Ticket from PCM. Stage 2: IPC/IAS Appeal

Northlakes

As there was a PPC employee on site there was a clear duty of that employee to mitigate any potential loss. This did not occur and a defence point to this effect should be included in my opinion.

Dee140157

I agree with Northlake. Perhaps refer to IPC code of proactive 14.1 and predatory tactics as well here. And use the words no attempt to mitigate loss.

Also read this thread now too, C-M help someone with an extensive rewrite of an appeal last night and you may be able to crib something that applies to you too.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5044282

altalib

How is this addition?

7) PC code of proactive 14.1
There was a PPC employee on site; it was a clear duty of that employee to mitigate any potential loss. Not once was it mentioned that the vehicle was on private land and should be moved.

Guys_Dad

altalib wrote: »

How is this addition?

7) PC code of proactive 14.1
There was a PPC employee on site; it was a clear duty of that employee to mitigate any potential loss. Not once was it mentioned that the vehicle was on private land and should be moved.

Take it further. You wrote that the employee actually spoke to you when you were attending the baby. At that point, the duty of mitigation should have kicked in. Instead, he got in an argument, photographed the car determined to improve his statistics.

Get some of that in the appeal.

Dee140157

And it is a code of practice !

altalib

Thanks guys!

I have tried to get hold of CM but her PM mailbox is full!

Dee140157

First C-M is a she not a he. And yes when she is absent for a day or two enjoying a weekend off perhaps, her inbox fills up very quickly. Be patient she will return.

Coupon-mad

Dee140157 wrote: »

In the meanwhile my first thought (but I may be wrong) is that it has not met the conditions of POFA 12, since the PCN was 13/08, but posted 27/08 14 days later with the idea you have it on 29/08. You should receive NTK where there was no windscreen ticket within 14 days, not 16. Therefore no keeper liability.

You need to compare every bit of this with IPC code of practice and POFA 12.

The fact that the signage is clearly in shadows and not easily seen in my opinion is another point.

I am a bit busy this week but I didn't see the 'late PCN' issue in the appeal so far? The PCN had to arrive by day 15 and by posting it on day 14 (if they even did post it the same day) it is presumed delivered TWO working days later = too late, as Dee says. Did you keeper the envelope, when did they send it and was it 1st class?

And make the wording more like the re-write I showed in post #7 here - even though this one isn't PCM the issues are similar:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5044282

You can see I have actually quoted the words from the Schedule - not just stated which paragraph number has been breached.

How long have you got, can you work on this a bit more for a week? When is your 21 days up from the date of rejection? Reply and bump your thread again so we can all chip in. If you have breathing space let's spend a week getting the appeal as strong as we all can.

Just a final thought. This jumped out at me, this sentence (below) shouldn't have 'the IPC CoP and' in it as that has nothing to do with keeper liability:

''Due to being non-compliant with the IAS CoP and Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, PCM are not able to establish keeper liability of the vehicle for the alleged parking charge. Therefore, any action against the keeper should be withdrawn. ''

altalib

Hi CM,

Thanks so much for your input!

I believe my 21 days are up on 19th September, so I have time. I'm trying to work at it but I'm not too familiar with what I'm doing.

Dee140157

It's unfortunate that your PCN is with an IPC member, which does make it harder, but you are getting there. It's a big learning curve even for us. It just requires a bit more effort than POPLA appeals.

You need your non complaint NTK information in appeal as C-M says. Hopefully that point will kill the PCN! But we never know.