Please help with park with ease/IAS appeal

Edna_Basher

seasailor46 wrote: »

the sign is different to the one in the Lake District, will try and post the picture up later.

Thanks seasailor46. It's a shame that the sign is different; nonetheless, it would be good to see a picture.

seasailor46

I received the appeal rejection email from Park with Ease 10 days ago so I believe I've another 11 days to submit an appeal to the IAS.

I'm not very good with writing letters so have been struggling with this for a few days now. My draft goes like this;

Dear xxxxx

I am appealing this parking charge as the Notice to Keeper was issued outside of the 14 day period as required by the POFA 2012. The IPC to which Park with Ease are a member, also state in section 5 of their code of practise that the notice to keeper be given so that it will be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.

Furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day in question, therefore as Park with Ease have failed to comply with the POFA 2012 I cannot be held liable as the registered keeper.

Please instruct Park with Ease to cancel this charge notice

Regards
Mr XXXXX

I was going to attach both sides of the notice to keeper letter with the period of parking and the date of issue highlighted, I was also going to highlight where keeper liability is inferred but write on it that the letter fails to comply with POFA 2012

Coupon-mad

No, base it on the one I linked - you have missed more than you have included. And you cannot rely on 'not the driver' unless you PROVE IT.

seasailor46

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Thanks seasailor46. It's a shame that the sign is different; nonetheless, it would be good to see a picture.

Sorry, the forum doesn't seem to allow me to post pictures with being new.

Coupon-mad - Thanks for the advice, will change my appeal letter as per the one you suggested.

Coupon-mad

Yes but still show us the draft, as I said there is something I want to add about the Regs (extra stuff not tried before). And tell us what attachments of evidence you intend to show the IAS.

And we KNOW you can't post pictures - we want you to post a 'broken' link like all the zillions of other newbies do here every day. Change the http to hxxp.

seasailor46

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Thanks seasailor46. It's a shame that the sign is different; nonetheless, it would be good to see a picture.

Here you go, hope it works this time!

hzzp://i61.tinypic.com/1yk00o.jpg
hzzp://i57.tinypic.com/309nbt4.jpg

bazster

seasailor46 wrote: »

Here you go, hope it works this time!

http://i61.tinypic.com/1yk00o.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/309nbt4.jpg

Utter, utter crap signage. "Failure to pay" is as clear an indication as you could want of a liquidated damages clause, which ought to be a slam-dunk win on "no GPEOL" at the IAS, but who knows whether it will be? Also, what is "maximum charge of £50" supposed to mean? That could mean anything from £0.01 to £50.00.

Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

Edna_Basher

Nice sign! There are so many flaws that it’s hard to know where to start.

Firstly, there is no mention of the actual company name Park With Ease Ltd and no mention of the Company Number 07919606, thus breaching Companies Trading Disclosure Regulations. The sign could not possibly have formed a contract between Park With Ease Ltd and the driver.

Even if Park With Ease Ltd had succeeded in forming a contract with the driver:

• The sign makes no indication that Park With Ease Ltd will apply to the DVLA for Registered Keeper details in the event that the Parking Charge remains unpaid; Park With Ease Ltd could only pursue the driver.
• The sign does not bear the IPC’s logo meaning that even if Park With Ease Ltd had formed a contract with the driver, this contract could not incorporate the IPC’s made-up rules (including the so-called “independent” appeals process which is unfairly biased against the driver).
• There is uncertainty over the level of charge that would arise in the event that the driver failed to pay for parking; the sign specifies a “maximum” charge of £50 (meaning that the charge could be less than £50)

Even the IAS couldn’t possibly determine that this sign was capable of setting a valid “contractually-agreed sum”.

bazster

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Firstly, there is no mention of the actual company name Park With Ease Ltd and no mention of the Company Number 07919606, thus breaching Companies Trading Disclosure Regulations. The sign could not possibly have formed a contract between Park With Ease Ltd and the driver.

The very prominent text "The money from this car park helps us protect wildlife for the future", alongside and within the same demarcations as the logo for The Wildlife Trusts, suggests that if a contract is formed at all it is with The Wildlife Trusts, not with Park With Ease which is identified only as managing the car park, there is no indication whatsoever of any attempt by Park With Ease to form a contract.

rdr

The sign also contradicts its self, pay before returning to car vs pay online up to 48 hours after parking.