We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
IAS Appeal Dismissed
Furnishdavid
Posts: 8 Forumite
Nothing surprising here as I have read all the threads to do with PCM and the IAS. What I would like to know is how should I play it from here? I intend to ignore all letters from PCM and debt collectors (or should I reply to them? Just had the first one from PCM saying I have 14 days to pay and then it will be handed over to debt collectors etc) But what do I do if I receive an LBC (and what exactly is that?) or court issued papers? Has anyone actually ended up in court? Worst case scenario, I end up in court and lose, would I be liable for any other costs apart from the parking fine (currently £100)? My appeal is copied below and the IAS dismissal. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.
My appeal:
As the registered driver, I have responded to this notice and PCM have rejected my appeal.
I would therefore like to appeal this notice of rejection on the following grounds:
1) Site signage is not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (COP). The image of the site sign supplied by PCM fails to comply with point 1 of the ‘Other Signs’ section of Schedule 1. Specifically it fails to use the language to identify PCM as ‘the creditor’.
2) Site signage fails to comply with Part B (Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators) 15 Grace Periods 15.1. The IPC COP clearly states that ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site’. As is clearly evident from the times on the photos PCM have provided, the driver pulled over for approximately the 9 seconds it took to read the signs and decided not to remain on site. PCM have failed to provide any evidence that shows the driver remained for any longer. The photographs show a duration of 9 seconds. In addition, the signage says nothing of having to park in a bay to read the signs. It is not illegal for a driver to pull over and read a sign. The IPC COP clearly states drivers should be allowed to do this.
3) Site signage fails to comply with Part E Schedule 1 – Signage ‘Text Size’. The text is so small that it cannot be ‘…easily read by a motorist…’ As a result, the driver had to get out of the car to walk up very close to the sign to read it and then make an informed decision to leave. In addition, the rejection letter dated 6th June states ‘You parked in a manner whereby you agreed to pay a charge.’ No agreement can be made before the driver has had a chance to read the signs so this is an absurd accusation. The letter then goes on to say ‘By parking in this manner, you agree to pay the stated charge’. How can the driver agree to anything before they have had the chance to read the sign? Besides, the charge is not a contractual fee – it is in fact a disguised breach.
4) The rejection letter dated 6th June wrongly states ‘The photographic evidence clearly demonstrates the driver was dropping off a passenger…’ On the contrary, there is only one person evident in all the photographs and nobody walking away from the car as would be the case if someone had been dropped off. It is pure speculation on behalf of the attendant and PCM.
5) PCM have failed to provide any evidence of loss of earnings that justify a charge of £100. My understanding is that according to the Protection of Freedom Act, such invoices are not allowed to be punitive and so I asked PCM in my appeal to prove if there was any financial loss to the landlord. PCM have not answered that request and so I believe that there was no financial loss suffered by the landlord or site operator. As such, the Parking Charge Notice amount is wholly disproportionate to the alleged contravention.
6) No contract was entered into with PCM and therefore I am not liable for the parking charge. My initial appeal to PCM was submitted on Sunday 5th June and I received the rejection in the post on Tuesday 7th. I do not believe they have ‘considered my case carefully’ at all given the time frame involved in responding.
I believe that PCM have acted improperly in the manner they have issued this PCN and I seriously question the validity of this company in their demands for payment and threats of debt recovery and court action all before we have even had the chance to go through the proper channels of appeal.
IAS Dismissal:
"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking, stopping, waiting or dropping off outside of a bay agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, in close proximity to signs advertising the terms, and outside of a bay. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.
The Appellant raises a number of challenges, and I have responded to each below using the Appellant’s own numerical reference.
1. The sign does identify the Operator as the creditor. It is not necessary to use the words “The creditor is....” in order to do this.
2. The driver is entitled to a grace period, once parked, to consider the terms and, if necessary, to obtain a ticket or permit. Only if they remained parked, having had notice of the terms are they bound by the contract. There is sufficient notice at the entrance to the site to make the driver aware there are conditions in place. The grace period is for the reason stated and not for any other purpose. When parking on private land I would expect any driver to park in a bay where a bay is present, before reading the signs, as it is an almost universal requirement to do so. However, even if the driver does not do this, they must still attempt to read the signs. The Operator’s photographs demonstrate there was no attempt to read the signs. If the driver chooses not to read the terms, they are deemed to have accepted them, as long as sufficient notice has been provided. Otherwise all drivers could simply refuse to read the signs and be exempt from the terms.
