legible making it difficult to read and understand. On page 26 of IPC CoP it clearly states that “The signs must be readable from far anough away so that drivers can read akk the of the Group A and Group B text


The signage is ambiguous and contradictory. In the Notice to Keeper (NTK) the sum is stated as a contravention for ‘breaching’ the terms and conditions’s yet the sign


Moreso (is this a word? Seems odd!)


This doesn't make much sense - too much repetition - and the word asserts should not have a greengrocer's apostrophe*:
In other words, they are not, as the operators assert’s, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, they are not as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice,




* https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=greengrocer's+apostrophe&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Iuz4U6aANuTE0QXJjYHoDA&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1536&bih=725

Popcorn141

Yeah I'm fully aware that it is the IPC, and that they will attempt to pick out parts of the appeal. Its not actually a car park but a housing estate so therefore there are no rates as far as I am aware of. Well spotted coupon-mad I have made changes to the typos mentioned.

I am going to be posting my appeal this afternoon, so wish me luck! As soon as I hear from the IAS with my reply I'll update you all. Thanks guys.

Redx

I believe CM was telling you that the PPC is part of the IPC, but your appeal as addressed to the IAS and IAS assessor , so not the IPC or IPC assessor

same as in a popla appeal you would address it to popla, not the BPA

Popcorn141

Redx I'm fully aware of what coupon-mad mentioned about the IPC/IAS I made the changes to my letter before my appeal to the IAS.

Popcorn141

Good Evening Guys,

I have finally received the outcome of my IAS appeal and I can thankfully let you all know that I was successful, my so called PCN from PCM has now been cancelled! Below is a screenshot of the e-mail I received this morning.

hxxp://s1369.photobucket.com/user/TSD16/media/Success_zpsbb6cf228.png.html

Thank you all again for the help I'm very grateful.

Bazza1975

Popcorn141 wrote: »

Good Evening Guys,

I have finally received the outcome of my IAS appeal and I can thankfully let you all know that I was successful, my so called PCN from PCM has now been cancelled! Below is a screenshot of the e-mail I received this morning.

hxxp://s1369.photobucket.com/user/TSD16/media/Success_zpsbb6cf228.png.html

Thank you all again for the help I'm very grateful.

Good work! 2 PCN's from PCM cancelled in one day! Get in! :beer:

Dee140157

Excellent news. I think we need to build on this one now. I have bookmarked your appeal as a good example of what to do.

Coupon-mad

Nice one!

http://s1369.photobucket.com/user/TSD16/media/Success_zpsbb6cf228.png.html

It's just a shame that nowadays we never hear on what basis the appeal won with the IAS. We are now having to guess in order to build on these wins. And this one was a 'new' IPC sign case as well!

Here was a previous IAS appeal decision from May where the appellant did se why the decision was made, which is interesting as yours may have turned on the same point:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ilelar&s=8#.U_6EOU3wupp

We are going to have to remember to include the words 'prescriptive and mandatory' when debunking NTK wording (copying the IAS adjudicator's own words can't be a bad thing).