IAS appeal with PCM UK Ltd

harni2013

Hi all,
As soon as i win a POPLA appeal on one charge, i get another!

I parked on a small housing estate "managed" by PCM and received a windscreen ticket for not displaying a permit. I was on the site for a legitimate reason however since this happened, i have lost contact with the customer (land owner) i was meeting so am appealing it my self.

I ignored the windscreen ticket and as expected, a letter was sent to the lease company. I identified my self to PCN as being the keeper of the vehicle (not the driver) and included my appeal which was copied and pasted from the very helpful step by step thread stickied here. As expected, they have now written to me (2 days after i appealed!) rejecting my appeal and giving me the chance to pay or go to IAS. Now, obviously I'm not going to pay but i wanted to know if there is anything different with appealing at IAS?
There evidence against me and the parking signage etc on site is absolutely laughable so i have no worries about not winning at IAS but just want to know if there is anything in particular i need to do with these guys?

Thanks all!

Coupon-mad

Yes - best to search the forum for PCM (loads of recent IAS appeals posted) and also show us the signs.

harni2013

This is one of the images they provided as their evidence on their site

Edit:
Ive also written up a quick appeal. Im sure you lot can pick lots of holes in it. Im pretty useless with this sort of thing!

IAS Assessor,
I am writing to appeal against a PCN issued by Parking Control Management against a vehicle I am the keeper of on the xxxxx. I identified myself as the keeper of the car to PCM after they sent a charge notice to the lease company who own the car. I have also appealed to PCM which they promptly rejected (See evidence 1) and offered me the chance to pay the charge or appeal to your selves. I am appealing based on several facts detailed below.

A) Charge not a genuine pre estimate of loss
The £100 charge PCM are requesting does not represent a true estimate of loss to them as stated they should be in the IPC code of conduct, 8.1
8.1 All Parking Charges issued by you must be reasonable and enforceable under any applicable legal provisions. If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ in order to be able to justify the amounts. More information on Charges can be found in Schedule 5.
PCM have failed to provide evidence of a genuine pre estimate of loss and have argued in their rejection letter (Evidence 1) that “The issue is not one of pre-estimation of loss but one of a contractual agreement”. There is no contract formed between the driver of the car, nor my self as the keeper therefore there are no grounds for this charge to be enforced.
Signage is not suitable and the wording is unclear
There is no evidence to suggest that at the time and date of this PCM, there was suitable signage on site. There was no signage at the entrance to area in which PCM monitor nor was there suitable signage around the site suggesting that PCM monitor and will issue a PCN if you do not meet their terms. In the evidence that PCM have provided to my self to enforce their PCN, they have showed 2 photos (see evidence 2 and 3) with a sign on show. This sign does not meet the standard as set out under the IPC code of conduct, Schedule 1. They have failed to provide text from Group A in any way, which is more prominent from any group B text.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that on the signage on site, (evidence 3) they have said that the charge will be reduced to £50.00 if paid within 14 days yet on the windscreen notice (Evidence 4), they have written that a reduced rate of £60.00 is due within 14 days. The sign is contradicting the paperwork they have issued to the driver of the car at the time.


C) There is no evidence that PCM are allowed to operate on the land in question
PCM have not proved that they have any contractual agreement with the landowner that they are allowed to recover any losses for incorrect parking. I quote the IPC Code of conduct:
2.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you then you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as ‘the creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges.
Because they have not proved they have the landowner’s permission, they have no legal standing to peruse people to recover their losses.
D) No evidence as to the identity of the driver at the time the PCN was issued
I have identified myself as the keeper of the car. The car is a lease car registered to xxx and managed by xxxx. PCM have correctly contacted xxxxwho have omitted their liability to this PCN by identifying xxxx as the managing company of the car.
The car is a company car which is managed by xxxxx who have my details correctly as the keeper of the car hence why I have been made aware of this PCN. I have identified my self to PCM as the keeper of the car however I deny being the driver of the car at the time. Although I am the keeper of the car, under my companies policy, the car is to be made available to any other employee at any time. The company also give permission for my family members to use the car. Due to this, I cant possibly know who the driver of the car was at the time of the PCN. I would also like to note section 1.3 of the IPC code of conduct:
1.3 You must not imply that the registered keeper can be held responsible for the parking charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act unless the relevant time limits within the Act have been met.
I have identified my self to PCM as the keeper of the car under the time limit before the registered keeper can be pursued (see evidence 5 and 6) as being liable for the charge. Therefore PCM must stop hassling me and cancel this PCN immediately otherwise I will be forced to start charging them for my time and costs to deal with this situation.
It is clear that PCM can not enforce this speculative invoice when they can not meet the terms set out by the IPC. I request that my appeal is allowed and that PCM cancel the charge immediately.

