Appeal to IAS help please - PCN from PCM (UK)

kalaika

Hi all

I have a couple of questions about a PCN I'm currently appealing through the IAS.

Situation is this:
- My car was parked in a retail car park on a Sunday morning, about 45mins before the shops opened. The driver went for a walk then when the shops opened, purchases were made then the car was driven out of the car park.
- As registered keeper, I received a NTK from Parking Control Management (UK) 3 days later saying that "parking was allowable for retail customers whilst on the premises only and only during store opening hours". As my parked car had been seen 40 mins before opening time, a £100 PCN was being issued.
- I appealed as keeper (without naming the driver) on two grounds - that purchases were made at the retail store, and the penalty was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (free car park). Appeal was rejected as expected.
- Appeal made to IAS, and PCN(UK) have submitted their rebuttal along the same lines as first rejection (car was parked outside store opening hours and they do not need to justify the loss incurred). AIS are awaiting either my comments, or will go to a decision which I know will go against me.

I have two questions
1 - Whatever happens I do not expect the IAS decision to go in my favour, however if there any merit in responding to their statement? Even if only to correct the inaccuraces of their statement?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ndq64xJIT9Zzh6NTRhQnhMSXJ4QV9NUm82RFhPOGs3TFFz/view?usp=sharing
For example, whilst I have refused to name the driver, they claim they can assume the keeper is the driver, based on Eliot v Loake (which is a completely irrelevant case).
Thay also claim they do not have to justify the cost on the basis "the Parking Charge Notice was not issued for a breach of contract; rather it is one of the terms of the contract itself", which is incorrect as their signage states "breach of any term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a parking charge of £100", not that that by parking the driver agrees to pay a charge of £100.
Is it worth trying to correct and rebute their points, or just leave it and let it run on the basis the IAS is well known as a kangeroo court anyway? (I know there is some debate as to whether it was even worth appealing through IAS at all, but I'm here now).

2 - On the basis the IAS will go against me, can someone have a look at the NTK and see if it complies with POFA 2012? I've read that most don't comply, but would appreciate someone having a look as I'm stuggling to understand the details or what's required:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ndq64xJIT9b0FMU0dfRTlDWUVOVFNJR1ZXS3FZVDB3Rllj/view?usp=sharing

Many thanks

kalaika

pappa_golf

have you been back to the store , with your recepts and stated that you misread the opening hours and it was less time to await opening than driving home and back ?

kill it with the store ,, if they do not want returns and bad publicity

Coupon-mad

Whatever happens I do not expect the IAS decision to go in my favour, however if there any merit in responding to their statement?

Nope, because the IAS also spout Elliott v Loake.

Is it worth trying to correct and rebut their points,

No it is not, it will put you on the back foot and hand them ammo to use in court ''look we won an independent appeal...''

or just leave it and let it run on the basis the IAS is well known as a kangaroo court anyway?

Leave it, yes. You will get a fairer hearing at any court and will not have a lost IAS appeal under your belt to drag you down a peg.

The NTK doesn't look badly worded IMHO and would not be your main defence. And certainly do not use ''no GPEOL'' - nothing about 'loss' works now!

I received a NTK from Parking Control Management (UK) 3 days later saying that "parking was allowable for retail customers whilst on the premises only and only during store opening hours".

IMHO your main defence will be putting them to strict proof that the driver was not a patron and pointing out that the fact the car park was open was an invitation to treat (otherwise why is the car park not closed outside of opening hours).

And putting them to strict proof that the signs actually say what they say they do and that the terms and the £sum of the parking charge were in 'large lettering' and very prominent, as per the Beavis case signs which 'couldn't be briefer/were bound to have been seen' according to the Supreme Court.

And probably saying as well, that the signs were prohibitive:

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

Tort of trespass applies - possibly - a matter for nominal damages from a landowner only, not a matter a parking contractor can allow at a price. No contract, unlike in the Beavis case.

pappa_golf wrote: »

have you been back to the store , with your recepts and stated that you misread the opening hours and it was less time to await opening than driving home and back ?

kill it with the store ,, if they do not want returns and bad publicity

Good point well made. The OP should do this and get some photos of the signs, whilst there complaining vociferously.

kalaika

Thanks both for your replies.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Leave it, yes. You will get a fairer hearing at any court and will not have a lost IAS appeal under your belt to drag you down a peg.

I've already started an IAS appeal, which is where PCM(UK) have mentioned Eliiot v Loake. I expect to lose at IAS as a result of their 'independence', so trying to correct their points I guess is a waste of time.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The NTK doesn't look badly worded IMHO and would not be your main defence. And certainly do not use ''no GPEOL'' - nothing about 'loss' works now!

I included GPEOL as it's still on the official MSE template letter found here

Coupon-mad wrote: »

IMHO your main defence will be putting them to strict proof that the driver was not a patron and pointing out that the fact the car park was open was an invitation to treat (otherwise why is the car park not closed outside of opening hours).

And putting them to strict proof that the signs actually say what they say they do and that the terms and the £sum of the parking charge were in 'large lettering' and very prominent, as per the Beavis case signs which 'couldn't be briefer/were bound to have been seen' according to the Supreme Court.

And probably saying as well, that the signs were prohibitive:

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

Tort of trespass applies - possibly - a matter for nominal damages from a landowner only, not a matter a parking contractor can allow at a price. No contract, unlike in the Beavis case.

Thanks. Some points to think about, although I think I would some additional guidance if I'm going to take it down this route. I'll have to look into this to understand what's going on.

pappa_golf wrote: »

have you been back to the store , with your recepts and stated that you misread the opening hours and it was less time to await opening than driving home and back ?

kill it with the store ,, if they do not want returns and bad publicity

I'm rarely in the area at a time when the store is open but I'll see what I can do. I've checked the signs on display in the car park, and they match the sign shown on page 10 of their IAS defence here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ndq64xJIT9Zzh6NTRhQnhMSXJ4QV9NUm82RFhPOGs3TFFz/view?usp=sharing

beamerguy

kalaika wrote: »

Thanks both for your replies.
I've already started an IAS appeal, which is where PCM(UK) have mentioned Eliiot v Loake. I expect to lose at IAS as a result of their 'independence', so trying to correct their points I guess is a waste of time.
I included GPEOL as it's still on the official MSE template letter found here

Thanks. Some points to think about, although I think I would some additional guidance if I'm going to take it down this route. I'll have to look into this to understand what's going on.

I'm rarely in the area at a time when the store is open but I'll see what I can do. I've checked the signs on display in the car park, and they match the sign shown on page 10 of their IAS defence here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ndq64xJIT9Zzh6NTRhQnhMSXJ4QV9NUm82RFhPOGs3TFFz/view?usp=sharing

PCM(UK) are no different to the other dumbo parking companies and idiotic so called solicitors who quote Eliiot v Loake

The idiots don't understand the difference between a civil matter and a criminal case. Eliiot v Loake was a criminal case and the driver was proven guilty with forensics.
Certainly not a scammers parking ticket.
Just shows you how stupid these parking companies are

The IAS will reject your appeal. You need to know why ...

The IAS .. AKA ... IPC ... GLADSTONES SOLICITORS

Somehow THEY duped the government into thinking they would be a suitable ATA ???
TRACK RECORD SO FAR - A SCAM

And even Gladstones quote Eliiot v Loake ..... how stupid is that

Coupon-mad

I included GPEOL as it's still on the official MSE template letter found here.

We know - we have pointed out how useless the article is, and out of date, shoots everyone who uses it in the foot. Twice I've been asked (by MSE Marcel and MSE Megan) for comments on what needs changing but have been ignored when I tell them!