Independent Appeal Service Declined

Half_way

ralphicous wrote: »

1.The title deeds only mentions that I should park motor vehicles on my space, no maintenance to be performed that could block the access to other residents. Nothing was mentioned about showing a parking permit.

2.I need to find out who hired P&PM Ltd, at the moment, all I know is Mainstay Group handles the communal areas of the flat and P&PM for the parking.

3.When we moved in last July, we were told by the previous owners that we needed to register our car as a resident. Ironically I park my motorcycle on the same bay with no resident's permit showing and it wasn't even registered to P&PM.

4. Not aware of any permits for opening our windows after 10:00pm - but just restrictions for parking caravans or storing anything else other than motor vehicles.

Simply because point 4 would be ridiculous, just as having a permit to park a vehicle on/in a space you are entitled to, or give permission for a vehicle to park in /on that space

yotmon

I realise that you have taken this on board to protect your friend, but seeing as they are the reg. keeper, make sure they realise that they also need to ignore any letters from the parking company and not to engage with them, otherwise all will be lost.

ralphicous

Half_way wrote: »

Simply because point 4 would be ridiculous, just as having a permit to park a vehicle on/in a space you are entitled to, or give permission for a vehicle to park in /on that space

This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

The Appellant’s representative claims they obtained a temporary authorisation for the Appellant’s vehicle to park in their space. This is not disputed by the Operator. However, the Appellant claims it was not made clear this was only valid for one day. The Operator contends it is standard practice to explain the validity of the temporary permits and the name of the permit ends EXP for expiry then 120816 to signify the date it expires. I cannot accept the Appellant formed the view the code permitted the vehicle to park at this location forever. If they were aware the permit was temporary they must have asked or been told how long it was valid for. I cannot envisage how a conversation regarding a temporary permit can take place without involving some discussion of when the permit ceases t be valid.

More importantly, in all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a parking charge was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

In this case the Operator has satisfied me of the prima facie case. In respect of the Appellant’s challenge there is no evidence to corroborate their claim they were not advised regarding the code. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant to undermine the lawfulness of the charge I must dismiss the appeal."

Coupon-mad

ralphicous wrote: »

Huge thanks for your reply!!!
I am glad I went here as I was razor close in paying the PCN last night when the IAS dismissed my appeal. I felt defeated and hopeless but have since gained confidence to fight back! Once again, Thank you!

How the heck did the IAS say you were liable when you are not the keeper or driver, as Umkomaas spotted? The Assessor calls you ''The Appellant’s representative'' so they know you are not the liable party. Did you have to name the driver/keeper in the IAS appeals pages (probably not but just checking)?

What I would do is calculate the 56 days from the parking event in July and see if your friend is safely past that yet (presumably he has never been posted a Notice to Keeper and he OWNS his car, it's not a company car or hired?).

If he is the owner/keeper and once he is safely past the 56 days, then they cannot serve a NTK to hold him liable as keeper, either.

So, 100% neither of you should be even contemplating paying this! You are both not liable.

'Popcorn time' for us...keep the thread informed and show us any letter than now arrives to you or the keeper.

beamerguy

ralphicous wrote: »

This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

The Appellant’s representative claims they obtained a temporary authorisation for the Appellant’s vehicle to park in their space. This is not disputed by the Operator. However, the Appellant claims it was not made clear this was only valid for one day. The Operator contends it is standard practice to explain the validity of the temporary permits and the name of the permit ends EXP for expiry then 120816 to signify the date it expires. I cannot accept the Appellant formed the view the code permitted the vehicle to park at this location forever. If they were aware the permit was temporary they must have asked or been told how long it was valid for. I cannot envisage how a conversation regarding a temporary permit can take place without involving some discussion of when the permit ceases t be valid.

More importantly, in all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a parking charge was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

In this case the Operator has satisfied me of the prima facie case. In respect of the Appellant’s challenge there is no evidence to corroborate their claim they were not advised regarding the code. In the absence of any evidence from the Appellant to undermine the lawfulness of the charge I must dismiss the appeal."

