We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
London Parking Solutions IAS Dismissal
Options
unfussyrope
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi Guys,
First of all I would like to thank the members of this forum for the very useful information. I have managed to get myself out of a ridiculous parking 'fine' using your help.
The appeal on behalf of my father however has not been as straightforward. He pulled into a car park to change the directions on his satnav to get to his next destination (he is a private hire driver). He was in the car park, which is managed by London Parking Solutions, members of the IPC, for no longer than 5 minutes. In that time, ANPR got his number plate and issued a charge. I appealed using the IPC template which was rejected, then appealed to the IAS thinking that there is no way this charge would be upheld. How wrong I was. The comments made by the adjudicator for the dismissal don't seem to make any sense unless I am missing something. Below is my appeal along with the dismissal. Is this another case of incompetence by the IAS or was my dad in the wrong?
Appeal
1. Signage - Signs in this car park are absent, not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2. Tampering with Photographic Evidence
3. Grace Period - A reasonable grace period was not given as the vehicle was in the car park for less than 5 minutes
4. Mitigating Circumstances - It is a first time offence on that piece of land for the driver
1. Signage
The signs posted around the car park do not conform to Schedule 1 of the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice (IPC CoP). The car park in question uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and under Section 3 of the IPC CoP "Automatic Number Plate Recognition" specifically clause 3.2, states that "Where ANPR technology is used, this must be clearly stated using appropriate signage." There was no signage upon entrance or within the car park to inform the driver that ANPR technology is being used. Appendix 1 shows a screenshot from Google Streetview, the entrance to the car park of a sign which has no clear indication that ANPR is in use.
Furthermore, Schedule 1 of Part E "Signage" states that entrance signs "should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist" and "Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign." Appendix 2 taken from the IPC CoP shows what an entrance sign could look like. In this case, the car park did not have such signs as shown in Appendix 1 and it was therefore under London Parking Solutions' obligation to provide signs that can be easily read and understood. It can be seen from Appendix 3, which shows a sign provided by London Parking Solutions, the that signs are impossible to read from 'the likely position of the motorist', which would be from the driver's seat.
There was no contract or agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge.
The 'Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis' case can be used as an example of 'prominent signage'. In the 'Beavis case', the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting color background and the terms legible, fairly concise and unambiguous, similar in format as Appendix 2. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Appendix 4 shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case.
By comparison, this case does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage'. Here, the signs are unremarkable and not immediately obvious as parking terms. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) Schedule 4 and the IPC CoP, these signs do not clearly mention the operator's charge, which is hidden in small print. It therefore cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign.
2. Tampering with Photographic Evidence
Appendix 5 shows screenshots of the photographic evidence submitted online by London Parking Solutions. It can be clearly seen in the first set of pictures that there are two time stamps, one on the top left corner and one on the bottom right corner. In the second set of screenshots, there is one time stamp in the bottom right corner. The time stamps in the original photo evidence are different to each other making it impossible to determine what time the alleged offence actually happened.
The first set of screenshots were taken on 26/11/16 and the second set were taken on 15/12/16. This is clear evidence that London Parking Solutions are able to add or remove time stamps as they wish making the photographic evidence inconclusive. London Parking Solutions therefore cannot prove that the alleged offence occurred at 14:16 on 15/11/16 as they claim.
This would not be the first time a private parking firm has altered time stamps in order to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). In 2015, UKPC admitted to altering time stamps to issue PCNs.
3. Grace Period
Section 15 of the IPC CoP specifically clause 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." A suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner. I believe under these circumstances the grace period should be at least 5 minutes.
The driver claimed the vehicle was in the car park for less than 5 minutes. IF the photographic evidence provided was conclusive, then depending on which time stamp you look at in Appendix 5, the vehicle was stopped for less than 1 minute or less than 5 minutes, both of which correspond to the driver's claims. It can therefore be concluded that clause 15.1 was not met.
4. Mitigating Circumstances
The driver's day job is a private hire taxi driver meaning that day to day, customers are dropped off in unfamiliar places. It is a first time offence on this piece of land for the driver.
The driver is a law abiding citizen and if the parking terms were clear, the driver would not have pulled into the carpark.
Dismissal
1. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. The Appellant’s evidence supports the claim there was sufficient notice. ANPR is not being used. There is no evidence there is no sign at the entrance but even if that is the case the signs at the time of parking are clearly visible and the driver is entitled to consider them before they are bound by the contract.
2. There is n evidence to support this claim.
3. The grace period is to consider the terms and obtain a permit. The Appellant at no time claims to do either.
4. I am unable to consider extenuating circumstances.
The Appellant reiterates these issues in their response and the appeal is dismissed.
Apologies for the long post.
Thanks in advance.
First of all I would like to thank the members of this forum for the very useful information. I have managed to get myself out of a ridiculous parking 'fine' using your help.
