Request review of IAS appeal draft

BlueHawk

Hi,

if anyone could review the draft appeal to the IAS below, it would be much appreciated. I park every night in the parking bay assigned to me under my apartment block, in England. Access is regulated by a key fob and one night the parking permit must have slipped from view and I found a PCN on the windscreen dated 10/12/2016 from CMS UK Ltd.. I have challenged the PCN online on CMS' website, stating I was the driver and owner on 30/12/2016. I received the NTK, dated the 19/01/2017, which did not mention the dispute/appeal. The appeal was rejected by email on 24/01/2017, which included the option to appeal to the IAS.

Appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice number XXXXX


To whom it may concern:

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX and I am in receipt of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from CM Services Ltd (CMS) with the above reference number.

I have responded to this notice and CMS have ‘denied my appeal’ on January 24th and informed me to contact the IAS.

I therefore would like appeal this notice on the following points:

Site Signage not compliant with 'Schedule 1 - Signage' of the IPC Code of Practice (COP):
- No 'Entrance Sign' at current entrance to the car park - because the entrance gate is broken the exit is currently also used as the entrance.
- The 'Entrance Sign' at the old entrance fails to comply with points a), b) and c) of the 'Entrance Signs' section of 'Schedule 1 - Signage'; specifically it does not make clear that the motorist is entering onto private land; it does not refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions; and it does not identify CMS at all.
- The site sign fails to comply with point (1) of the ‘Other Signage’ section of 'Schedule 1 - Signage'; specifically it fails use the required language to identify CMS as ‘the creditor’.
- The sign fails to comply with the ‘Contrast and Illumination’ section of 'Schedule 1 - Signage'; specifically it is inadequately lit (in fact, not lit at all) and not made of retro reflective material.

The Charge is NOT a Contractual Fee – it is in fact a disguised breach. CMS has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre-estimate of loss by stating that this is a matter of contractual agreement. However, the signs state that "Parking in this area is permitted for: VEHICLES DISPLAYING A VALID PARKING PERMIT AND PARKED FULLY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A MARKED BAY." There can be no contract to do something that is not permitted.

In order for there to be a contract there must be an offer, acceptance and an exchange of ‘consideration’ between the parties (i.e. each party must receive something of value from the other). If only one party receives the ‘consideration’ there can be no contract. There cannot be a contractually agreed fee for something that is NOT allowed because, clearly that is a nonsense and, it fails to establish the essential requirements of a contract because there is no exchange of consideration when asked to pay but get nothing in return.

Because permission to park can not be granted when parking is not allowed the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, the charge is still a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.

As such the £100 charge stated on the sign is obviously part of a penalty clause and far exceeds any genuine pre-estimate of loss on the part of the landowner or site operator. The parking bay in question is uniquely assigned to myself and the area is only accessible through a locked gate. Thus, there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss on the part of the landowner or site operator

.

Should I add photos of signs, my permit, PCN, NTK? Many thanks in advance for any tips, suggestions or comments.

ratechaser

I'm sure the regulars will provide expert advice shortly, but I'm sure you can already see from numerous other threads that

1) appealing to the IAS is a waste of time
2) Beavis killed off the GPEOL argument
3) a much better use of your time would be to look at your lease/tenancy wording to see what it says about parking, because if there is nothing about having to display permits, then it sounds like the PPC is trying to unilaterally impose a contractual change that they most certainly can't do

Fruitcake

ratechaser is spot on.

Look at your lease/tenancy agreement then have a pop at the managing agents for bringing in the scammers.

Also look at the Jopson case amongst others on the Parking-Prankster's blogspot where a judge basically said, lease/AST trumps third party scammers.

Redx

agreed

if you really are going to appeal this , it will be mainly on contract and leases , so like the JOPSON case (and others) , its all about your rights to that land and possibly unfettered use of that land or bay , so alll depends what is said , or not said , in your lease , agreement or whatever you hold for the right to park in that bay

read parking pranksters recent blogs on this , plus read the recent case in liverpool where the reality star won against VCS in that gated car park

plenty of info here if you look for it as its a regular feature on here and on pepipoo forums

safarmuk

It is clear that appealing to the IAS does seem to be a waste of time, however I do wonder what even the IAS would make of a well worded and backed up (with case law, lease documentation etc.) Residential Parking appeal, where the ticket has been given in the RK's own allocated bay where he/she has exclusive use as specified in the lease. Even if they rejected it I would love to see the rejection explanation!!

twhitehousescat

safarmuk wrote: »

It is clear that appealing to the IAS does seem to be a waste of time, however I do wonder what even the IAS would make of a well worded and backed up (with case law, lease documentation etc.) Residential Parking appeal, where the ticket has been given in the RK's own allocated bay where he/she has exclusive use as specified in the lease. Even if they rejected it I would love to see the rejection explanation!!

a denial would look interesting when used in your statement in court , complete with paperwork that proves its a load of tosh ,

safarmuk

a denial would look interesting when used in your statement in court , complete with paperwork that proves its a load of tosh ,

Precisely, it may even help prove "unreasonableness" and help facilitate a counter claim.
Any clown who thinks they can override a lease and enforce a PCN on a resident in their own allocated bay or their visitor in a visitors bay is surely "fishing" for the uninformed