PCM (IAS) - IAS Appeal Successful (Thanks!)

Brigadier2014

I have been self-managing an appeal for a PCN issued by PCM (UK) and have recently received the 'IAS can inform you that your appeal has been successful' email.


Interestingly, I filed the appeal on the IAS website at just past noon yesterday and received the success email the next morning.


I find it hard to believe that that was sufficient time for the following to occur: "Your appeal (to be) sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account. Once they have submitted their response the appeal will be considered by an Independent Adjudicator."


To be honest, I am a little surprised; the appeal was not particularly well worded in my opinion but one of the points must have had some weight.


I am posting the information here in case it proves useful to someone.


Sign Text:
=====================================
(Logo) PCM UK Ltd


PARKING CONDITIONS APPLY


NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING

• No Parking in this area at any time
• No parking outside of designated parking areas
• No parking on yellow lines/paved/hatched or landscaped areas

ENFORCEMENT IN OPERATION 24 HOURS


This land is private property and the parking is managed by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd


Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd accept no responsibility for loss or damage to vehicles parked in this parking area


By failing to comply with the above terms and conditions you agree to pay a parking charge notice


FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL


RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE BEING ISSUED


(REDUCED TO £60 IF PAID WITHIN 14 DAYS OF ISSUE)


Failure to pay within 28 days will result in the registered keepers details being requested from the DVLA. Additional charges may apply


(payments and appeals details)
=====================================
The sign was an old one with the BPA logo However it was largely compliant with the IAS COP except for the points I raised in my appeal.


Appeal Text:
=====================================


Appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice number XXX


To whom it may concern:

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX


I am in receipt of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) with the above reference number


I have responded to this notice and PCM have ‘denied my appeal’ on August 28th and informed me to contact the IPC


I therefore would like appeal this notice on the following points:

• Site Signage not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (COP):
  1. The image of the site sign supplied by PCM fails to comply with point (1) of the ‘Other Signage’ section of Schedule 1; specifically it fails use the required language to identify PCM as ‘the creditor’
  2. The sign fails to comply with the ‘Contrast and Illumination’ section of Schedule 1; specifically it is inadequately lit (in fact, not lit at all) and not made of retro reflective material. Although the photographs supplied lack exposure information it is obvious from the blur in several of the pictures that long exposure times were used to increase visibility of the area for photographic purposes. I have since visited the area in question and it is surrounded by tall buildings which admit little natural light in twilight conditions such as were prevalent at the time of the photographs. There are now two signs on the site, both in approximately the same location as the one in the photographs, but there are no entrance or other signs at the site.
• Site signage not compliant with IPC required standard wording in Schedule 1 of the COP; none of the phrases from Group A are present on the sign when a minimum of one is required.
• Site Signage and position not compliant with the ‘Text Size’ requirement of Schedule 1. The sign was not positioned within 10 degrees of the site entrance. The (sole) sign was obscured from the site entrance by a large rubbish compactor or container (partly visible in the photographs); not visible within the 10 degree required zone therefore and not visible to people who park their car and leave the site via the north exit. This situation persists today, as the second (newer) sign is located on an east facing wall adjacent to the southern exit of the site and the sign visible in the photographs remains in its photographed position.
• The Charge is Not a Contractual Fee – it is in fact a disguised breach
  
  PCM LTD has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre-estimate of loss by stating that this is a matter of contractual agreement. However, the rejection letter to my appeal PCM LTD states respectively that the charge is for ‘breaching’ the terms and conditions of parking (NTK text: “…the enforcement action you will be subject to should this contract be breached”) Additionally, the wording on their sign clearly states “No Unauthorised Parking”. Clearly, if we - for the sake of argument only - accept that a contract was properly formed despite the site signage deficiencies and other issues; then parking in an area where the contact says ‘No Unauthorised Parking’ is a clear breach of contract. The £100 charge stated on the sign is obviously part of a penalty clause and far exceeds any genuine pre-estimate of loss on the part of the landowner or site operator.
  
  

===============================================
Like I said, not a work of art. But it worked!

Guys_Dad

And it shows that you don't need an appeal the length of War and Peace (Director's cut) to win either !

Redx

well done

and if its not been done already, it should be added to Dee`s Ias Success thread linked via the crabman sticky thread, so others may benefit too

Dee140157

Well done on your success.

The difference between your signs and the newer ones is that yours used the old failure to comply wording which meant you can use no GPEOL argument. This is something to remember for any other people if their signs are old. It may be that point that won the appeal.

The new signs however can not be won on this. But really well done.

Coupon-mad

It seems to me that winning at IAS stage, where there are old BPA breach of contract signs up, is a cinch. Well done OP for saying the right things!

Brigadier2014

Just out of interest, is there a link somewhere to the "New" IAS-recommended sign text? I have had a search but nothing turned up.


I'm interested in what constitutes the newer, harder to win against, text.


Thanks all for your kind comments!

AoD

Have a look here. The links are still active;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4972024