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

Coupon-mad

Just come back to read this properly - and the Assessor has NOT read the Regs properly (jeez, you would expect a lawyer to be able to read a law!):


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.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! 'Service contract' is defined separately in the regs from 'Service' and the EU Guidelines to the Regulations state that a parking contract is covered by 'service contract'. And this OP pointed that out in their appeal, here:

''In the UK Regulations:
* “service contract” means a contract, other than a sales contract, under which a trader supplies or agrees to supply a service to a consumer and the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.''

From the EU Guidance behind the Directive upon which the UK Law is based:

ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/crd_guidance_en.pdf
''Service contracts...should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to...the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.

For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive. ''


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.

There is nothing in the 'distance contract' definition to exclude this - where the contract takes place isn't relevant if the parties are not face to face. The OP doesn't have to be 5 miles away from the premises just because of the word 'distance'.

In the absence of any case law to suggest my understanding is wrong this ground of appeal fails.

There wouldn't be any yet, as it's a new law. As is the right for individuals to sue for misleading contracts and breaches of the Consumer Rights Directive!


Just thinking - the 'IAS appeal' offered by the IPC is a service contract (maybe an ancillary contract)...the OP has cancellation rights...!

Northlakes

Are we assuming too much? Has a lawyer actually seen this appeal?

The appeal rejection is not signed. There is no evidence that this assessor is professionally qualified. Having seen some of the earlier appeals that have been rejected the replies haven't been written in 'legal' English i.e. they write like me!

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Just come back to read this properly - and the Assessor has NOT read the Regs properly (jeez, you would expect a lawyer to be able to read a law!):

What, for £25 or whatever it is they charge for these appeals? A lawyer wouldn't read the sign on the toilet door for that.

Can you report a lawyer to the SRA when you don't know his name? Or can Gladstones be reported to the SRA for being behind this codswallop?

I would yet again urge the appellant to submit a Subject Access Request to IPC/IAS.

Coupon-mad

OK I reckon the OP should now go ahead and do what they said in the appeal that they would, because clearly this is distance contract and reading between the lines I think the IAS realised it (boy were they desperate to find an 'out' looking at the definition of 'service' even though the EU says parking space contracts are covered):

''Consequently, should IAS decide in favour of PCM I will send a Notice of Cancellation to PCM as is my right under the Regulations; a right extended to me for 12 months, as shown above.''

The Regs tell you how to do this, there's an example of a short and simple 'Model Cancellation letter' in the Appendix.

And I agree with bazster, why not consider also sending a Subject Access Request to the IAS (not to the IPC but specifically to the IAS):

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/access_to_personal_data#valid

Costs you £10 at the most to see what 'evidence' they gathered and where it came from, etc. (as explained in the link). Can't see how the PPC has 'supplied their evidence to the IAS' in the short gap, including a Sunday, that it took to throw back this laughable decision. How is this independent? Not saying OPs should give up trying but the IAS needs complaints about it in the right places. This is wrong.

SosXX

Hi all, I absolutely will keep going with this, I will draft responses for the Notice of Cancellation of the Contract with PCM, The Subject Access Request to IAS and a letter of complaint to DVLA and will post them here for people to give their feedback before I send them if that's ok. Appreciate everyone's comments so far.

Fergie76

May also be worth getting your MP involved.

4consumerrights

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And I agree with bazster, why not consider also sending a Subject Access Request to the IAS (not to the IPC but specifically to the IAS):

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/access_to_personal_data#valid

Costs you £10 at the most to see what 'evidence' they gathered and where it came from, etc. (as explained in the link). Can't see how the PPC has 'supplied their evidence to the IAS' in the short gap, including a Sunday, that it took to throw back this laughable decision. How is this independent? Not saying OPs should give up trying but the IAS needs complaints about it in the right places. This is wrong.

There is a huge difference between the evidence submissions between the IAS and POPLA in that the parking companies submit their evidence to the IAS BEFORE THE APPEAL CAN BE MADE.

To the others IMHO of course no independent solicitor or barrister is engaged to adjudicate the appeal which is why no name is provided - and as Bazster pointed out no independent solicitor would get out of bed for the fee being offered - a point I have raised before on several threads..

I also suggest adding to IAS appeals that should he name of the adjudicator not be provided and he appeal be declined then formal complaints will be made to the relevant bodies including the SRA and TS, and that in the occurrence of any further claim then this will raised.


To the OP - I don't know where you incurred this charge but would recommend that you also complain to the the landowner etc.

PS AGREE RE THE SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST AND WITHDRAWAL FROM CONTRACT STATEMENT

bazster

4consumerrights wrote: »

I also suggest adding to IAS appeals that should he name of the adjudicator not be provided and he appeal be declined then formal complaints will be made to the relevant bodies including the SRA and TS, and that in the occurrence of any further claim then this will raised.

Can't argue with that. There are lawyers involved in this (the two directors of the IPC for a start, and possibly - if implausibly - the actual adjudicator). They can't be allowed to get away with it.

Coupon-mad

A so-called barrister is pretending that 'express consent' and 'implied consent from a sign' are the same (or that he doesn't know the difference) and even worse, deliberately misreading the regs to say that 'service' = utilities when in fact we are talking about 'service contract'. What a scandal the IAS is proving to be and needs reporting to the SRA and DVLA seeing as practising barristers are 'alleged' to make these 'decisions' and are actually telling a keeper they ARE LIABLE TO PAY when the NTK isn't compliant so in law the keeper is NOT liable. That's surely...not allowed...(want to use other words here but won't).

The OP should send a copy of this practice note from the Law Society to the IPC and say we think their barristers need to read it because if the Law Society understands that these regs apply to all contracts, not just utilities, why does the IPC aka Gladstones, and the 'independent' IAS not get it?:

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/consumer-contracts-regulations-2013/

...so clearly their adjudicators are not up to speed, especially if they can't tell the difference between forms of consent in contract law, and can't properly interpret Consumer Rights Regulations.


Would love to see the reply to the SAR to the IAS.

SosXX

I am reading and re-reading my appeal, my rejection and everyone's comments and I am starting to draft all my emails, letters of complaint. SAR etc. I'll post them one at a time as I write them for anyone's comments and for people to use as templates if they have a similar outcome and want to use them. Thanks again all.