Endless appeal with IAS

DollyDee_2

The last sign states "No Grace Periods Applied" and yet the IPC Code of Practice states on Page 13, Item 15:

15. Grace Periods

15.1 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.

15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
permitted period of parking has expired.

So that sign breaks their own Code of Practice!

midimaomao

Thank you very much for your reply. By Looking at this, I certainly would not pay £100 to these horrible people. I feel they are just trying to catch everyone as I actually found on hotel.com or another similar booking website ---

Someone said that he got 3 tickets every time that he dropped off his child as it is right in front of the hotel entrance.

Coupon-mad

OK, maybe someone with time can suggest a final version to submit, seeing as you've committed to IAS appeal. Make sure when you do submit it that you attach/upload your evidence photos and scan of your Chinese passport as proof that it was reasonable that you needed a minute to read the sign, then drove away to park where it was allowed to leave a vehicle.

IAS appeals are usually lost but I'm interested to see what the IAS makes of the PPC saying this:

The driver is entitled to park and consider the terms before making the
decision to park.

...if you clearly mention that and say, this is conflicting information and clearly they did NOT allow me any time to read the sign and make that decision.

And show that the signs say 'No Grace Periods Applied' which needs the words quoted by DollyDee adding to your appeal response.

Show us what you have now come up with including DollyDee's words.

midimaomao

Many thanks,

I do not have any evidence, as I did not take photos of myself unloading those boxes......well, maybe the operator did not take any neither as they could not get any money out of people for those ones...

I can certainly upload my passport as advised.

These people cannot simply sit there and take photos as their daily job and make huge money out of this....They obviously now have a dedicated team to reply to any appeals to any PCN issued as they were really efficient responding....

Having read the parking operator's reply as below, they are trying to say they are applying the rules but I obviously did not obey the rule by not standing in front of the every signs to read. Well, I honestly could not remember exactly what happened but I can assure that I moved and unloaded all the boxes in the designated area, as a fact.

"Any driver is of course, entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms. It is agreed that the signs cannot be read from the vehicle, nor are they intended to be. The driver is entitled to park and consider the terms before making the decision to park. The operator would expect any driver parking on private land, to park in bays where they are present.
However, the driver made no attempt to do this. The signs at the entrance make it clear this is private land and restrictions apply. The photographs make it clear the driver made no attempt to consider the terms; therefore they are deemed to have notice of them."

midimaomao

This seems to be an endless and pointless argument with PCM now- I did not have two passengers but one, do they really know what they are talking about? Should I continue with this appeal by replying with the same thing for another year maybe?

PCM obviously has a dedicated team to deal with this- they are incredibly quick to reply.

The operator made their response on 21/10/2016 15:05:09.

I do not accept that the driver was reading the signs. The photographic evidence shows that the driver dropped off two passengers. There is clear entrance signage stipulating the terms of parking – there is no reason why the driver would not read this or as advised by the entrance signs, park within a bay to read the internal signage.

In regards to the sign – the sign has been audited by the IPC, therefore I am confident that it is legally compliant and compliant with the IPC CoP.

Coupon-mad

midimaomao wrote: »

PCM obviously has a dedicated team to deal with this- they are incredibly quick to reply.

They have the motley crew who featured on Watchdog, who have nothing better to do and 'make it up'!

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

I think I would not bother with IAS looking at that rubbish that PCM have written. I know you've started it but you have not appealed yet and didn't pay £15 for the non-standard IAS (we hope) so I would drop it and ignore them (DO NOT PAY).

fisherjim

Tell them if this goes to court you will require them to produce all their evidence that two passengers got out of the vehicle, which they obviously will not have!

I don't for one minute believe that the IPC audit every sign in every car park, that's just garbage, if they do they should have a dated log for all the sites they visit with photos and a plan!

beamerguy

midimaomao wrote: »

PCM obviously has a dedicated team to deal with this- they are incredibly quick to reply.

PCM have a dedicated bunch of scammers employed to extort money.

What else do you expect from bottom feeding pond life

midimaomao

Many thanks all. I did not pay anything as IAS states FREE and I am not yet familiar with non-standard IAS and will not be interested going any further with them, accordingly to what I have read here....

- Basically, we all expect that IAS will honour this charge and support PCM as their members. So I am actually now interested to know what they will come up with to support PCM's ticket. Shall we give them a chance to see whether I can win a lottery maybe? I will certainly post their final decision here regardless to share with everyone;

- As PCM needs to go with IAS' decisions but I do not have to, even I loose, I do not have to pay the charge legally until they take me to court, when by law I need to defend myself;

- Of course, before the court paper comes through, I shall expect numerous nasty letters from debt collectors, which I will ignore.

- The link Coupon-mad provided is SHOCKING…..and they are really being stupid by making things up…….which will not do them any favour in court I guess?

OK, back to the key points now:

1) As shown on the pictures, my car was full of boxes and I had to put the back seats down- therefore there is no way that I have more than one passenger in my car. However, this is irrelevant to the topic I guess but to support that PCM is making things up (or they may claim they made a mistake as well);

2) From all the pictures that they provided so far:

- I arrived @08:36:19
- Passenger got out @08:36:22
- I opened the boot from inside and got out of the car @08:36:31
- I shut the boot and got back to the car @ 08:36:54
- I already sat in the car and was about to restart the car @ 08:36:56
- Last picture was timed @ 08:37:00 with a zoom-in of my car registration with the light still off

I am very positive that I started the car immediately after 08:37 and moved the car the drop-off bay, so in fact we are looking at 1 minute or so from 08:36-08:37, definitely within 2 minutes I moved and spent the rest of time unloading the boxes in the bay. (Of course, the passenger ended up going back and forth many times to shift the boxes.)

My question is, if I am going to court, by showing the judge all the above, am I likely to win the case by considering all the facts that we have talked about earlier while evidence photos would be presented by PCM to the judge?

Coupon-mad

At IAS you have to prove every word you say - and you will still likely lose.

Prove that English isn't your first language with a copy passport
Prove that the car was full of boxes
Prove with pictures that the sign was unreadable
Prove you were only there a minute

etc., etc.,

But if you are up to try it give it a go as long as you are not the sort of person to feel on the back foot when you get that damning rejection from an anonymous git saying that the PPC has evidenced their case better than you, a mere consumer.

My question is, if I am going to court, by showing the judge all the above, am I likely to win the case by considering all the facts that we have talked about earlier as well as all the evidence photos that PCM present to the judge?

Well PCM use Gladstones and they bungle cases so yes, you would have a chance to win and no big risk (no CCJ or huge costs):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/hopeless-solicitors-gladstones-bungle.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/gladstones-solicitors-bungle-case.html

And when we help people with Gladstones ill-prepared claims, normally they go quiet and do not proceed. Did you know Gladstones is run by the same people as the IPC? So for you to lose at IAS is in the Trade body's owners' interests...

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/independent-parking-committee-change.html

''It is well known that Will Hurley and John Davies are directors of both Gladstones and the IPC, and that Gladstones try and capitalise on disputed parking charges by encouraging parking operators to use their services to take claims to court, regardless of the merit of the claim.''

''Almost overnight the appeals service became the now infamous 'kangaroo court', where motorist evidence is almost uniformly discounted and operator evidence almost uniformly believed.''