PCM declined appeal - reduced charge withdrawn if I go to IAS

SamDude

Hello all,

Someone driving a car registered to me parked at a PCM (UK) 'controlled' space a couple of weeks ago.
There is no charge for using the 8/9 parking spaces as they are free for 20 minutes for shoppers/visitors.

The car was parked in a marked space, however the rear wheels were on the marking line and the back of the car was overhanging into the next space behind.

As the registered keeper, I received a NtK offering me a chance to pay £60 (reduced from £100) if I pay for the breach in T+Cs.

I used the template linked from the NEWBIES thread and emailed PCM (UK) my appeal. They wrote back and have (unsurprisingly) rejected my appeal.

The rejection letter states that if I continue my appeal to the IAS, the offer of the reduced £60 charge will be withdrawn.

The initial letter and rejection letter have been linked below:

PCM (UK) NtK letter
PCM (UK) rejection letter: Side 1 Side 2


Do I need to contact them again to get the appeal/IAS reference number?
Or do I sit tight and ignore further correspondence and payment requests?

Thanks all.

Coupon-mad

Forget the discount bribe - it doesn't even feature in the decision and of course it's not available after a short time , that's how PPCs fool people into thinking this is like a real parking ticket. Forget the bribe - the discount doesn't exist and isn't worth thinking about as the whole charge is a figment of their imagination.

Look at other IAS and PCM cases and decide whether to bother with that alleged 'kangaroo court'. Search the forum for 'PCM' and 'IAS' as search terms and read the sticky 'IAS Decisions'. They are so wide of the mark sometimes it's not worth thinking about the IAS appeal as it's just pathetic - unless you can prove you weren't driving (might be worth testing if you can show a witness statement from someone who confirms you were elsewhere). You'd also need blow by blow flaws exposed about the NTK (as shown on other PCM threads) and a copy of both sides of the NTK in your IAS appeal. It doesn't need any code, just the PCN number.

If you bother.

Otherwise just send a Notice of Cancellation to PCM instead (as covered here where the link to the legislation give you a 'Model Cancellation Form' ):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66687446#Comment_66687446

On balance I think I would just do the latter and forget IAS in the case of PCM as they've used a newer sign (unless you can prove you weren't driving, because that needs testing at IAS appeal). Otherwise, we know what IAS will say. You will realise when you read the other recent threads about them and the IAS Decisions sticky.

SamDude

Thanks CM for your response.

I've fired off a 'cancellation of contract' message (as harni2013 did) to PCM via their online appeal form.
I'll wait a couple of days for them to reply and report back.

By the way, when I stated that someone was driving my car, I meant to say "someone" was driving my car

Al

SamDude

So, a response from PCM following my 'cancellation of contract' message to them. The bit in big text is the size they have written it in the letter.

The letter reads:

"Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice number.

We have already rejected your appeal as detailed in our previous response as we are confident the PCN was issued correctly and is compliant with all industry standards. The cancellation provisions that you refer to under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations do not apply to this contract.

We are now unable to reassess your appeal or overturn the original decision.

Payment can be made:
(payment methods snipped)

If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Yours sincerely,
PCM Appeals Team

What are my next options?

bazster

Dear Sirs,

I note your assertion that the alleged contract was not subject to the provisions of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. I also note that you have given no reasons for your assertion. Accordingly I maintain that the alleged contract (if it ever existed, which is denied) is now cancelled, and I am under no obligation to pay you a penny.

bazster

Basically it's tough-it-out time. The first IPC member to drag one of these to a court will be risking bringing the whole house of cards tumbling down around the "industry", in much the same way as ParkingEye vs. Beavis risks destroying the BPA model.

Guys_Dad

Ask them for a VAT invoice so that you can consider the matter further. If it's a service, then it is VAT applicable, but if they do give you one, then 20% of their "contract income" is due to HMRC on every charge they issue or have issued.

Even if VAT is not applicable, you are still entitled to a VAT invoice that states VAT NOT APPLICABLE.

Wobbly house of cards there !

Coupon-mad

Same as I just wrote on Harni2013's thread - they would say that, wouldn't they?!

I like the fact the IPC seem to me to be rattled and I think you and Harni2013 should just get on with your life and if you need help to argue a defence to a real Court then we'll help. This is no biggie and none of the PPCs seem to understand that most parts of those Regs apply to ALL contracts (and I would argue the cancellation rights do too and it does no harm to use that to your advantage). If a case goes to Court then it would give you a good base for some extra defence points. Even if the cancellation rights are found in court one day, not to apply to this contract (and I think they do apply which is why I suggest the wording I do) then PCM and all other PPCs still fail to meet the other requirements of the new Regs:

- no geographical address and no non-premium rate phone number given in advance of the contract.

- no geographical address of the landowner/arrangements for complaints to the landowner, given in advance by a trader who is merely an agent.

- amount demanded has £5 added for card payments = illegal

- amount demanded has £1 added for paying over the telephone = illegal

- both those extra costs were not communicated nor expressly agreed in advance (nor was any of the contract which was foisted upon the driver).

- certain information required for ANY consumer contract now (since the new Regs) was not served by 'durable medium' in advance.

- contract not expressly agreed (sorry Mr Hurley but parking after 'reading or not reading a sign' doesn't lead to 'express agreement' however you want to paint it).

Hahahhahahaha! Don't you just love the EU sometimes!

SamDude

Thanks CM and others.

I guess I'll just sit on this then :shhh:

SamDude

Happy New Year!

Just got this letter in the post... (HNY didn't last long :mad: )

Side 1 - notice of intended court action
Side 2 - payment methods

Soooo... what are my options now?

bazster

Boooorrrring, just a threatogram from the toothless and pointless DRP. Ignore it, or put it in your loo to wipe your **** with.