Nightime Parking Ticket ; IPC

garrysith68

Is it really that straight forward that the signage can be interpreted that way? Surely they arent so stupid as to fall foul of wording? (or am I too naieve?!)
Can I also ask how I am meant to apply for a permit ?! I guess thats not a defence although surely they should be offering that ability ?

ManxRed

Most of these PPC's haven't got a clue which law they're applying, they just want to catch fish.

Contractual Service and Breach of Contract both involve car parks where the signs invite members of the public to park, but they must adhere to certain conditions.

No Parking = Trespass.

The PPC's can't really enforce Trespass (that can only be done by the landowner - the PPC could do it but only on their behalf and the monies collected must be due to the landowner), and damages - providing no ACTUAL damage occurred is nominal (£1). They don't make money that way.

So they claim it's either a contractual service (despite the fact that you CANNOT contract to do something that is forbidden) or breach of contract.

garrysith68

Is there any specific, legal, wording to put into my appeal that cannot be rejected ? I am thinking along the lines of ...

[FONT=&quot]I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is no legal foundation for your excessive charge. My issue with this PCN is twofold :[/FONT]
1) 1) [FONT=&quot]I am not being given an offer to park and therefore cannot be in breach of anything. The signage within the boundary clearly states that parking is only valid for “permit holders or vehicles pre-authorised by NPS”. As this vehicle was neither it is specifically barred from parking. You CANNOT contract to do something that is forbidden. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That makes this trespass, and not a contractual breach. Only the landowner can pursue a claim for trespass.[/FONT] 2)

2)[FONT=&quot]N 2) Not withstanding the clear-cut reason above; I believe your signage is in breach of the IPC Accredited Operator Code of Practice. According to the OCP ( Part B (2) Signage / Schedule 1) ; your sign should [/FONT][FONT=&quot]include a minimum of one phrase from Group A & Group A text should be before and more prominent than any Group B text. (NONE of the options within A, not B, are visible on the ENTRY sign). Additionally, and more importantly, “The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can read all of the Group A and Group B text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. This is not the case as the sign is situated to face AWAY from the driver, at ground level and cannot be read when entering the premises. Had the sign been mounted facing the road, at eye level, then it would have been visible. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Should I exclude item 2 as item 1 should be enough?Anything else needed ?
Thanks for everyones help.

Guys_Dad

The entrance sign is a joke and not compliant in any way. However, they will refer to the big yellow sign. Being honest, where is that sign? Are there any more? Was it in a place that you could see as a driver who parked where you did?

Do you really want to include "The signage within the boundary clearly states that parking is only valid for “permit holders or vehicles pre-authorised by NPS”. As this vehicle was neither it is specifically barred from parking. " in your appeal?

And can the signs be read in the dark?

Also, you demand to see the contract with the landowner. The landowner may not be the person who contracted them. If Halford, say, engaged the PPC and leased the land, then do Halford have the landowner's permission in their lease to engage a PPC?

So check with town hall who owns the land too.

garrysith68

There are 3 big yellow signs within the car park & they are visible if you choose to be looking for signage.
I have parked in this place for 5 years; this is a new (ish) thing.
Get your point about not using "clearly states". I will reword. But I need the rest to show that I was trespassing, not in breach of contract.
Yes, signs can be read in the dark..if you go up close to them.

I have been to see Halfords & got no joy. They state that after 5pm everything refers to the Parking company, its nothing to do with them.

ManxRed

Swap the points around. Put the signs first. Conclude that no contract was formed between the driver and the parking company. Include pictures of the signs, and get some pictures showing that the signs are not prominent (in other words, some good photos showing how invisible the signs actually are).

Begin point 2 by stating 'Even if a contract had been formed (which is strongly denied) then...' and carry on with what you've put.

Then add a point 3 stating that you have the firmly held belief that the parking company's contract with the landholder does not give them sufficient rights to offer parking nor to pursue charges in their own name. Unless you see evidence to the contrary then you will assume this to be the case.


Now, the strange bit. The Parking Company AND the IPC will probably reject both those, but in rejecting them, they will duck and dive so much that it would probably go in your favour if it ever came to a court claim. You have laid out perfectly sound reasons why their ticket is nonsense, and a judge would probably find it odd that they have dismissed those arguments.

For this reason, it will act as a deterrent to them bringing a court claim. Basically, this one bites...

Herzlos

garrysith68 wrote: »

Is there any specific, legal, wording to put into my appeal that cannot be rejected ? I am thinking along the lines of ...

I'm afraid not; the PPC has no interest in upholding an appeal (they just want money), and the IAS has promised to reject 80% of appeals, and have a pretty lax treatment for the law. You'll almost definitely get an appeal rejection from the parking company, which will be full of lies, and then you'll most likely get an appeal rejection from the "Independent" Appeals Service, which will be just as bad.

On the plus side, once they've rejected your appeal, they'd be pretty stupid to take it to court (I'm not saying they won't, but it's unlikely), so you can just ignore any debt collecting nonsense they send.

Herzlos

Umkomaas wrote: »

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=16as9dw&s=9#.Vma57XrfWrU

Whilst that starts with "Contractual Agreement" it's contradicted by the wording "If you breach...". So they are really looking at a breach of contract (zero damages) instead of a contractual agreement. As already said; you can't contractually agree to do something which is forbidden by the same contract - it makes no sense. What would be legal (but stupid) is "Parking for permit holders within the lines and not causing obstructions: Free. Parking for anyone else: £100 (inc VAT)".

Please don't assume that because it's on a sign that it's in any way valid; they have no idea what they are doing (or they wouldn't be doing it), and are just throwing random phrases up there to make it look legitimate (so that people pay up without questioning it).

The_Deep

Conractual charges attract v.a.t. Did they mention It? if not they may be trying to evade it, ask for a vat invoice.:

If they ignore the request, (they probably will), it is a useful stick with which to beat them if it ever gets to court.

More reading here

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

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195437

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

If you suspect tax evasion report it to the fraud hot line here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5087925&highlight

garrysith68

After a bit more investigation ; I came across a govt document that states the following :-

5.1
A registered keeper can only be found liable for unpaid parking charges
when certain requirements are met. These requirements seek to balance
the rights of the motorist and the landholder and are clearly set out in
Schedule 4.
5.2
For Schedule 4 to apply the driver of a vehicle must first be liable for
unpaid parking charges. There are broadly two situations where a driver
could become liable for parking charges:
a.
where a driver has entered into a contract to park on private land and
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of that contract; or
b.
where a driver has trespassed on private land where signs showing
charges for unauthorised parking are displayed.

This suggests to me that I can be done for trespassing?