I really dont know what to do :-(

wendb69

So I got a ticket from CPM in December. Parking in the same car park for 25 minutes as I do on most occasions.

The IAS have found it in their favour. So now instead of £60 they are saying I have to pay £100.

I dont know what to do. Do I pay it. I don't want to go to court or have any judgements against me.

Quentin

It's your call.


They may or may not take you to court (they have 6 years to do so) and were you to lose in court the CCJ against you would not have any consequences for you as long as you paid it in full within 30 days of receiving it

beamerguy

wendb69 wrote: »

So I got a ticket from CPM in December. Parking in the same car park for 25 minutes as I do on most occasions.

The IAS have found it in their favour. So now instead of £60 they are saying I have to pay £100.

I dont know what to do. Do I pay it. I don't want to go to court or have any judgements against me.

How long does the car park offer, what do the signs say.

IAS are in the pockets of the cowboys so most appeals are rejected, they are just a kangeroo court, hence all the advice on here is to ignore them.

Tell us more about the circumstances

wendb69

beamerguy wrote: »

How long does the car park offer, what do the signs say.

IAS are in the pockets of the cowboys so most appeals are rejected, they are just a kangeroo court, hence all the advice on here is to ignore them.

Tell us more about the circumstances

I parked in a One Stop like I normally do. I saw the large One Stop signs which say One Stop Customers Only. But there were other signs that I didnt see, because I park here regularly and didnt know there was any parking enforcement. Only after I got the ticket did I notice the other signs.



Date Issued: 17/12/2015

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear that any driver parking for more than twenty minutes may be issued with the charge. The Operator has provided photographic evidence to show the Appellant’s vehicle parked for twenty three minutes. I am therefore satisfied the Operator has a prima facie case that the charge is lawful.

The Appellant makes a number of challenges; the first and strongest ground of appeal refers to another sign which states only that parking is for One Stop customers only. The Appellant argues that having seen this sign they did not look for others. However, there is no evidence regarding the location of this sign, such as a photograph to show this was the nearest sign to the Appellant’s vehicle. I cannot see the sign in the Operator’s photographs. Consequently, I cannot allow the appeal on this basis.

The Appellant argues they did not see the signs and the writing is tiny. They provide no evidence on this point. However, the Operator’s evidence shows numerous signs around the site, which appear to be at a readable height, and whilst the text is not large it would clearly be capable of being read at close distance.

The Appellant argues that the Operator is not the landowner and whether a contract could be entered into. The Operator does not have to be the landowner to be able to enter into a contract with drivers. Once a driver is parked they are allowed a grace period to consider the terms advertised on the signs and obtain any tickets or permits as required. Once the Appellant remains parked, having had notice of the terms, the contract is formed. In this case, in consideration for parking for more than twenty minutes the Appellant agrees to pay the charge. If the terms are sufficiently advertised the driver is deemed to have notice even if they choose not to consider them.

In relation to loss the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis v Parking Eye made it clear that such charges are no longer penal and that loss is not a relevant consideration.

The appeal is dismissed.
"

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.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

wendb69

Quentin wrote: »

It's your call.


They may or may not take you to court (they have 6 years to do so) and were you to lose in court the CCJ against you would not have any consequences for you as long as you paid it in full within 30 days of receiving it

But if they take me to court, wont there be all the charges that build up added?

My initial ticket was £60, now £100 plus an admin fee of £1.50... its just growing.

pogofish

Court cases post-IAS are pretty thin on the ground TBH. The chances are good that you won't hear anything more beyond a slew of fake debt collectors letters.

wendb69

pogofish wrote: »

Court cases post-IAS are pretty thin on the ground TBH. The chances are good that you won't hear anything more beyond a slew of fake debt collectors letters.

Many thanks.

How can you determine which are fake and which are not.

How can I find out what the court case fees will be and what these debt collectors including CPM might end up charging me?

beamerguy

wendb69 wrote: »

I parked in a One Stop like I normally do. I saw the large One Stop signs which say One Stop Customers Only. But there were other signs that I didnt see, because I park here regularly and didnt know there was any parking enforcement. Only after I got the ticket did I notice the other signs.


Date Issued: 17/12/2015

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

IAS has real adjudicators ???? nobody knows who they are, no doubt is was Mr Mouse as IAS are a Mickey Mouse outfit

As said, you now just wait. Next little trick is the debt collector chain mail which you just ignore and save them. DO NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM

It must be the PPC who takes further action so let us know if or when it happens, unlikely though

Were you spending money with One Stop and can you prove it, the ONE STOP sign saying "One Stop Customers only" will take precedence over anything else

hoohoo

The adjudicator is saying that had you provided evidence, he would have probably found in your favor (of course, he was lying).

I would write to the operator with a photograph

Dear operator, the assessor ruled that he could not consider my appeal point as you did not submit all signs in your photographs. I enclose a copy of the sign in question for your benefit.

As this now means that there is no case to answer, I would be grateful if you would confirm the charge is cancelled.




Given the assessors comments it would seem your case is very strong.

wendb69

beamerguy wrote: »

IAS has real adjudicators ???? nobody knows who they are, no doubt is was Mr Mouse as IAS are a Mickey Mouse outfit

As said, you now just wait. Next little trick is the debt collector chain mail which you just ignore and save them. DO NOT MAKE CONTACT WITH THEM

It must be the PPC who takes further action so let us know if or when it happens, unlikely though

Were you spending money with One Stop and can you prove it, the ONE STOP sign saying "One Stop Customers only" will take precedence over anything else

I do have a picture but not sure how to add it here

Redx

wendb69 wrote: »

I do have a picture but not sure how to add it here

you host it on tinypic or photobucket and add a link to it in your reply (ie:- you dont add any photos here, you add links to photos held elsewhere)