IAS Appeal - help needed please

Retired_Grumpy

That's it, "appeal" lodged, and registered letter to landowner sent. :beer: :Now I can get some sleep for a few days, recharge the batteries ready for the next round! Fight the good fight and all that :wall:

Retired_Grumpy

Well, as expected, the IAS have dismissed my appeal - shock, horror! The Adjudicators comments are as follows:-
"The evidence provided by the Operator is clear in proving that the Appellant's vehicle remained on site for 2 hours 34 minutes in a car park which offers 2 hours of free parking. This 2 hour free period of parking is clearly displayed on signage throughout the site. Those drivers who stay on site longer than 2 hours are required to pay a charge. On the aforementioned signs a telephone number is provided for drivers to call should difficulties occur in complying with the 2 hour period or other terms. There is no suggestion that this telephone number was used at the time by the driver.

I note the Appellant's comments, however they provide no proof that there was indeed a 92 year old passenger in the vehicle. In any event, the Operator's code of practice states that 'under the Equality Act 2010 it is your duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to assist disabled people to use any services you provide. It is incumbent on Operators to determine what is necessary on their individual sites.' It is evident from the comments made that the such adjustments have been considered and provision for Blue Badge holders have been made at this site. I am not satisfied that allowing Blue Badge holders to stay on site for an extra 34 minutes could be considered 'reasonable', however the Appellant is entitled to take independent legal advice on this point if they so wish. The Appellant should be aware that this appeals procedure does not seek to determine whether a criminal offence has taken place or not.!

The Appellant appears to claim that although they are the registered keeper of the vehicle they were not the Driver at the time of the parking event. I am satisfied that the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the parking event. In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver. As the Appellant provides no documentary proof as to their whereabouts I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the Driver as appears to be claimed.!

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case that the driver breached the terms and conditions of parking by staying on site for longer than the free period of parking and therefore agreed to pay a charge. Once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

Accordingly this 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.

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

A couple of interesting comments here!

I note the Appellant's comments, however they provide no proof that there was indeed a 92 year old passenger in the vehicle.
In spite of the PCN photo showing a front-seat passenger, and a mark on the dashboard which was the blue badge (the photo resolution is poor), and a copy of the blue badge was attached to the appeal.

" I am not satisfied that allowing Blue Badge holders to stay on site for an extra 34 minutes could be considered 'reasonable', however the Appellant is entitled to take independent legal advice on this point if they so wish.
Sounds like a challenge, to me!

The Appellant should be aware that this appeals procedure does not seek to determine whether a criminal offence has taken place or not.!
Really! I mean... REALLY???!!

Ralph-y

well you where warned .......:o

after going this far .... why not try your local press , MP , and any one else who will listen ..

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

The problem with exposing yourself to an inevitable IAS dismissal of the appeal is that it gives VCS encouragement to serve court papers and, should they do so, will give you a mountain of work to defend to avoid ending up with a default CCJ.

Coupon-mad

Never mind. As expected and they have got no further. It has also given you some ammo already put together, in case VCS try a small claim (very rare for them). Expect to get a letter then another threatogram from 'BW Legal' this Summer but even then, VCS cases do not yet proceed to small claims, whereas Excel ones sometimes do.

Robust responses will be needed to any BW Legal letter walloping on an extra £54 for no reason. To find example responses discussed and shown, search for the keywords 'BW Legal £54' on this forum as and when you get that threatogram.

'Elliott v Loake' simply does not stack up as a relevant authority, BTW. but this only needs discussing if you get a small claim in the end.

hoohoo

Yet another example of the IAS institutional bias by requiring unreasonable levels of proof from the keeper, but zero levels of proof from anything from the operator

Yet another example of the IAS incompetence by quoting Eliot v Loake as establishing a legal principle, when it does nothing of the sort.

Boing! Kangaroo court! Skippy makes another fudgment.

Retired_Grumpy

Just received an email from VCS, who have obviously been contacted by the Landowner, whom I wrote to a week or so ago. The email reads as follows:

I am contacting following your recent letter to the landowner of the xxxxxxxxx private car park in xxxxx in connection with the Parking Charge Notice you received.

I fully understand and empathise with the circumstances you describe in relation to your visit to the xxxxxxxxxxxxRetail Park on 10th!March 2016. Please be aware that Vehicle Control Services Ltd! are members!and supporters of the Disabled Motoring organisation DMUK.!We are mindful of our obligations in terms of making reasonable adjustments and provisions for disabled users of the private car parks at which we operate; such adjustments include the provision of dedicated and larger parking spaces in closer proximity to relevant amenities etc. Understandably, it is difficult to cater for the entire spectrum of disabled visitors and it is for this reason that we advertise a helpline number on our signage. The helpline number can be used for a number of reasons, including the request for visitors to request additional time over the maximum stay period to accommodate their specific needs. In such circumstances, the vehicle registration number would be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period in order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice.

We are always receptive to feedback from our customers in order to improve our services and to enable car park users to benefit from the best possible experience. With this in mind, I would be most grateful to receive any suggestions you may have as to how we could improve our services for disabled visitors.

Please note that our car park operations fall into 2 main categories:

i)Those operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras (such as thexxxxxxxx Retail Park), which capture the entry and exit pictures of vehicles. Where these operate at sites with Pay & Display machines, the ‘machines work in conjunction with the cameras using the vehicle registration number as a means of matching P&D tickets with the ANPR camera images. The vehicle registration number being input into the Pay & Display machine (via key pads) as part of the purchasing routine.
ii)A conventional “manual” site where a Parking Attendant may be present or is visited by a Patrol Officer.

