Received two Parking charge notices from VCS at john lennon airport

adep_2

hoohoo wrote: »

What were the reasons for rejection? Did skippy conclude it is possible to form a contract even though there are too many words to possibly read at 30mph?

I can post it up on here if you wish ?

Herzlos

Please do.

lbc = letter before claim, mcol = money claim online. Both are the start of a court claim, and both and incredibly unlikely to happen as they have an awful lot to lose and an exceptionally sketchy case.

adep_2

As promised
This was outcome 1


Dear ******

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): **********
Vehicle Registration: ******
Date Issued: **/03/2015

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"The Appellant raises no additional grounds of appeal and has provided the same submissions as in their previous appeal at the same location.

1. The Appellant provides no authority in support of the suggestion that PCN's cannot be issued in no stopping zones. I am satisfied that this is perfectly acceptable. The Parking Charge is not a Fixed Penalty Notice as that would be issued by a Local Authority.

2. The Operator does not claim damages for breach of contract, the Parking Charge is a fixed price term of the contract agreed to when stopping at the location. Loss is therefore irrelevant to this appeal.

3. The Operator confirms that they do have authority to manage parking at the location. Even if that agreement was invalid, it has previously been held that would not invalid that contractual agreement between the Appellant and the Operator (VCS v HRMC 2013).

4. The signage at the location is clear with many signs along the route. The Driv er would have had to have passed numerous signs before reaching the location where they choose to stop.

The contractual offer is that driver's are not permitted to stop, but if they choose to then they agree to pay the Parking Charge.

The contract is offered in the signage, by stopping the Driver accepted those terms and the consideration is the binding promise to pay the Parking Charge.

Under Section 5 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded. In my view this does not cover a parking scenario such as we are dealing with here and is aimed at sales via telephone, internet and such-like agreements. The alternative types of contract covered by the Regulations are either an “off-premises contract” or an “on-premises contract”. These are also defined under Section 5. The definition of off-premises contract plainly does not fit with the current scenario. This leaves the possibility of it being an on-premises contract, in any event Section 9(2) states that the trader (in this case the Operator) does not need to provide the information detailed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations when dealing with a contract which involves a day-to-day transaction and is performed immediately at the time when the contract is entered into. Therefore if this was determined to be an on-premises contract, no additional conditions would be inserted into the contract under Section 9 of the Regulations. Therefore there are no conditions which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal.

5. The onus in this appeal is for the Appellant to pro ve that the Parking Charge is unlawful. They provide no evidence in terms of the by-laws referred to. I am therefore unable to properly consider this point.

6. In the recent judgment in Beavis –v- Parking Eye, the Court of Appeal considered arguments in respect of UTCCR 1999 but such arguments did not find favour with the court. Therefore I am bound to follow the decision of the court in that case.

7. The Operator maintains that the vehicle was stopped. The CCTV images provided show that at some stage the vehicle's boot is being accessed Driver is getting back into the Driver's seat and the passenger is exiting the front passenger door, therefore the vehicle was quite clearly stopped.

8. As per above, the question of loss is not relevant to this PCN,

The red route zone is very clear and unmistakable.

The camera van, can be no clearer. It is positioned in plain view.

There is nothing to establish any predatory tactics.

A grace period may be relevant for a location where parking is permitted. He we are dealing with a no stopping zone.

Liability under POFA 2012 is something which has been implemented by the Government through primary legislation, there is no issue with this method of enforcement being pursued.

adep_2

sorry missed this bit off the bottom of the letter


There is nothing raised in this appeal which establishes that the Parking Charge is unlawful.

"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

IMPORTANT:
The following information relates to appeals which were submitted on or after the 1st A:

If you wish to view the evidence that was relied upon by the operator then you may log back into the IAS system and view it, but by doing so you agree to the following terms:

You agree that the operator’s evidence, including any comments, documents or photo’s are made available to you in strict confidence. YOU MUST NOT DUPLICATE, PUBLISH, SHARE OR REPRODUCE THE INFORMATION IN ANY WAY without the prior written permission of the parking operator. Without prejudice to any other right arising from breach of this agreement, you agree to indemnify the parking operator and the Independent Parking Committee Limited in respect of any costs or other expenses howsoever caused for any breach, by you or any others with whom you provide this information, of this confidentiality agreement. You can log in at www.theIAS.org by entering your email address and the password that you created when you first registered the appeal.

Yours sincerely
The Independent Appeals Service

Guys_Dad

adep wrote: »

3. The Operator confirms that they do have authority to manage parking at the location. Even if that agreement was invalid, it has previously been held that would not invalid that contractual agreement between the Appellant and the Operator (VCS v HRMC 2013).

!!!!!!??? Even if the operator does NOT hold a valid contract, that's immaterial? Love to see that raised in court!!!¬

Umkomaas

@OP. Please email the decision to The Parking Prankster, he is collecting all the dubious IAS decisions (yep, I bet there's quite a pile now!), but please do it. I expect some dynamite will go off before too long on this.

ColliesCarer

adep wrote: »

............
The contractual offer is that driver's are not permitted to stop, but if they choose to then they agree to pay the Parking Charge.