3. The signs are meant to be read up close, as the driver is entitled to a grace period to consider the terms.
4. I am satisfied, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not the driver was dropping off a passenger. This is not contradicted by the Appellant.
5. Loss is not relevant as the claim is not for breach but a contractually agreed sum. Once the Appellant entered into a contract with the Operator they agreed to be bound by the terms. In this case, by parking outside of a bay, part of this agreement was payment of the parking charge. Therefore the charge is, in effect, the price the Appellant has agreed to pay for parking out of a bay, and a core term of the contract. Once the Appellant entered into a contractual agreement with the Operator to pay the charge, the Operator is no longer required to justify this charge by reference to their losses.
6. Any failings in the Operator’s appeal have no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.
The appeal is dismissed.
My appeal:
As the registered driver, I have responded to this notice and PCM have rejected my appeal.
I would therefore like to appeal this notice of rejection on the following grounds:
1) Site signage is not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (COP). The image of the site sign supplied by PCM fails to comply with point 1 of the ‘Other Signs’ section of Schedule 1. Specifically it fails to use the language to identify PCM as ‘the creditor’.
2) Site signage fails to comply with Part B (Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators) 15 Grace Periods 15.1. The IPC COP clearly states that ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site’. As is clearly evident from the times on the photos PCM have provided, the driver pulled over for approximately the 9 seconds it took to read the signs and decided not to remain on site. PCM have failed to provide any evidence that shows the driver remained for any longer. The photographs show a duration of 9 seconds. In addition, the signage says nothing of having to park in a bay to read the signs. It is not illegal for a driver to pull over and read a sign. The IPC COP clearly states drivers should be allowed to do this.
3) Site signage fails to comply with Part E Schedule 1 – Signage ‘Text Size’. The text is so small that it cannot be ‘…easily read by a motorist…’ As a result, the driver had to get out of the car to walk up very close to the sign to read it and then make an informed decision to leave. In addition, the rejection letter dated 6th June states ‘You parked in a manner whereby you agreed to pay a charge.’ No agreement can be made before the driver has had a chance to read the signs so this is an absurd accusation. The letter then goes on to say ‘By parking in this manner, you agree to pay the stated charge’. How can the driver agree to anything before they have had the chance to read the sign? Besides, the charge is not a contractual fee – it is in fact a disguised breach.
4) The rejection letter dated 6th June wrongly states ‘The photographic evidence clearly demonstrates the driver was dropping off a passenger…’ On the contrary, there is only one person evident in all the photographs and nobody walking away from the car as would be the case if someone had been dropped off. It is pure speculation on behalf of the attendant and PCM.
5) PCM have failed to provide any evidence of loss of earnings that justify a charge of £100. My understanding is that according to the Protection of Freedom Act, such invoices are not allowed to be punitive and so I asked PCM in my appeal to prove if there was any financial loss to the landlord. PCM have not answered that request and so I believe that there was no financial loss suffered by the landlord or site operator. As such, the Parking Charge Notice amount is wholly disproportionate to the alleged contravention.
6) No contract was entered into with PCM and therefore I am not liable for the parking charge. My initial appeal to PCM was submitted on Sunday 5th June and I received the rejection in the post on Tuesday 7th. I do not believe they have ‘considered my case carefully’ at all given the time frame involved in responding.
I believe that PCM have acted improperly in the manner they have issued this PCN and I seriously question the validity of this company in their demands for payment and threats of debt recovery and court action all before we have even had the chance to go through the proper channels of appeal.
IAS Dismissal:
"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking, stopping, waiting or dropping off outside of a bay agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, in close proximity to signs advertising the terms, and outside of a bay. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.
The Appellant raises a number of challenges, and I have responded to each below using the Appellant’s own numerical reference.
1. The sign does identify the Operator as the creditor. It is not necessary to use the words “The creditor is....” in order to do this.
2. The driver is entitled to a grace period, once parked, to consider the terms and, if necessary, to obtain a ticket or permit. Only if they remained parked, having had notice of the terms are they bound by the contract. There is sufficient notice at the entrance to the site to make the driver aware there are conditions in place. The grace period is for the reason stated and not for any other purpose. When parking on private land I would expect any driver to park in a bay where a bay is present, before reading the signs, as it is an almost universal requirement to do so. However, even if the driver does not do this, they must still attempt to read the signs. The Operator’s photographs demonstrate there was no attempt to read the signs. If the driver chooses not to read the terms, they are deemed to have accepted them, as long as sufficient notice has been provided. Otherwise all drivers could simply refuse to read the signs and be exempt from the terms.
