Confusion on appeal to IPC and PCM

FrayGramt

Hi Guys

I received a letter through the post with my name on it stating I had received a parking charge notice issued by pcm (parking control management UK) with IPC (independent parking committee) and they had checked with DVLA that this was my car. Now I was parked slightly outside of a parking bay for 5 minutes with my engine running and with me in the drivers seat. I knew I had 20 minutes for free as the parking attendant was there and told me so! So i was shocked to get this fine for just being slightly out of a bay! So I appealed, but I think ive done this wrong as I have only just started reading up about it. I said I was there for 5 minutes with engine running and the parking attendant was there and I spoke to her blah blah so I was pretty shocked to get a fine.

So I have just received a second letter saying my appeal was rejected. I'm unsure what to do next, do I just need to pay my reduced fine or I read somewhere that I could just ignore it!? It gives me 2 options in my second letter:
1 pay the PCN
2. Appeal to IAS.

Please can someone advise as I don't like the thought of fines hanging over me!

Thank you very much
Fay

Quentin

Start off by reading through the newbies faq thread at the top of the forum.


(You'll see there why you have no "fines" to worry about - these people cannot "fine" you, though don't ignore the letter is not the advice )


There is the possibility of county court action, and this will be hanging over you for 6 years, so be prepared for that

ManxRed

Two schools of thought on this. Both arguably valid.

1. Appeal to IAS - you should include 'failure to mitigate loss', 'charge is an unconscionable and extravagant penalty', and 'PCM have no legal standing on the land' as appeal points. This WILL be rejected by the IAS (they reject pretty much anything), BUT their rejection would look highly embarrassing for them if produced in any subsequent court claim. They know this, so might be less tempted to try a court claim.

2. Ignore them, and avoid the risk of providing the IAS with any incriminating evidence, and the parking company using an 'independent' appeal rejection to strengthen their case. They might be more tempted to bring a claim using the weight of the rejection as extra ammunition.

As you can see, two slightly conflicting schools of thought. The very few court claims that IPC members have brought so far, have been so badly put together (by the very legal company that owns the IAS, conflict of interest?? No siree Bob...) they've been booted out of court.

In all honesty, any court claim relating to your circumstances would likely be won by you on the 'failure to mitigate loss' point above. Google VCS v Ibbotsen for five minutes of amusing reading that is very relevant to your scenario here.

The_Deep

If you spoke to the parking muppet, he should have warned you that your parking infringed his employer's T&C. By not doing so, he failed to mitigate their (non existent ) losses, and their claim would almost certainly fail in court.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

My advice is to appeal to I.A.S., specifically mentioning their failure to mitigate their losses. It will be interesting to see how the anonymous adjudicator deals with this.

FrayGramt

thank you for your advice, i'm still totally confused by it all!f

Im confused with this paragraph in the newbies section:
'- if this is an IPC member parking firm, the point of appealing is merely for the keeper to 'appear reasonable' by stating their case and complaining to the retailers/landowners, in an attempt to get it cancelled. But if that does not work you will get a rejection letter from the parking firm offering IAS. DO NOT BOTHER WITH SECOND STAGE APPEAL IF POPLA IS NOT OFFERED, JUST SOAK UP THE DEBT COLLECTOR LETTERS KNOWING YOU'VE STATED YOUR CASE AND ONLY START A NEW THREAD IF YOUR PPC (not debt collector) SENDS A 'LETTER BEFORE CLAIM' OR STARTS A CLAIM.'

I dont know what it means if POPLA is not offered. They are not mentioned anywhere on my second letter. As I struggle to understand most of this, am I best to just pay the silly fine?!

ManxRed

Don't pay the 'fine' (it's not actually a fine, it's an invoice dressed up to look like a fine).

Read the posts in this thread.

Quentin

FrayGramt wrote: »

.....I dont know what it means if POPLA is not offered. They are not mentioned anywhere on my second letter. As I struggle to understand most of this, am I best to just pay the silly fine?!

Take your time reading and understand the FAQ.


(You won't be getting a POPLA code - you need to read about IAS and why it's advised to consider just waiting to see if you get any (county) court action)

The_Deep

Never mind what the sticky says, appeal to the IAS. Failure to mitigate losses is a sine qua non, I do not see how the IAS can ignore it.

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

Never mind what the sticky says, appeal to the IAS. Failure to mitigate losses is a sine qua non, I do not see how the IAS can ignore it.

Well, no it isn't if - and this is pretty common now across IPC members - the charge for parking outside the bay is a contractual fee as opposed to a charge for a breach of contract.

Signage is key here.

FrayGrant

HO87 wrote: »

Well, no it isn't if - and this is pretty common now across IPC members - the charge for parking outside the bay is a contractual fee as opposed to a charge for a breach of contract.

Signage is key here.

What exactly does that mean???

Thank you

ManxRed

Normally the charge is a charge for breaching the terms and conditions of parking, a deterrent if you like (although, for legal reasons the PPC will deny this until they're blue in the face).

However, a few IPC companies like to think that the charge is for an actual service that they are providing to the motorist. So, for the reasonable sum of, say, £100, they will allow you to park outside of a marked bay.

Now, you and I both know this second one is utter rubbish, it's a deterrent, pure and simple, but due to the fact that the second one has more of a chance of surviving being laughed out of court by a judge, they try and word their signs and paperwork to look like a 'contractual charge'.

The second one is also subject to VAT, which most parking companies don't pay, so that sort of skewers them a bit.

However, it will depend on what was written on the sign in order for you to determine whether they are attempting the first example (charge for breach of terms) or the second (contractual service charge).

Do you have a photo of the signs?