IAS appeal

srs1311

Hi everyone,

Well I've been rejected!! Not entirely surprised but also frustrated as the IAS does not feel independent at all. Heres what they said:

"The appellant relies upon a number of well rehearsed arguments.

First, she claims the signage along the red route at John Lennon Airport is inadequate. Linked to this is her assertion that there could be no contract with the operator.

I have been provided with photographs of the signs and a plan showing where the signs are placed along the red route. I note that the signs are large. The writing is large and set against a bright red background. It clearly indicates no stopping. Beneath this is further information indicating that vehicles stopping will be filmed by cctv and a parking charge of £100 will be payable. In my view the construction of this sign is more than adequate and a reasonable person would know exactly what it means. I am also satisfied that the wording on the sign is capable of constituting a contractual offer to motorists using the red route: stop and pay the parking charge. Contrary to popular belief, to be binding, a contract does not always require signatures; a person's agreement to the contract can often be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the appellant's car did stop on the red route. In my view, this signalled the driver's acceptance of the operator's terms to pay the parking charge.

Given that the operator clearly communicates to motorists the amount payable in the event they stop, I am satisfied that this constitutes a contract for a fixed sum. Pre-estimate of loss is therefore not relevant in these circumstances. If the driver considers the charge disproportionate or excessive, they do not have to stop.

The appellant further asserts that the operator has no standing to enforce parking terms on this land. I have seen a contract between the management of LJL airport and the operator giving the operator permission to control parking on the land. I am therefore entirely satisfied that the operator did have standing and is entitled to enter into contracts with motor ists on this land.

I have reminded myself of the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act in relation to \"relevant land\". I am entirely satisfied that this land is land to which parking terms could be imposed and enforced wight he use of cctv against members of the public.

Having carefully considered all the points made by the appellant, I am confident in rejecting each of them. I am satisfied that, by stopping, the driver of the appellant's car agreed to pay the stipulated parking charge

Question is what do I do now? I dont want to be waiting for court papers to arrive and potentially have to pay legal costs...are the IAS right when they talk about the contract and pre estimate of loss?

Any help or advice would be appreciated...I've got 14 days to pay!

4consumerrights

srs1311 wrote: »

Hi everyone, been very busy with work commitments, but finally got round to writing this appeal out. Thanks Benefit Master for posting the pic, I didnt see this thread till I had revisted the site myself, but it is the same sign :-) Anyway, I've copied and pasted my appeal in below, I know you've all probably read similar many times before but hopefully you have the time to read over it. I've mashed together different things from different people so hopefully it 'flows' okay...

To whom it may concern:
I am the registered keeper of vehicle *******
I am in receipt of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) with the above reference number ********
I have responded to this notice and VCS have rejected my appeal and informed me I must now submit an appeal to the IAS.
I therefore would like to appeal this notice on the following points:

Yikes srs1311 - sorry I switched off reading your appeal after seeing that you copied and pasted Parking Control Management into the appeal... a totally different PPC !!!


Notwithstanding that - the IAS would more than likely have rejected the appeal in any case... due to their lack of apparent independence in the process.


Your choices now

Pay - that is your decision however there is no need to as the decision is not binding on you.

or

ignore until a potential court claim.


However what I also would do now is

Make a subject access request to the IAS for all the details on the appeal including the name of the allegedly independent solicitor who made this decision.

Make a formal complaint to the IPC for their failure to operate in a transparent manner

Copy this complaint to the DVLA

Coupon-mad

Question is what do I do now? I dont want to be waiting for court papers to arrive and potentially have to pay legal costs...are the IAS right when they talk about the contract and pre estimate of loss?

You will have to sit it out like hundreds of others. This is by all accounts a kangaroo court, allegedly, so not sure what you expected.

Did you prove you weren't driving and attach a copy of the NTK showing that VCS were not using a POFA compliant version? Ignore them now and let us know if you need help with a defence re a small claim which would be fairer than this rubbish.

Umkomaas

I think VCS would be very unlikely to want to reveal their JLA activities to a court, and I'm sure the legal 'heavyweights' from across the fora would be falling over themselves to visit the Liverpool County Court to help the OP defend this and expose the byelaws issues.

VCS has far more to lose by taking this anywhere further than (toothless) debt collector hassle.

srs1311

4consumerrights - thankfully I spotted that mistake before ai submitted...have to be careful copying and pasting! how do I submit an access request?

Coupon Mad...I didn't submit a statement stating that I wasn't driving...this is due to the line of work I am involved in and wouldnt want this to be analysed in court. I know its a small chance, and they could not prove or disprove if I was driving, but I couldnt take the risk.

I think the reply by IAS is very limited...they dont address all the points I made about the signage and I think what they say about the contract is thin at best. Theres been a lot written in different places about contracts and the IAS seem to just dismiss this pretty easily! It does worry me that they say theyve seen proof that JLA have given VCS permission to enforce parking restrictions as the 'not relevant land' argument seems to be a big one when fighting airport fines..

Coupon-mad

OK so just ignore them now and you are right, the decision is full of holes.

The_Deep

If the law states that keeper liability does not apply, then it does not apply, no matter what some placemen for the industry posing as independent adjudicators may say.

As CM says ignore, if a PPC wants to chance its arm in court, let it.

srs1311

Thanks for the advice everyone, think Im just going to ignore the endless debt collection letters Im going to receive...however I might be back for some help if I get court papers :-)

srs1311

Quick Update

My appeal from IAS got rejected around 10th December. I haven't heard anything from VCS till today when I received a letter which basically says the following:

Notice of Intended Court Proceedings

Dear ****

Outstanding debt - £100

We are disappointed to note that you have failed to pay the outstanding PCN detailed below:

(details of vehicle reg, location, date and time listed)

We note that you have applied to the IAS who have informed you that your appeal has been unsuccessful and advised you to pay the outstanding charge.

What Happens Next.

Should the outstanding debt not be settled by 10th Feb we may commence debt recovery action or legal proceedings against you without further notice. If we are forced to issue court proceedings to recover the debt, we will also claim our court costs and interest in addition to the outstanding debt.

We trust that this action will not be necessary and that payment will be received by the date stated above.

Then details payment options etc.



I've read the sticky thread regarding something similar with Parking Eye, where a notice before county court judgement letter was received. This seems a similar letter, however nothing is mentioned in the letter about Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. Is the letter I've received still the same thing - i.e I shouldn't ignore it?

I've not received any debt collection style letters - it seems as though VCS have jumped straight in to court proceedings. I'm tempted to pay as I'm reluctant to go to court. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as always :-)

The_Deep

Your letter is just a huff and puff letter, note the use of the words "may" and "might" just wind and !!!!.

Anyway, it is VCS , losers of Ibbotson and Finn, they are on a harder wicket it they rely on the IAS decision in court.