The contract is offered in the signage, by stopping the Driver accepted those terms and the consideration is the binding promise to pay the Parking Charge...........

Another ludicrous result from the macropods who seem to think they can retrospectively define what the signs said (and still do)

The signs as can be seen in Pranksters blog (linked below) clearly state "No Stopping at any time"

They do not say "Stopping allowed if you agree to pay a parking charge" !!!!!

Th PCN's here are clearly issued for breach - they are not invoices issued for choosing to pay a fee to stop

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjACahUKEwjos9je29_GAhXFZtsKHVWRBPM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fparking-prankster.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F03%2Fvehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html&ei=O6ynVaiqO8XN7QbVopKYDw&usg=AFQjCNHNPA3sU16Rj_0_OIkU19xO74zKKg

Herzlos

adep wrote: »

sorry missed this bit off the bottom of the letter

Yup, they want to scare people into not publishing the outcome, because the outcome is so hilariously bad. I think they'd lose against a judge on every single point they made, and each one should be worthy of costing them their license/accreditation.

I wouldn't worry about it either, they can't do anything about people publishing it without making it even worse from themselves.

So you can rest assured that you won't hear any more about the charges, because there's no way they are stupid enough to have that statement shown in a court.


I guess you could always forward it onto the SRA and DVLA as complaints, too.

adep_2

This was decision 2


Dear *******,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): ********
Vehicle Registration: *******
Date Issued: *********

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:


"1. The Appellant provides no authority in support of the suggestion that PCN's cannot be issued in no stopping zones. I am satisfied that this is perfectly acceptable. The Parking Charge is not a Fixed Penalty Notice as that would be issued by a Local Authority.

2. The Operator does not claim damages for breach of contract, the Parking Charge is a fixed price term of the contract agreed to when stopping at the location. Loss is therefore irrelevant to this appeal.

3. The Operator confirms that they do have authority to manage parking at the location. Even if that agreement was invalid, it has previously been held that would not invalid that contractual agreement between the Appellant and the Operator (VCS v HRMC 2013).

4. The signage at the location is clear with many signs along the route. The Driver would have had to have passed numerous signs before reaching the location where they choose to stop.

The contractual offer is that driver' s are not permitted to stop, but if they choose to then they agree to pay the Parking Charge.

The contract is offered in the signage, by stopping the Driver accepted those terms and the consideration is the binding promise to pay the Parking Charge.

Under Section 5 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded. In my view this does not cover a parking scenario such as we are dealing with here and is aimed at sales via telephone, internet and such-like agreements. The alternative types of contract covered by the Regulations are either an “off-premises contract” or a n “on-premises contract”. These are also defined under Section 5. The definition of off-premises contract plainly does not fit with the current scenario. This leaves the possibility of it being an on-premises contract, in any event Section 9(2) states that the trader (in this case the Operator) does not need to provide the information detailed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations when dealing with a contract which involves a day-to-day transaction and is performed immediately at the time when the contract is entered into. Therefore if this was determined to be an on-premises contract, no additional conditions would be inserted into the contract under Section 9 of the Regulations. Therefore there are no conditions which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal.

5. The onus in this appeal is for the Appellant to prove that the Parking Charge is unlawful. They provide no evidence in terms of the by-laws referred to. I am therefore unable to properly consider this point.

6. In the recent judgment in Beavis –v- Parking Eye, the Court of Appeal considered arguments in respect of UTCCR 1999 but such arguments did not find favour with the court. Therefore I am bound to follow the decision of the court in that case.

7. The Operator maintains that the vehicle was stopped. The CCTV images provided show that at some stage the vehicle's boot is being accessed, therefore the vehicle was quite clearly stopped.

8. As per above, the question of loss is not relevant to this PCN,

The red route zone is very clear and unmistakable.

The camera van, can be no clearer. It is positioned in plain view.

There is nothing to establish any predatory tactics.

A grace period may be relevant for a location where parking is permitted. He we are dealing with a no stopping zone.

Liability under POFA 2012 is something which has been implemented by the Government through primary legislation, the re is no issue with this method of enforcement being pursued.

There is nothing raised in this appeal which establishes that the Parking Charge is unlawful."

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

IMPORTANT:
The following information relates to appeals which were submitted on or after the 1st April 2015:

If you wish to view the evidence that was relied upon by the operator then you may log back into the IAS system and view it, but by doing so you agree to the following terms:

You agree that the operator’s evidence, including any comments, documents or photo’s are made available to you in strict confidence. YOU MUST NOT DUPLICATE, PUBLISH, SHARE OR REPRODUCE THE INFORMATION IN ANY WAY without the prior written permission of the parking operator. Without prejudice to any other right arising from breach of this agreement, you agree to indemnify the parking operator and the Independent Parking Committee Limited in respect of any costs or other expenses howsoever caused for any breach, by you or any others with whom you provide this information, of this confidentiality agreement. You can log in at www.theIAS.org by entering your email address and the password that you created when you first registered the appeal.

Yours sincerely
The Independent Appeals Service

adep_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

@OP. Please email the decision to The Parking Prankster, he is collecting all the dubious IAS decisions (yep, I bet there's quite a pile now!), but please do it. I expect some dynamite will go off before too long on this.

Where and how do I reply to do this ?