I note that your appeal to the IAS has been unsuccessful but wish to inform you that I have placed matters on hold until I receive your response to this email, and until such time that your complaint to the landowner has been resolved.

I await to hear from you at your earliest convenience."
[/I][
I had already approached DMUK, who have been very non-committal so far, but I didnt know that VCS were members of it. Anyone else aware of this?

I think "The helpline number can be used for a number of reasons, including the request for visitors to request additional time over the maximum stay period to accommodate their specific needs. In such circumstances, the vehicle registration number would be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period in order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice." is a bit disengenious, since the signs just have the word "Helpline 0xxx xxx xxxx" on them.

I could certainly give them some "customer feedback"as they request, but as they have stated they are putting "matters" on hold until I respond to the email, and until my complaint to the landowner is resolved, I am not inclined to do anything in a hurry:)

Oh, and the email from VCS carried the IPC, BPA and the DMUK, logos - I didn't think VCS were members of the BPA, else they would have POPLA .
Also, after I opened the email, (it must have sent a "read" reciept) I recieved an out-of office reply from Excel!!

Coupon-mad

Good.

That's unusual but interesting although I suspect VCS of merely paying lip service to something the landowner wants.

I doubt the signs tell you this: ''In such circumstances, the vehicle registration number would be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period in order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice.''


So my suggestion would be:

Next to every disabled bay, it is imperative that signs inform a disabled driver of ALL the applicable terms, which includes exemptions. So, to properly inform drivers using these bays that they are entitled to a reasonable adjustment of time, those signs should say:

In order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice, if you or a disabled passenger with you today need more time to park without charge, please ring freephone 0800 xxxx xxxxxxx (NOT an 084x number) so that your vehicle registration number can be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period for this visit. If you believe you meet the definition of disability to use this bay but have no Blue Badge please ring the helpline where your disability need can be discussed and we will make every reasonable effort to accommodate it.

pappa_golf

Retired_Grumpy wrote: »

Just received an email from VCS, who have obviously been contacted by the Landowner, whom I wrote to a week or so ago. The email reads as follows:

I am contacting following your recent letter to the landowner of the xxxxxxxxx private car park in xxxxx in connection with the Parking Charge Notice you received.

I fully understand and empathise with the circumstances you describe in relation to your visit to the xxxxxxxxxxxxRetail Park on 10th!March 2016. Please be aware that Vehicle Control Services Ltd! are members!and supporters of the Disabled Motoring organisation DMUK.!We are mindful of our obligations in terms of making reasonable adjustments and provisions for disabled users of the private car parks at which we operate; such adjustments include the provision of dedicated and larger parking spaces in closer proximity to relevant amenities etc. Understandably, it is difficult to cater for the entire spectrum of disabled visitors and it is for this reason that we advertise a helpline number on our signage. The helpline number can be used for a number of reasons, including the request for visitors to request additional time over the maximum stay period to accommodate their specific needs. In such circumstances, the vehicle registration number would be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period in order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice.

We are always receptive to feedback from our customers in order to improve our services and to enable car park users to benefit from the best possible experience. With this in mind, I would be most grateful to receive any suggestions you may have as to how we could improve our services for disabled visitors.

Please note that our car park operations fall into 2 main categories:

i)Those operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras (such as thexxxxxxxx Retail Park), which capture the entry and exit pictures of vehicles. Where these operate at sites with Pay & Display machines, the ‘machines work in conjunction with the cameras using the vehicle registration number as a means of matching P&D tickets with the ANPR camera images. The vehicle registration number being input into the Pay & Display machine (via key pads) as part of the purchasing routine.
ii)A conventional “manual” site where a Parking Attendant may be present or is visited by a Patrol Officer.

I note that your appeal to the IAS has been unsuccessful but wish to inform you that I have placed matters on hold until I receive your response to this email, and until such time that your complaint to the landowner has been resolved.

I await to hear from you at your earliest convenience."
[/I][
I had already approached DMUK, who have been very non-committal so far, but I didnt know that VCS were members of it. Anyone else aware of this?

I think "The helpline number can be used for a number of reasons, including the request for visitors to request additional time over the maximum stay period to accommodate their specific needs. In such circumstances, the vehicle registration number would be added to an exemptions list for an agreed time period in order to avoid the issue of a Parking Charge Notice." is a bit disengenious, since the signs just have the word "Helpline 0xxx xxx xxxx" on them.

I could certainly give them some "customer feedback"as they request, but as they have stated they are putting "matters" on hold until I respond to the email, and until my complaint to the landowner is resolved, I am not inclined to do anything in a hurry:)

Please be aware that Vehicle Control Services Ltd! are members!and supporters of the Disabled Motoring organisation DMUK.!We are mindful of our obligations in terms of making reasonable adjustments and provisions for disabled users of the private car parks at which we operate; such adjustments include the provision of dedicated and larger parking spaces in closer proximity to relevant amenities


and in the next sentence


Please note that our car park operations fall into 2 main categories:

i)Those operated by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras (such as thexxxxxxxx Retail Park), which capture the entry and exit pictures of vehicles


how can an ANPR system adhere to their first comment


in fact by admitting that thexxxxxxxx Retail Park is operated by ANPR , they are clearly failing on point one

Retired_Grumpy

By way of another update, I received a letter today from GBR Phoenix Beard, who advise that they are the Landlords appointed Managing Agents for the car park. They state they have instructed VCS to manage the car park on site via an ANPR system. They say they are in contact with VCS and are awaiting their investigation into "this matter" and report back to them prior to sending to me a full response to the issues I have raised (which were courtesy of Coupon-mad).