We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Ias appeal
Hellohellohellohello
Posts: 15 Forumite
I have looked at some appeals on here and they seem to be very long, but there is now a 1000 limit on the number of words you can submit. I haven't used the template as I have one main point which I believe should be why the ticket should be cancelled. I have 2 more days to finish the appeal. Here's what I wrote, any help would be greatly appreciated. If you think I should go back and use the templates I will. Unfortunately I have already named myself as the driver to the company, and only have a photo of the entrance sign, I could possibly go and take more.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for considering my appeal. Some online sources have suggested that decisions from the IAS are often not a fair decision; however I really do not feel that this parking charge was correctly issued and hope you see fit my genuine appeal as a reason to revoke this.
I am appealing for the reason that there was no intention to form a contractual agreement between the driver and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd., and furthermore, that there was no reason to believe a contractual agreement was being entered upon.
Upon entrance of the car park, there is a sign reading: “Residents AND permit holders only.” As per the IPC code of practice, this text should read, “Permit holders only,” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, Entrance signs) as the parking charge has been issued on the basis that there was ‘no valid permit displayed’, disregarding the fact that the parking was for a resident. This isn’t just ambiguous, it is misleading.
As I have also seen from the IPC code of practice:
“The (entrance) signs must direct motorists to the more detailed signs which display the full terms and conditions.” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, Entrance signs)
No signs containing more detail were made aware of by the entrance sign and the driver was directed where to park by an attendant, and from this parking bay there are no signs that could be read by the driver, also nothing implies or tells the driver that these are important signs related to parking terms.
Furthermore, the other information on the entrance sign reads “Managed car park,” this could be seen as Group B text, explained in the code of practice by the IPC. However the Group A text reading “Residents and Permit holders only” should be “more prominent” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, entrance signs) than group B text. By firstly informing the driver this is a ‘Managed car park’ and secondly informing the driver that parking is for ‘Residents and Permit holders’, the driver is given reason to believe all conditions of the car park have been met, without further need to look for more signs. Not only this, but personal interaction with a parking steward directed the driver to the bay in which to park, also diverting any attention away from signage in the area. The entrance sign and parking attendant suggested there was no price for resident parking; the driver was nonetheless charged an invoice of £100 for not having a permit, certainly against part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which states that: “a person shall be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are available (whether generally or from particular persons).”
CMS also state on their website that they are fully compliant with BPA guidelines.
hxxp://xxx.comprehensivemanagementservices.co.uk/solutions.html (Accessed at: 26/01/2015)
CMS: “We ensure all signage is within accordance with the BPA & IPC guidelines and in accordance with all current health and safety legislation.”
BPA guidelines say: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
As I have mentioned before, the car park is said to be managed but there is no indication of terms and conditions other than the fact that parking is for residents and permit holders only.
There was also free street parking for the date I received the ticket just a few hundred metres away. If the terms of parking were made clear upon entry and directed to further parking terms, then it would have been decided to not park in the car park of residence, and park in the free street parking. This sign was misleading and parking was in fact not permitted for residents without a permit. Parking elsewhere would therefore have saved £100, and it was only as a result of misleading signage and misguiding marshalling that the decision was made to park in Walnut street car park. I feel Comprehensive Management Services are therefore liable for this cost incurred and should not be owed any payment.
As an additional point I would also like to mention that I felt CMS ltd had acted irresponsibly. The IPC states that there should be no attempts to appear to be an authoritative body. The windscreen ticket from CMS ltd featured on it: “WARNING It is an offence for any person other than the driver to remove this notice.” Having never had experience with this before, the driver was under the impression that this was from an authoritative body. 20.5c in the BPA even says: “You should not use wording on your plastic PCN envelopes which implies that you are acting under statutory authority. For example phrases such as ‘It is an offence to remove …..’, should be avoided.”
Yours faithfully,
xxx
(attach: entrance sign, parking ticket notice)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for considering my appeal. Some online sources have suggested that decisions from the IAS are often not a fair decision; however I really do not feel that this parking charge was correctly issued and hope you see fit my genuine appeal as a reason to revoke this.
I am appealing for the reason that there was no intention to form a contractual agreement between the driver and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd., and furthermore, that there was no reason to believe a contractual agreement was being entered upon.