EnigmaPart1

You will not win at the IAS with that signage and what you have written is not relevant in anyway for the IPC

Next time you get a ticket from an IPC member there is now another way of dealing with IPC tickets.

The new way is road tested, and will work

harni2013

Ok well i haven't appealed to IAS yet so what is this new way?
And out of curiosity, why will that signage stop me from winning?

EnigmaPart1

Its all to do with consideration. GPEOL is not an issue with that signage and contract issues will never fly.

Ok its like this, you get a ticket from the likes of PCM (or any other company within the IPC), then instead of giving your own address for the ticket you give a service address.

This is a perfectly legal way of doing it. For a small fee you can say goodbye to your parking ticket

Coupon-mad

Yep that is an option and EnigmaPart1 has stopped short of mentioning that service is from PTAS (Parking Ticket Appeals) run by a poster here (not me).

Another option is to do as I suggested. Do a search of the forum for the keyword 'PCM' and find some cases with a recently written IAS appeal or two, and build your own version based on what you find. Clue - I wrote one only the other day which mentions the fact they change £5 for a card payment in the NTK. Easy to find but will need adapting as the circumstances were a bit different. And the £5 argument isn't likely to be the winning point (even if it wins which not all IAS appeals do, at all).

EnigmaPart1

You may as well carry on doing an appeal (not the one you have planned) as you have already started and named yourself etc

Guys_Dad

The PTAS route seems very clever and worth it.

But you can do an intermediate communication with the PPC. They are purporting to have entered into a contract with you and the charge is a tariff for their services, as against a charge for breach of contract. In that case,
then an invoice with a breakdown of VAT should be demanded during the initial appeal process.

If a service is being offered and the company is VAT registered, then the service should contain VAT and as many motorists themselves are VAT registered, the breakdown is needed to enable them to reclaim it. Even if no VAT is included, there is a requirement for the invoice to say "VAT Not Applicable".

By stating that the invoice will not be considered for payment until it complies with VAT law, you can not reasonably be taken to court as you have not declined to pay, just simply waiting for the correct paperwork.

Of course, the PPC will be reluctant to do a VAT invoice as, at a stroke, 20% of their income will be due to HMRC and if they say "VAT Not Applicable", then HMRC should be notified and will have something to say about that!

So, write and ask for a proper VAT invoice before you can consider it further.

The_Deep

Anyone asked to pay more than a £2 mcharge for using a credit card should report the matter to their local Trading Standards Department.

I reported a hotel chain and they have now been told to stop

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175298/13-719-guidance-on-the-consumer-protection-payment-surcharges-regulations-2012.pdf

harni2013

Hi all,
Ive been doing a lot of reading today about PCM and more importantly, IAS who seem to be incredibly inconsistent with their decisions and seem to just make their minds up dependant on what side of the bed they got out of!
Ive found several recent appeals to IAS against PCM, one of which was incredibly well written. Much better than i could ever do (I'm useless with this sort of thing as I'm sure you've all noticed!)

This may seem like I'm sort of shooting my self in the foot here and potentially missing my time to appeal to IAS (not that it matters because it will loose) but do we think Guysdad's suggestion above would be an idea for me to send the PCM now? I think if they were told that contact would be made with HMRC as above, do we think my "charge" may be dismissed or am i just living in a dream world here.