IAS second stage appeal Parking enforcement brighton

Coupon-mad

As alleged breach is used in the NTK does this not mean that they contradict themselves and actually do have a point for GPEOL ?

Yes - make that crystal clear!

I have a few things I noticed. Your heading to point #1 says:

1) Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements under Paragraph 8 of POFA 2012, Schedule 5, 6, 2 and 7 (see file attachments NTK)

but then at the end you've added two more, so the title needs amending:

Due to being non-compliant with the IPC CoP and Schedule 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the POFA 2012, PE are not able to establish keeper liability of the vehicle for the alleged parking charge. Therefore, any action against the keeper should be withdrawn.

and in section 2 you could add to the 4th para from the end:

One cannot contract to be allowed to do something the sign states as not ‘allowed/unauthorised’. It is a legal nonsense for an agent of a landowner which intends to disallow trespass, to offer to let a person continue to trespass in exchange for a fee. That was not in the contemplation of the landowner at the time of instructing the Operator; I know this as we are residents and have had communications from the landowner explaining that the parking enforcement is to deter breach and trespass. * In fact the only consideration that flowed in respect of parking arrangements was between the household and the landowner, which issued a valid permit (evidence attached) to the householder through the tenancy agreement at 20 St. Aubyns property. PE did not offer this permit so no consideration flowed from them; they merely act on behalf of a named principal, meaning that they are administrators/commercial contractors only - i.e. agents with a bare licence but negative responsibility to the site and the motorists who use it.

To point 4 you could add to this bit:

Furthermore, it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the IPC CoP to allow the operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the IPC Code of Practice. In addition, I contend that the contract only allows this operator to issue tickets where a breach of contract or trespass has occurred, putting up signs to deter breach, not to issue contractual charges allowing motorists to park in breach.*


* do you have any letter about the parking permits you can attach where the landowner or their Managing Agent has said the parking enforcement is to deter breach, or to ensure only permit holders can park, no-one else, that sort of thing? It would be evidence to show the agent isn't acting as instructed by the landowner.

romantix

thanks coupon mad - really helpful. have added all your points - can you advise me if you think i am making the point clear re the NTK and GPEOL?

unfortunately no i dont have any letter about the parking permits

romantix

all sent, will update you all when i hear back. Thanks for all your help - much appreciated

romantix

thanks for all your help - a successful claim based on the time frame that they lapsed in sending NTK.


I do have another one, so will post in a separate thread if im struggling. thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Great stuff - please can you copy & paste the decision?