Upon entrance of the car park, there is a sign reading: “Residents AND permit holders only.” As per the IPC code of practice, this text should read, “Permit holders only,” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, Entrance signs) as the parking charge has been issued on the basis that there was ‘no valid permit displayed’, disregarding the fact that the parking was for a resident. This isn’t just ambiguous, it is misleading.
As I have also seen from the IPC code of practice:
“The (entrance) signs must direct motorists to the more detailed signs which display the full terms and conditions.” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, Entrance signs)
No signs containing more detail were made aware of by the entrance sign and the driver was directed where to park by an attendant, and from this parking bay there are no signs that could be read by the driver, also nothing implies or tells the driver that these are important signs related to parking terms.
Furthermore, the other information on the entrance sign reads “Managed car park,” this could be seen as Group B text, explained in the code of practice by the IPC. However the Group A text reading “Residents and Permit holders only” should be “more prominent” (IPC Code of Practice: Schedule 1, entrance signs) than group B text. By firstly informing the driver this is a ‘Managed car park’ and secondly informing the driver that parking is for ‘Residents and Permit holders’, the driver is given reason to believe all conditions of the car park have been met, without further need to look for more signs. Not only this, but personal interaction with a parking steward directed the driver to the bay in which to park, also diverting any attention away from signage in the area. The entrance sign and parking attendant suggested there was no price for resident parking; the driver was nonetheless charged an invoice of £100 for not having a permit, certainly against part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which states that: “a person shall be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are available (whether generally or from particular persons).”
CMS also state on their website that they are fully compliant with BPA guidelines.
hxxp://xxx.comprehensivemanagementservices.co.uk/solutions.html (Accessed at: 26/01/2015)
CMS: “We ensure all signage is within accordance with the BPA & IPC guidelines and in accordance with all current health and safety legislation.”
BPA guidelines say: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”
As I have mentioned before, the car park is said to be managed but there is no indication of terms and conditions other than the fact that parking is for residents and permit holders only.
There was also free street parking for the date I received the ticket just a few hundred metres away. If the terms of parking were made clear upon entry and directed to further parking terms, then it would have been decided to not park in the car park of residence, and park in the free street parking. This sign was misleading and parking was in fact not permitted for residents without a permit. Parking elsewhere would therefore have saved £100, and it was only as a result of misleading signage and misguiding marshalling that the decision was made to park in Walnut street car park. I feel Comprehensive Management Services are therefore liable for this cost incurred and should not be owed any payment.
As an additional point I would also like to mention that I felt CMS ltd had acted irresponsibly. The IPC states that there should be no attempts to appear to be an authoritative body. The windscreen ticket from CMS ltd featured on it: “WARNING It is an offence for any person other than the driver to remove this notice.” Having never had experience with this before, the driver was under the impression that this was from an authoritative body. 20.5c in the BPA even says: “You should not use wording on your plastic PCN envelopes which implies that you are acting under statutory authority. For example phrases such as ‘It is an offence to remove …..’, should be avoided.”
Yours faithfully,
xxx
(attach: entrance sign, parking ticket notice)
0
Comments
-
You've quoted a BPA rule when this is the IPC rules that have to be adhered to.
Regardless, the IAS is a kangeroo court and utterly NOT independent."The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri0 -
You've quoted a BPA rule when this is the IPC rules that have to be adhered to.
Regardless, the IAS is a kangeroo court and utterly NOT independent.
Regarding the BPA quote, I only did this because on their website they claim to follow both BPA and IPC guidelines, which I said just above. I have heard that, but thats not a reason not to appeal.0 -
Hellohellohellohello wrote: »Regarding the BPA quote, I only did this because on their website they claim to follow both BPA and IPC guidelines, which I said just above. I have heard that, but thats not a reason not to appeal.
But you've stated this is an IAS appeal ? They couldn't give a monkey's backside about BPA rules."The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri0 -
But you've stated this is an IAS appeal ? They couldn't give a monkey's backside about BPA rules.
Oh okay, yeah it is, I just thought if that saying they follow the BPA guidelines when they dont is misleading information for someone deciding whether to park on their car parks or not.0 -
Hellohellohellohello wrote: »No longer rent the accommodation so thats no issue.
You replied to a post I deleted, as I posted it in the wrong thread.