3. The signs are meant to be read up close, as the driver is entitled to a grace period to consider the terms.
4. I am satisfied, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not the driver was dropping off a passenger. This is not contradicted by the Appellant.
5. Loss is not relevant as the claim is not for breach but a contractually agreed sum. Once the Appellant entered into a contract with the Operator they agreed to be bound by the terms. In this case, by parking outside of a bay, part of this agreement was payment of the parking charge. Therefore the charge is, in effect, the price the Appellant has agreed to pay for parking out of a bay, and a core term of the contract. Once the Appellant entered into a contractual agreement with the Operator to pay the charge, the Operator is no longer required to justify this charge by reference to their losses.
6. Any failings in the Operator’s appeal have no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.
The appeal is dismissed.
0
Comments
-
You are in the debt collector stage now.
You can safely ignore debt collectors
If you get a formal LBC (Letter Before Court Action) then come back to the newbies faq thread for advice on preparing a defence as well as links to more info/advice.
If you lose in court then the cost will be more (you have to pay court fees/claimants expenses for attending and maybe a £50 or so solicitor fee.)0 -
Everyone loses at IAS so this thread can be a warning to newbies not to try (but not to pay either). This loss has buoyed the parking firm and made you feel more unsure of your grounds, perhaps. Better to have ignored PCM as they are not a BPA member so no POPLA was available. The IAS is not a fair alternative and hands the PPC an 'advantage' you should have ducked.
They lied, quelle surprise. You said:4) The rejection letter dated 6th June wrongly states ‘The photographic evidence clearly demonstrates the driver was dropping off a passenger…’ On the contrary, there is only one person evident in all the photographs and nobody walking away from the car as would be the case if someone had been dropped off. It is pure speculation on behalf of the attendant and PCM.
So the IAS idiot said:I am satisfied, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not the driver was dropping off a passenger. This is not contradicted by the Appellant.I intend to ignore all letters from PCM and debt collectors (or should I reply to them?
Ignore them.
A LBCCC or LBC is a Letter before Claim/Letter of Claim or sometimes a Letter before Action. Look them up on the County Court or Which? website or read this from the BMPA, a very useful resource who charge nothing for advice:
http://www.bmpa.eu/static_lba_header.php
Yes - some PCM cases go to a small claim, like here:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html
You can see that they are not the sharpest tools in the box, very defendable with our help. Sit tight for now through the blizzard of silly letters, red ink and all, no posts about those tedious letters please!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663
Nine seconds indeed. The IAS decision makes no sense at all and cannot have made any sense to the person writing it either. It is frankly an embarrassment and further proof that the IAS is not suitable or fair as a consumer ADR.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
ok thanks for the reply. I'll read those links and sit tight 'til an LBC etc.0
-
Another comedy of errors from Will Hurley and John Davies.
Doubt a real judge could make any sense of it.
Even when they take it court, they make a right pigs ear of it anyway0 -
In some respects ... if the PPC was foolish enough to take you to court, this IAS appeal rejection might actually help you, given that it is a travesty of justice and shows absolutely no signs of logical thought of knowledge of the law. 0
-
I like that the IAS think that you have to park in a bay before reading the signage, and that stopping elsewhere doesn't count.
You can happily ignore them now (apart from court papers) happy in the knowledge that you've cost PCM and the IAS a little bit of money and credibility 0 -
happy in the knowledge that you've cost PCM and the IAS a little bit of money and credibility
Really? Do they have any left? :rotfl:Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.#Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Apart from the fact that PPC's join the IPC because they think it's going to be an easy ride for them, they can be rest assured that the IAS, the so called independent appeals service is the biggest load of rubbish ever to be allowed in the UK0
-
In some respects ... if the PPC was foolish enough to take you to court, this IAS appeal rejection might actually help you, given that it is a travesty of justice and shows absolutely no signs of logical thought of knowledge of the law
Indeed, and as it was probably unsigned you do not know whether it was written by a barrister, solicitor, or gofer.
Threaten to produce ift if they threaten court, it could hole them below the water line.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards