Parking ticket appeals ceased trading

dansnana

Hi I've seen other posts about this but they seem to have had their appeals made.
Having lost my original appeal I paid my £16 sent them the info and they appealed for me - told that it takes more than 6 weeks or decision.Fobbed off after 7 weeks.
Now found that they've ceased trading
IAS say that no appeal has been made, and it's too late.
VCS say it's too late to pay and has been passed to debt recovery firm ZZPS so will have their charges added.
Really worried now and wishing that I'd paid the original £60.
Just waiting for the letter from them

ampersand

re: ' and they appealed for me'
Were you copied in to anything PTA sent/wrote on your behalf, before being fobbed off at wk 7?
If so, post it here and await next stage advice.
#
I'm sorry you've had this experience. Stay with mse now. I'm assuming by 'Having lost my original appeal', this was you responding to the original vcs scam p/w.....

Ah yes, have now found your original posts and c-m's original advice[26/11/14]:
Quote:
I had hoped to appeal to POPLA
You can't. You have the IAS which may/may not be winnable but it doesn't matter either way (just make an informed decision and DO NOT PAY). Can you just read the other VCS Airport thread on page one here as I only replied there 10 minutes ago! So much easier not to start a new thread if the answers are already here, please just read other threads and you will see this has just been answered & discussed.

You don't finish up paying anything, even if you lose at IAS, so what? Nothing has changed, it's a worthless charge and very defendable, especially by a keeper who hasn't said they were driving...


Others will be along to advise you, dansnana - don't lose heart, but do answer my 1st? please.

dansnana

The following text will be used for the IAS appeal and this will be sent via UK MAIL today, please allow 42 days for the appeal to come through

Ricky
I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds:
 The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
 Lack of proprietary interest in the land.
 Inadequate Signage - No Contract with driver
The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge demanded is disproportionate and punitive as it far exceeds any cost to the
landowner or The Parking Operator for any purported breach of contract. As liquidated and
ascertained damages must be calculated in advance; a full breakdown of costs incurred as a
consequence must be justified by The Parking Operator, which should be calculated as flowing
directly from this alleged breach of parking event. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry
on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be
included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the
car being parked at that car park. It is my assertion therefore that this parking charge is by default
an unenforceable penalty as no justification can be made for the amount claimed. Also should you
try and state that courts now accept commercial justification in parking cases this is not from a court
of record but is in fact a county court decision which has is not a court of record.
Lack of proprietary interest in the land.
It is my assertion that The Parking Operator has not demonstrated that they have sufficient
proprietary interest in the land in question which grants The Parking Operator any legal possession
or entitlement to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with a third party customers of the
lawful landowners/occupiers.
In addition The Parking Operator’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to
allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. It is my belief that there is no contract with
the landowner/occupier that entitles The Parking Operator to levy and pursue any parking charge
through the courts in their own name as creditor. It is my assertion that this The Parking Operator
has no legal standing to offer any contract to park to the driver on this site, and no authority to issue
parking charge notices (PCNs), which should be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Any
breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established,
since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012 and this parking charge is unrecoverable from
either the driver or registered keeper at this site. A full un-redacted contract with the landowner is
therefore required to demonstrate that The Parking Operator has the requisite locus standi to
operate and pursue parking charges as creditor through the courts.
Inadequate Signage - No Contract with driver
In the event that the The Parking Operator demonstrates that they do have sufficient locus, it is my
assertion that the driver on the day was not sufficiently alerted to any parking management and
terms due to inadequate signage which is non-compliant the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore no
contract was made between the driver and The Parking Operator as the basic criteria for making a contract have not been fulfilled (offer/consideration/acceptance)

Umkomaas

If it's any consolation that appeal would have likely been rejected by the IAS.

It may be the case, that as appeals are all but impossible to win at IAS as they appear so heavily weighted towards their own PPCs, PTA might have realised their 'guarantee' (win or we pay) was going to be very difficult to sustain in that arena and upped sticks (my summation only - but who knows?).

ampersand

Right, that's a good start, dn - it is reasonable to assume that you were copied in within a short time, so IAS can be so advised.
re: 'this will be sent via UK MAIL today.' - we need to know if any mser here knows if pta obtained receipts for posting.
Await further advice from the experts:-)

DON'T WORRY - look here:
Gary Osner, the director of Roxburghe appears to already have a phoenix company ready, ZZPS. - as reported by Parking Prankster here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014_09_01_archive.html

You really must not worry about oick companies and their directors, shape-shifting and reinventing themselves.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/excel-parking-jump-ship-to-independent.html
#
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Motorist-wins-appeal-100-Humberside-Airport/story-20954515-detail/story.html
and back to c-m's Nov advice to you:
'You don't finish up paying anything, even if you lose at IAS, so what? Nothing has changed, it's a worthless charge and very defendable, especially by a keeper who hasn't said they were driving...'

Others will be along to reassure you.
#
-another crossposting apology, umkomaas.

dn - read this:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/popla-board-raises-issues.html