0 -
It won't work but try anyway then complain to the DVLA, as explained in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread about IAS = kangaroo!Hellohellohellohello wrote: »Oh okay, yeah it is, I just thought if that saying they follow the BPA guidelines when they dont is misleading information for someone deciding whether to park on their car parks or not.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Blimey the IAS have made it difficult to appeal! You cannot even copy and paste from word onto their website. I ended up writing everything out again.
Here is what I ended up sending to them:
(apologies for the dashes, the IAS added these after clicking submit)
If you have things to say to improve probably best not to or i will just start worrying! will update when hear from them
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for considering my appeal. I really feel that this parking charge was issued incorrectly and I hope that my appeal satisfies a fair decision to revoke it.
I am appealing for the reason that there was no intention to form a contractual agreement between the driver and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd. (CMS), and that there was no reason to believe a contractual agreement was being entered into.
Upon entrance to the carpark, there is a sign reading: \"Residents AND Permit Holders Only.\" To satisfy my parking charge, this text would need to read, \"Permit Holders Only,\" as although the parking was for a resident, the charge was issued solely on the basis that there was \'no valid permit displayed\'. This is not merely ambiguous, it is misleading. This is against the Misleading Actions provision in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008. This breaks the law as the provision states:
(4) A commercial practice is unfair if-
a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5 (Regulation 3, Paragraph 4)
2
a) its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
b) it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise
Moreover, the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) is very specific in terms of signage requirements (IPC CoP, Part B, 2.1-2.2). As specified in the CoP, \'Group A\' text, in this case reading \"Residents and Permit Holders Only,\" should be more prominent than \'Group B\' text. However, the first line relating to parking on the entrance sign reads: \"Managed Car Park,\" which is akin to \'Group B\' text. By firstly informing the driver that this is a \'Managed Car Park,\' and secondly informing the driver that parking is for \'Residents And Permit Holders Only,\' the resident is given reason to believe all conditions of the carpark have been met, without a need to look for more signs. Not only this, but personal interaction with a parking attendant directed the driver to the bay in which to park, diverting any attention away from signage in the area. The entrance sign and parking attendant suggested that there was no charge for residents parking; the driver was nonetheless charged an invoice of £100 on the basis of holding no valid permit. This of course, breaches Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which states: \"A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatsoever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are available (whether generally or from particular persons).\"
As I have also seen in the CoP:
\"The [entrance] signs must direct motorists to the more detailed signs which displays the terms and conditions.\"
No such signs were made aware of by the entrance sign and the attendant obstructed the driver from paying attention to any. As you can see from the attached evidence, there are no signs easily observable from the drivers\' bay, also nothing implies that these signs introduce the parking terms/agreement. The CoP does specify that all signs are \"clearly legible and placed in such a position, such that a driver of a vehicle must be able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site.\" Furthermore, not one sign on the site even contains a \'P\' image, whereas the CoP states that the omission of this is allowed only when the site does not invite parking of any kind (immaterial).
\"All signage is within accordance with the BPA & IPC guidelines..\"
CMS Website-Solutions (26/01/2015)
CMS state on their website that they are FULLY compliant with BPC guidelines and therefore are obliged to provide a service which complies. They breach these guidelines on several occasions such as: 18.2, 18.8, 20.5c, 21.12 (See guidelines attached). Therefore Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations are broken as the provisions state:
(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if-
a) it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trademarks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or
b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if-
i. the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
ii. the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.
(Regulation 5, Paragraph 3)
There was also free street parking during the time of incident, adjacent to the car park. If the terms of parking were made clear upon entry and directed to further parking terms, then it would have been decided not to park in the carpark, and park in the free street parking. (Nb. Parking incident outside restriction period, see attachment). CMS\'s sign was misleading- parking was in fact not permitted for residents without a permit. Parking elsewhere would therefore have saved the driver £100. It was only as a result of misleading signage and obstructive marshaling that the decision was made to park in the carpark. I feel Comprehensive Management Services Ltd. are therefore liable for this cost incurred and should not be owed any payment.
I would also like to mention that CMS have attempted to subtly appear as an authoritative body (CoP breach, Part B, 11.1). The windscreen pouch used the same wording as real PCN\'s (see evidence). Having never had experienced this before, the driver was under the impression that this was from an authoritative body. This is again misleading to the consumer.
