IPC Draft appeal, new signs, parking having exceeded the time limit

Castle

Northlakes wrote: »

Could the PPC not argue that The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 does not apply as in part 1 page 6 para 2 states (a) concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises.

Have I read this correctly?

Yes, that's how I read it as well; but in this instance there were no machines on site.

SosXX

It's submitted. Thanks so much for everyone's help, particularly CM. I'll post back when I hear from them.
S

SosXX

Just had this email response from the IAS -




Begin forwarded message:

From: Independent Appeals Service <info@theias.org>
Date: 20 October 2014 21:07:19 BST
To:
Subject: IAS Appeal Decision - Appeal Status: Dismissed
Reply-To: Independent Appeals Service <info@theias.org>

Dear

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

Parking Charge Number (PCN):
Vehicle Registration:
Date Issued:

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed


The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"This appeal is brought by the appellant who uses several well rehearsed arguments and one novel one, most of which are without merit.
1. Breach of PoFA.
I have read the notice to keeper and consider the suggested breaches to be inaccurate. However, I do not intend to go through each because even if I agree there had been one or more breaches of PoFA the Appellant is unprepared to state the name of the driver. Consequently, I choose to infer from their silence that they are the driver.
2 Inadequate and non compliant signage.
This is a potentially valid argument. Breach of the code of practice does not mean the charge is invalid. The Appellant\'s vehicle was parked within feet of the Appellant\'s sign. Having considered the sign it is perfectly clear in its terms.
3 No contract with the driver & 5 No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
It does not say \"no unauthorised parking\" it says \"parking permitted for\" and explains the requirements for parking. The Appellant argues that anyone parking outside of these requirements is not permitted and therefore acting in breach. I understand the argument but the sign goes on to say that by parking outside of these requirements the driver is agreeing to pay a fee. The terms do not say the driver is not allowed to park; rather they are but agree to pay a fee. This is a different argument to whether there is a contract. The contract is formed when the driver accepts, by parking, the offer set out by the Operator in the terms on the sign. The charge is therefore the agreed price and an express term of the contract. It is not a penalty or a claim for loss as a result of breach of contract or trespass. In any event penalty clauses are enforceable and the Operator is not required to show genuine pre-estimate of loss.
4 No contract with the landowner.
The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claims and they have provided none. I realise the Appellant is at a disadvantage given that they are not a party to the contract. In any event the Operator has provided me with evidence, which on face value shows they have a contract with the land owner. This paragraph also suggests the terms are unfair. It is hard to agree when the driver had all of the negotiating power. If they were unhappy with the terms they could simply have parked elsewhere.
6 Business rates and VAT applicable.
VAT does not apply to these charges.
7 Failure to comply with the Consumer Contracts (information, cancellation and additional payments) regulations.
Having argued there was no contract at point 3 the Appellant now argues that there was a contract either a service contract distance contract or off premises contract. However, I have not previously been presented with such an argument and it bears some consideration.
Having considered the definition of off premises contract this does not apply as this requires either the simultaneous presence of the trader and consumer, or a contract concluded during an excursion by a seller.
Service contract is a contract other than a sales contract where the trader agrees to provide a service. Service is defined as the provision of water gas electricity or district heating. Clearly none of these apply.
This leaves distance contract. I can understand why this situation might seem to match the definition. However, it cannot be a distance contract as the contract is formed at the location where the business (the provision of parking in return for a fee) takes place. In the absence of any case law to suggest my understanding is wrong this ground of appeal fails.
8 The charge of £100 plus admin fee for credit card/phone payment exceeds the appropriate amount.
The fee for parking is £100. The fee for paying by credit card is £5 and the fee for paying by telephone is £1. The £5 and £1 respectively are fees for additional services above those provided on the date of parking. The Operator has explained it is possible to pay by other means which do not incur a fee. Details of these charges appear on the sign and therefore the driver gave express consent by parking."



As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking cha rge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours sincerely


The Independent Appeals Service




Independent Appeals Service
4 The Stables
Red Cow Yard
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 6DG

w: theias.org
e: info@theias.org

The content of this e mail transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intend ed for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this e mail in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this e mail transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith.

The Independent Appeals Service does not accept service of documents by email.

Ryan_Bryan

"This appeal is brought by the appellant who uses several well rehearsed arguments and one novel one, most of which are without merit.''

This one phrase proves what a stitch-up the I.A.S. is.

Umkomaas

Ryan_Bryan wrote: »

"This appeal is brought by the appellant who uses several well rehearsed arguments and one novel one, most of which are without merit.''

This one phrase proves what a stitch-up the I.A.S. is.

The DVLA should be utterly ashamed that they have conferred ATA status on the IPC offering such a totally biased (in favour of the PPC) so called 'independent' appeals service.

Another appalling example of how easily hoodwinked the pension inflation-proofed DVLA civil servants can be.

Whose side are they on?

4consumerrights

@ RyanBryan did you really need that one phrase to prove what a stitch-up the IAS is

Have stated right from the very start there is no independent appeals service... and still Gladstones don't wish to take me up on the offer - never mind.

Gladstones are only in it to make money both from the motorist and the parking companies.

@SosXX the decision is not binding on you - and would recommend that you ignore this know and the DRP letters that will come in abundance.

If you do get court papers then there will be plenty of help available to you or indeed one of Gladstones LBCCs the ones where they add another £50 per letter to the motorist for the parking charge.

Did anyone take up Engima's bet

EnigmaPart1

Well I knew this would be the case and the well rehearsed line has been trotted out. Credit must go to CM for the "novel one"

Service addresses here we come!!!!!

EnigmaPart1

4consumerrights wrote: »

@ RyanBryan did you really need that one phrase to prove what a stitch-up the IAS is

Have stated right from the very start there is no independent appeals service... and still Gladstones don't wish to take me up on the offer - never mind.

Gladstones are only in it to make money both from the motorist and the parking companies.

@SosXX the decision is not binding on you - and would recommend that you ignore this know and the DRP letters that will come in abundance.

If you do get court papers then there will be plenty of help available to you or indeed one of Gladstones LBCCs the ones where they add another £50 per letter to the motorist for the parking charge.

Did anyone take up Engima's bet

Nope of course they didnt and you know why ?because everyone knew i was right, , although i do have two bets riding on the Beavis Appeal and i am sure people can guess which way i am going

I think perhaps everyone needs to draw a line under bothering with IAS and come and get into bed with me , you wont regret it.

Castle

So at point 6 IAS claim that Vat does not apply to these charges. I think HM Revenue & Customs may disagree.

orwelowl

Not sure how useful this will be but having recently prepared an appeal to an iPC operator their code of practice states that if new signs are erected they should be accompanied by additional temporary signs to inform regular car park users of the changes to conditions.

L