WHAT Adjudicator ???

Anyone know who "I" is ??? Could it be either Will Hurley or John Davies

There is no adjudicator that we know of that is real or genuine with the IAS. The IPC/IAS/GLADSTONES fail to name the adjudicator so we can only assume this is a fake reply in an attempt to extort money on behalf of their operator

Northlakes

ralphicous wrote: »

This is the IAS Adjudicator's response to my appeal;

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.

"

Lawful? You have to hand it to these guys they're 'brass necked' as we say in Lancashire.
The definition of 'brass necked',
a type of behaviour where someone is extremely confident about their own actions but does not understand that their behaviour is unacceptable to others

ralphicous

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How the heck did the IAS say you were liable when you are not the keeper or driver, as Umkomaas spotted? The Assessor calls you ''The Appellant’s representative'' so they know you are not the liable party. Did you have to name the driver/keeper in the IAS appeals pages (probably not but just checking)?

What I would do is calculate the 56 days from the parking event in July and see if your friend is safely past that yet (presumably he has never been posted a Notice to Keeper and he OWNS his car, it's not a company car or hired?).

If he is the owner/keeper and once he is safely past the 56 days, then they cannot serve a NTK to hold him liable as keeper, either.

So, 100% neither of you should be even contemplating paying this! You are both not liable.

'Popcorn time' for us...keep the thread informed and show us any letter than now arrives to you or the keeper.

I think this is because the IAS has this clause before you proceed and appeal with them;

"You reported that the appellant was the driver but not the registered keeper at the time the parking charge was issued.
You reported that the appellant is being held liable for the parking charge."

Unfortunately I ticked "agree" to this before I went on to appeal with IAS.

The parking charge was actually issued on the 13th August so it has been 34 days since.
I will keep this thread updated once they execute their scare tactic.

Pop-corn time indeed :rotfl:

beamerguy

Northlakes wrote: »

Lawful? You have to hand it to these guys they're 'brass necked' as we say in Lancashire.
The definition of 'brass necked',
a type of behaviour where someone is extremely confident about their own actions but does not understand that their behaviour is unacceptable to others

Or as we say in the deep south ..... Plain bloody stupid"

Coupon-mad

ralphicous wrote: »

I think this is because the IAS has this clause before you proceed and appeal with them;

"You reported that the appellant was the driver but not the registered keeper at the time the parking charge was issued.
You reported that the appellant is being held liable for the parking charge."

Unfortunately I ticked "agree" to this before I went on to appeal with IAS.

The parking charge was actually issued on the 13th August so it has been 34 days since.

I would be ready to respond to any letter by clarifying that you certainly were not the driver and that the IAS appeal 'service' (which you subsequently discovered is considered by right-thinking consumers with years of knowledge of the private parking industry, to be a 'kangaroo court') asked a question which could not be answered properly by an appellant who was neither driver nor keeper.

However, you are happy to clarify - to stop the operator from wasting costs on an ill-fated court case - that this is not your car, you are neither the keeper nor owner nor driver of it. To be clear, you only appealed because you are the resident who in all good faith and for the right reasons, wanted to protect the visitor from rogue enforcement of a charge which bears all the hallmarks of a scam.

As such, you suggest they take the matter up with the driver if they have evidence of the identity of that party. As the resident you have no obligation to assist and if they wanted the driver (or keeper) to appeal they should have said so when you first appealed. They should have realised they did not know who the appellant was (a person who appeared to be a third party) and should have refused to allow the matter to proceed to IAS with an appellant who has no lawful liability whatsoever for the charge.

You can finish by saying, you note that the period of 56 days since the parking event has already expired, so any application to the DVLA for the keeper's data now will be too late for any 'reasonable cause' and would breach the KADOE contract/DVLA rules. As such, you have informed the keeper of this fact and they are fully primed and prepared to report the operator to the DVLA and Information Commissioner, should their data be accessed unlawfully at this late juncture.

Ralph-y

the above advice is the best you will ever get .......

Ralph :cool:

foreign corespondent