Endless appeal with IAS

midimaomao

Many thanks Coupon-mad - I would be very interested to know how the judge will say....

Don't worry, I am fully prepared to receive those nasty letters from the debt collector

And yes, I did see on the forum so will not be too bothered about IAS' decision - which we all know the result in advance~ It now makes me feel that I only want to submit my reply at the last minute before the deadline to play by their rules - endless game this is.... Let's see how far it can go and I shall keep everyone updated of the progress ~

Coupon-mad

Yes I can see you are approaching this with your eyes open. Try shoving in lots of evidence (make sure you upload photos before you hit submit as you can't add evidence later).

midimaomao

Really enjoy learning new stuff here. U guys are so knowledgable - thank u very much all.

midimaomao

IAS replied as below:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear that any driver parking, stopping, waiting or dropping off outside of a marked 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 a sign advertising the terms, and outside of a bay. I am therefore satisfied the charge was lawful.

The Appellant claims they were not allowed sufficient time to consider the terms. The driver is normally entitled to a grace period to consider the terms. However, this does not mean they may park as they please whilst they do so. Certain terms are almost universally applied, such as not parking is a disabled bay without a blue badge, or parking outside of a bay. There is clear notice of parking restrictions as the driver enters the private area. It is not sufficient for the driver to simply abandon the vehicle on hatch markings, which are a clear indication that parking is not allowed, whilst they consider the terms. There are bays present and the driver should have utilised them. In addition, the grace period is to consider the terms and for no other reason. The Operator’s photographic evidence appears to show the driver making no attempt to read the terms.

The appeal is dismissed.
"

Carthesis

So now you need to provide photographs of you in a catalogue pose, pondering the signs with your finger on your chin?

What. A. Joke.

The Jopson case from a few days ago contains a definition of parking, which this case seemingly doesn't meet.

If this were me, I'd be telling them to bring it on.

midimaomao

Many thanks. Well, I have seen quite a few definitions of "parking" so far....They may have a foot to stand on insisting on the fact that I turned my engine off for a minute or so. However, my argument will be that it looks like these people are catching the customers out and I am not convinced that this can be considered as breach of contract while there was acceptance of any contract.

If this goes to county court, what is the judge likely to say? Curious....

worried_jim

I would expect them to bottle the court date with about five days to go as your case is strong and you are willing to turn up, the odds are stacked against them. Keep it up if it ever gets there.

The_Deep

Is the appeal signed? If not, you could argue that it does not meet the requirements of the Regalions

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

Also, it will only deal with any dispute within a very limited period, contrary to Schedule 3.13(e).

peter_the_piper

DollyDee wrote: »

The last sign states "No Grace Periods Applied"
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.

Seems to me the ppc decided to disagree with should
Pity the word is should and not must.

System

If this were me, I'd be telling them to bring it on.

They will and they do

I would expect them to bottle the court date with about five days to go as your case is strong and you are willing to turn up, the odds are stacked against them.

They don't though there are plenty of cases coming up. They lost the first one (no transcript though) but plenty of other chances coming up.

If anyone has a case coming up at this site, there is plenty of detail available. For example, pics of the site in December 2015 do not show that hatched area. So it's the usual signs/lines after the event that PCM are scamming people with now.