Please help with park with ease/IAS appeal

Edna_Basher

bazster wrote: »

"The money from this car park helps us protect wildlife for the future".....

Perhaps this was just an error by the signwriter and they really meant to say that "the money from this car park helps us protect pondlife for the future"

bazster

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Perhaps this was just an error by the signwriter and they really meant to say that "the money from this car park helps us protect pondlife for the future"

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Nice one!

Coupon-mad

Seen that exact sign before - search the forum or pepipoo or Google to try to find other Park With Ease threads. I have definitely written an appeal for someone which included a demolition of that sign.

Then show us your draft as I want to add more to the appeal, about the Consumer Regs.

seasailor46

Hi

First of all thank you to everyone for all the help and advice, unfortunately due to a family bereavement last week I haven't had the time to devote to this, but I didn't want to waste all the effort so far so managed to put in a rushed last minute appeal on day 21.

Coupon-Mad - I'm sorry, I know you wanted to see the draft and to try adding something but I just didn't have the time, I also realise now the signage was important but I omitted this in the appeal. Anyway needless to say the appeal was dismissed today.

Here's my appeal letter:

Parking Charge ref: xxxxxxxx

Date PCN Issued: 9th October 2014

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the notice issued by Park With Ease on the following grounds:

1) Failure to Comply with Statutory Requirements under Paragraph 8 of Protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4(see file attachments NTK 1 & 2)
Paragraph 9(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the notice must be given in the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. As you can see from the attached Notice to Keeper, Park with Ease issued this notice 32 days after the specified period of parking.

There are omissions of the statutory wording required under paragraph 8 of POFA 2012, Schedule 4. The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid

Park With Ease are a member of the IPC and abide by the committees’ Code of practise. The failings identified above in the Notice to Keeper also breach the IPC Code of practise page 16, Part C paragraph 5. Where an Act states that such a Notice ‘must’ include certain prescribed words, any omission renders a document a nullity.

Due to being non-compliant with the IPC Code of practise and Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, Park With Ease are not able to establish keeper liability of the vehicle for the alleged parking charge. Therefore, any action against the keeper should be withdrawn.


2) Contract with Landowner

Park With Ease do not own the land and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice to Keeper and in the rejection letter, Park With Ease has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment for the title of the land in question. Within the IPC Code of Practise Part B, paragraph 2.1 states the requirement of such an agreement.


Yours Faithfully,

Xxxx

I attached both sides of the NTK and circled the dates

And Here's the response from the Dependent Appeals Service

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed


The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"The Appellant raises three grounds of appeal
1 The Operator has not complied with Protection of Freedoms Act.
This only applies where the Operator is claiming fees from the registered keeper. They are not doing so; they are claiming the Appellant was the driver. The Operator invites me to infer the Appellant was the driver from the Appellant\'s relu ctance to name the driver. In the absence of any explanation from the Appellant as to why they are unwilling to name the driver, I do make that inference.
2 Failure to comply with PoFA is also a breach of codes of practice.
As stated there is no breach of PoFA as the Operator is not seeking keeper liability.
3 There is no contract with the landowner.
This is also arguably irrelevant. However, the Operator claims they have a contract. In the absence of any evidence either way, and given how unlikely it is a landowner would allow an Operator to practice without authority, I find on a balance of probability that the Operator does have a contract.

Furthermore when I got home tonight there was a letter waiting from Park With Ease saying 'legal action pending'

I might be missing something but the whole lot seems a farce, how can the IAS say PWE are claiming the Appellant was the driver, when they sent me a NTK? Also I said I told them I wasn't the driver, I believe I have no legal obligation to tell them who was but they say they 'assume' it was me anyway? How can that be legal? Also (sorry ranting a bit now) what's the point of having a code of practice when you don't have to bother complying with any of it?

Any advice on what to do with the letter from PWE ?

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

So sorry to hear about your bereavement, I too have been there, done that, too many times to remember. Life is too short for this rubbish from the IAS!

The IAS is considered here, to be a kangaroo court and you were never likely to win even if you had shown us the appeal first and we'd added to it. We've stopped bothering in many cases, with IAS. No they cannot assume you were driving and assume there is a contract. Biased? You decide - we couldn't possibly say here in writing! Perhaps most telling is the fact the so-called 'decisions' are anonymous.

So if you consider the letter from PWE is a 'Letter before Claim' (or a bad attempt at one) then forget the silly IAS appeal waste of time, and move on and formally respond to PWE, as per:

Parking - Letter Before County Court Claim (LBCCC) - Fight back! Guidance Thread

And if you get a small claim in the end we will help you defend and the hearing (if any, as not all claims get that far) would be a lot fairer than the rubbish served up again by the IAS.

Umkomaas

Appalling assumptions that the appellant is wrong and the PPC is right, with no concrete evidence.

A rather sinister, secretive process compared with the relatively transparent one of POPLA.

Who is overseeing all this?

seasailor46

Noticed yet more 'dodgy' dealings last night. The appeal was lodged with the IAS on the 4/11/2014 and I have an email saying it was received, the appeal dismissal email arrived on the 12/11/2014


My 'legal action pending' letter which I opened last night was dated the 7/11/2014, how did PWE know it was going to be dismissed I wonder? The IAS in their email say that PWE must allow me 14 days to pay, another thing PWE seem to be choosing to ignore.


One more thing, in the 'legal action pending' letter from PWE they say the keeper/driver have failed to make payment and that the driver was offered a reduced fee which has now lapsed. I'd like to know how they got the name/address of the driver in order for them to offer a reduced fee.


The original NTK asked that the registered keeper pay the fee OR name the driver, obviously I need neither.


One thing I'm not clear on, if these cases do go to court, does that have any impact on your credit rating etc?

bod1467

seasailor46 wrote: »

One thing I'm not clear on, if these cases do go to court, does that have any impact on your credit rating etc?

Only if you lose in court, get a judgement and then DON'T pay it in the time ordered. THEN AND ONLY THEN could you get a CCJ that could affect your credit rating.

seasailor46

Probably tempting fate here but I thought it was time I did an update on the situation, well 3 months on from the 'legal action pending' letter I haven't heard a dicky bird.


Just thought this might be useful to know if anyone else is in a similar situation.


All the best.

seasailor46

So nearly 8 months on out of the blue yesterday I received a letter from Gladstones solicitors informing me that their client has instructed them to recover the total amount due.

They are asking for £100 within 14 days or they go on to say "our client may now instruct us to take legal action against you in the county court"

The letter then highlights how much I am likely to pay if it goes to court (£202.25) and warns that a judgememt will seriously affect my ability to obtain future credit.

I think it's completely wrong that these parking companies have 6 years in which to pursue you, the trouble is we had a clear out recently and I'm sure a lot of the correspondence with PWE has been thown out, plus I've forgotten what my original objection was now...which is probably why they leave it a few months before trying their luck again.

Any further advice would be very welcome as to what I should do next.