CM Services Ltd - Parking Fine

Cas_m_99

[IMG]hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/2vlr4nl.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]hxxp://i62.tinypic.com/5zme86.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]hxxp://i59.tinypic.com/zk5105.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]hxxp://i57.tinypic.com/kbq13s.jpg[/IMG]

Will upload NTK when it arrives.

Dee140157

Edna_Basher

Interesting signs - there’s certainly plenty of scope to discredit them in your appeal to the IAS when the time comes.

Even though the IPC member operating this car park is Comprehensive Management Services Limited, the most prominent company name to appear on the signage is CM Services Ltd, a totally separate company which I believe to be totally unrelated to this operator. The name “CM Services Limited” even appears on the Payment Slip on the back of the PCN. On this basis, I think there is a strong argument that the signs have failed to establish a binding contract between Comprehensive Management Services Limited and the driver (i.e. because the driver is more likely to believe that any contract would be with CM Services Ltd).

Also, the actual terms and conditions on the signs make a pretty lame effort to establish a “contractual agreement” in respect of what is very clearly a breach of the rules (i.e. parking otherwise in accordance with what is permitted).

Dee140157

Also, the actual terms and conditions on the signs make a pretty lame effort to establish a “contractual agreement” in respect of what is very clearly a breach of the rules (i.e. parking otherwise in accordance with what is permitted).

I think however several IAS cases have been lost by trying to claim this is a breach of contract and therefore there is no GPEOL. This is not a strong argument at IAS even though I agree with you!

Coupon-mad

Cas_m_99 wrote: »

I appreciate that but think that comment was unnecessary.

I am sorry. You are right. Must be the 'middle aged moo' syndrome some women morph into - or lack of sleep sometimes due to my OH's late shifts, and my job starting early each morning. Sorry. I do want to help you win!

I have spotted that the NTD is not compliant as a NTD for the purposes of the POFA 2012, so that, plus a non-compliant NTK in the post will be useful evidence in the end, at IAS stage, as long as you DO NOT give away who the driver was at any point in this process. And you have a great appeal point with those signs of course! |Anyway, here's an example of an IAS appeal we are currently trying which has some relevance:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66459844#Comment_66459844

In that first point about 'no specified period of parking' (which is not the same as the 'time of issue' of the NTD), it says:

''In the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, the 'period of parking' is a time that must be recorded and shown on a Notice to Driver (NtD) and a NtK. In practice it must be a period of time spanning several minutes and it is not enough for an Operator to use generic wording to the effect that this is just the 'period that preceded the NtD'. ''

So look at your NTD and have a chortle about the fact it's not just the word 'Mercedes' they can't spell! You would have though ex-clamping scumbags would know what the word 'proceeds' mean! In fact if you take it literally, one meaning of proceeds is 'progresses from' or 'goes ahead' (the opposite of precedes) and I think the IAS Assessor will see the irony of the typo if you clearly raise that point in due course at IAS stage only!

And isn't that IPC sign on the back of the entrance wall where it can't be seen before you drive in and park?

Dee140157

And isn't that IPC sign on the back of the entrance wall where it can't be seen before you drive in and park?

My turn to say good spot C-M.

Cas_m_99

No - you cant see the signage until you are inside the car park.

I did giggle when I read how he/she had written 'Mercedes', just goes to show the brains (or lack of) behind these kind of operations.

Thanks for all you time and help so far guys - I shall post my NTK when it arrives

Edna_Basher

Dee140157 wrote: »

I think however several IAS cases have been lost by trying to claim this is a breach of contract and therefore there is no GPEOL. This is not a strong argument at IAS even though I agree with you!

Thanks Dee140157. Maybe we just haven't found the right words to use yet.;)

Cas_m_99

Hi Again Guys,

So I've only just got the NTK through dated the 13th March - only a mere 194 days after the NTD. Also, not only is it late, they have spelt my name wrong on it!

So I've had a quick read of the IPC AOS Code of practice and noticed a few things wrong with my NTK:

1) It doesn't state the period of parking (only the date & time of issue)
2) Doesn't warn that if it remains unpaid after 28 days and the creditor doesn't know the name of the driver then the creditor has the right to recover the charge from the keeper. (it just states that failure to pay may result in enforcement action).
3) It didn't arrive between days 29-57

I'll upload a copy of the NTK for you to see shortly

My next question is shall I use the template as suggested in post #26 by Coupon Mad? or the one on the newbies thread?

Coupon-mad

I would not use a template for an IAS appeal. And even multiple breaches of the CoP do not win:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5199467

That will be you in a fortnight's time, ignoring them! So you could ignore them now.