Yours Faithfully,
xxxxxxxxx0 -
Hellohellohellohello wrote: »Blimey the IAS have made it difficult to appeal! You cannot even copy and paste from word onto their website. I ended up writing everything out again.
from what I have read, all you do is attach the word doc, plus your other evidence etc, and submit
the entry box just needs a short precis of the appeal and the words SEE ATTACHED APPEAL0 -
-
Remove your name op - [and verbosity, were this my letter. Punch hard and brief, lose 1st person wherever possible. No big words, 2-syllable comprehension limit with these oicks.].
Attach as instructed by redx
Dear Sir/Madam,
This parking charge was issued incorrectly on these grounds.
1. No intention to form a contractual agreement between the driver and Comprehensive Management Services Ltd. (CMS), and no contractual agreement was entered into.
2. Insufficient and non-compliant signage etc.etc[as per stickies guidance]
A sign at the carpark entrance reads:
\"Residents AND Permit Holders Only.\" [include pic]
The text does NOT read, \"Permit Holders Only,\"
The parking was for a resident[include proofs]
The charge was issued solely on the basis that there was \'no valid permit displayed\'.
This is against the Misleading Actions provision in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading regulations 2008:
(4) A commercial practice is unfair if-
a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5 (Regulation 3, Paragraph 4)
2
a) its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
b) it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise
Moreover, the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) is very specific in terms of signage requirements (IPC CoP, Part B, 2.1-2.2).
As specified in the CoP, \'Group A\' text, in this case reading \"Residents and Permit Holders Only,\" should be more prominent than \'Group B\' text.
However, the first line relating to parking on the entrance sign reads: \"Managed Car Park,\" which is akin to \'Group B\' text.
By firstly informing the driver that this is a \'Managed Car Park,\' and secondly informing the driver that parking is for \'Residents And Permit Holders Only,\' the resident is given reason to believe all conditions of the carpark have been met, without a need to look for more signs.
In fact, a parking attendant directed the driver to the parking bay used.
The unenforceable invoice breaches Part III of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which states: \"A person shall be guilty of an offence if, in the course of any business of his, he gives (by any means whatsoever) to any consumers an indication which is misleading as to the price at which any goods, services, accommodation or facilities are available (whether generally or from particular persons).\"
The CoP continues:
\"The [entrance] signs must direct motorists to the more detailed signs which displays the terms and conditions.\"
No such signs exist at point of entry within a driver's eyeline.
Further, the attendant obstructed any such alleged view. To reiterate, the attendant directed the driver precisely to the space indicated.
As you can see from the attached evidence, no signs are legible from the drivers\' bay.
Nothing implies that these signs introduce further parking terms or any implicit agreement.
The CoP does specify that all signs must be\"clearly legible and placed in such a position, such that a driver of a vehicle must be able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site.\"
No signage complies with these requirements.
Furthermore, not one sign on the site even contains a \'P\' image, whereas the CoP states that the omission of this is allowed only when the site does not invite parking of any kind (not applicable in this case).
\"All signage is within accordance with the BPA & IPC guidelines..\"
CMS Website-Solutions (26/01/2015)
CMS state on their website that they are FULLY compliant with BPC guidelines and therefore are obliged to provide a service which does indeed fully comply.
These guidelines are breached as shown:
18.2, 18.8, 20.5c, 21.12 (See guidelines attached). Therefore Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations are broken as the provisions state:
(3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if-
a) it concerns any marketing of a product (including comparative advertising) which creates confusion with any products, trademarks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor; or
b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if-
i. the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
ii. the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.
(Regulation 5, Paragraph 3)
Had the terms of parking been correctly displayed upon entry, including directions to further parking terms, adjacent free street parking would have been used.
(Nb. Parking incident outside restriction period, see attachment). CMS\'s sign was misleading- parking was in fact not permitted for residents without a permit.
A combination of Insufficient and Non-Compliant Signage plus dubious and obstructive marshalling[ 2nd 'l']meant this carpark was used.
[STRIKE]Comprehensive Management Services Ltd. are therefore liable for this cost incurred and should not be owed any payment.[/STRIKE]
Worse yet, CMS attempt to pass their unenforceable invoices off as official documents issued by an authoritative body (CoP breach, Part B, 11.1),
(see evidence).
Obviously, these matters are now being referred to[whoever...]
Yours faithfully,[lower case 'f']
xxx.
###
Good luck.CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0
what a waste of 3 hours 
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards