IAS appeal advice?

Robbo84

I'm new so can't post links, add the components together to make a link...

Robbo84

Also, if I appeal, my grounds would be that the ntk doesn't say what the charge is for, and that no contract was formed....

DoaM

Please just post proper links then change http to hxxp ... makes it MUCH easier for us. Nobody is likely to take the effort to decipher what you've posted there.

bazster

Robbo84 wrote: »

I'm new so can't post links, add the components together to make a link...

Well given that this doesn't work:

http://imageupload.co.uk/5ifq

I've no idea what you expect us to do instead.

Robbo84

Sorry guys, it won't let me post with hxx either. If you put www infront of the links, it should worl..


Initial letter. Note that it doesn't say what the charge is for, which is in breach of the POFA?




Original reply:




Rejected "appeal". Notice the contradictory statements in the first paragraph:


Thanks for your help.

DoaM

http://imageupload.co.uk/image/5ifQ
http://imageupload.co.uk/image/5ifH
http://imageupload.co.uk/image/5ifd

bazster

You realise you've already posted more than enough information here to identify yourself? If they've seen this thread and grabbed a copy of it then your "invalid NtK" defence is toast.

The_Deep

They state that this is a contractual charge but make no mention of the v.a.t. such a contractual charge attracts.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

Are they trying to evade it? You have them by the goolies anyway, but why not ask for a vat compliant invoice "in order that you can authorise payment".

Robbo84

I've removed the images, although I don't know how the invalid ntk would be ruined as I haven't identified the driver?

Robbo84

Hi everyone.

I've put together a first draft of my IAS appeal, any comments or suggestions?

Thanks in advance

---

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am appealing against the above parking charge on the following points:
1. The Notice to keeper was invalid
2. No contract was ever entered into
3. Signage at the site was not adequate
4. Charge is a penalty in disguise

1. The Notice to keeper was invalid:

The notification to keeper makes no specific reference to the circumstances in which the requirement to pay the charge arose, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Chapter 9, Schedule 4, paragraph 9, subparagraph 2 (c). See attached copy of Notice to Keeper.

2. No contract was ever entered into

The letter is alleging that the driver of my vehicle has entered into a contract with UKCPS LTD. Neither I as the registered keeper, or anyone using my vehicle, has ever entered into a contract with UKCPS LTD. Stating that there are signs referring to the contract in the car park that you are not enough to form a contract. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 states that expressed consent, rather than implied, is required for any consumer contract.

As contractual charges attract V.A.T., and no mention of V.A.T. is made in any correspondence, this demonstrates that the charge cannot be contractual.

3. Signage at the site was not adequate

Further to point 2, I have now visited the site of the alleged charge. The signage on site is incapable of forming a fair contract, as the wording of the signs is poor. In previous court case UKCPS Ltd signs have been described as 'gibberish' by a Judge (A0QZ7658 UKCPS v Mr X (04/07/2014 Bradford)) and another judge describes UKCPS LTD signage as ‘although large had too much information on them to make them easy to read’ (A3QZ1305 UKCPS v Mrs X (02/07/2014 Sheffield)). I have attached a photo as an example.

The picture of a sign at the site in question that is attached says “Instruction for payment will be fixed to your vehicle”. No mention of a notice to driver being issued is made in any of UKCPS’s correspondence, therefore they have not followed their own “procedure”.

4. Charge is a penalty in disguise
As the signage on site indicates that the car park in question is free to park in for two hours, the charge for staying beyond this period is actually a penalty. As the car park is free to park in for two hours, this disguised penalty is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the landowner (not UKCPS LTD). According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. A private company cannot issue a penalty to a consumer.