The appeal on behalf of my father however has not been as straightforward. He pulled into a car park to change the directions on his satnav to get to his next destination (he is a private hire driver). He was in the car park, which is managed by London Parking Solutions, members of the IPC, for no longer than 5 minutes. In that time, ANPR got his number plate and issued a charge. I appealed using the IPC template which was rejected, then appealed to the IAS thinking that there is no way this charge would be upheld. How wrong I was. The comments made by the adjudicator for the dismissal don't seem to make any sense unless I am missing something. Below is my appeal along with the dismissal. Is this another case of incompetence by the IAS or was my dad in the wrong?
Appeal
1. Signage - Signs in this car park are absent, not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2. Tampering with Photographic Evidence
3. Grace Period - A reasonable grace period was not given as the vehicle was in the car park for less than 5 minutes
4. Mitigating Circumstances - It is a first time offence on that piece of land for the driver
1. Signage
The signs posted around the car park do not conform to Schedule 1 of the Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice (IPC CoP). The car park in question uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and under Section 3 of the IPC CoP "Automatic Number Plate Recognition" specifically clause 3.2, states that "Where ANPR technology is used, this must be clearly stated using appropriate signage." There was no signage upon entrance or within the car park to inform the driver that ANPR technology is being used. Appendix 1 shows a screenshot from Google Streetview, the entrance to the car park of a sign which has no clear indication that ANPR is in use.
Furthermore, Schedule 1 of Part E "Signage" states that entrance signs "should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site. Otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist" and "Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign." Appendix 2 taken from the IPC CoP shows what an entrance sign could look like. In this case, the car park did not have such signs as shown in Appendix 1 and it was therefore under London Parking Solutions' obligation to provide signs that can be easily read and understood. It can be seen from Appendix 3, which shows a sign provided by London Parking Solutions, the that signs are impossible to read from 'the likely position of the motorist', which would be from the driver's seat.
There was no contract or agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge.
The 'Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis' case can be used as an example of 'prominent signage'. In the 'Beavis case', the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting color background and the terms legible, fairly concise and unambiguous, similar in format as Appendix 2. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Appendix 4 shows the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case.
By comparison, this case does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage'. Here, the signs are unremarkable and not immediately obvious as parking terms. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) Schedule 4 and the IPC CoP, these signs do not clearly mention the operator's charge, which is hidden in small print. It therefore cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign.
2. Tampering with Photographic Evidence
Appendix 5 shows screenshots of the photographic evidence submitted online by London Parking Solutions. It can be clearly seen in the first set of pictures that there are two time stamps, one on the top left corner and one on the bottom right corner. In the second set of screenshots, there is one time stamp in the bottom right corner. The time stamps in the original photo evidence are different to each other making it impossible to determine what time the alleged offence actually happened.
The first set of screenshots were taken on 26/11/16 and the second set were taken on 15/12/16. This is clear evidence that London Parking Solutions are able to add or remove time stamps as they wish making the photographic evidence inconclusive. London Parking Solutions therefore cannot prove that the alleged offence occurred at 14:16 on 15/11/16 as they claim.
This would not be the first time a private parking firm has altered time stamps in order to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). In 2015, UKPC admitted to altering time stamps to issue PCNs.
3. Grace Period
Section 15 of the IPC CoP specifically clause 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." A suitable grace period must be allowed for the driver to find a suitable parking space, find the signs containing the parking terms, decide whether to accept these terms and leave the car park in a safe manner. I believe under these circumstances the grace period should be at least 5 minutes.
The driver claimed the vehicle was in the car park for less than 5 minutes. IF the photographic evidence provided was conclusive, then depending on which time stamp you look at in Appendix 5, the vehicle was stopped for less than 1 minute or less than 5 minutes, both of which correspond to the driver's claims. It can therefore be concluded that clause 15.1 was not met.
4. Mitigating Circumstances
The driver's day job is a private hire taxi driver meaning that day to day, customers are dropped off in unfamiliar places. It is a first time offence on this piece of land for the driver.
The driver is a law abiding citizen and if the parking terms were clear, the driver would not have pulled into the carpark.
Dismissal
1. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. The Appellant’s evidence supports the claim there was sufficient notice. ANPR is not being used. There is no evidence there is no sign at the entrance but even if that is the case the signs at the time of parking are clearly visible and the driver is entitled to consider them before they are bound by the contract.
2. There is n evidence to support this claim.
3. The grace period is to consider the terms and obtain a permit. The Appellant at no time claims to do either.
4. I am unable to consider extenuating circumstances.
The Appellant reiterates these issues in their response and the appeal is dismissed.
Apologies for the long post.
Thanks in advance.
0
Comments
-
unfussyrope wrote: »Hi Guys,
First of all I would like to thank the members of this forum for the very useful information.
1) I have managed to get myself out of a ridiculous parking 'fine' using your help.
The appeal on behalf of my father however has not been as straightforward. He pulled into a car park to change the directions on his satnav to get to his next destination (he is a private hire driver). He was in the car park, which is managed by London Parking Solutions, members of the IPC, for no longer than 5 minutes. In that time, ANPR got his number plate and issued a charge. I appealed using the IPC template which was rejected, then appealed to the IAS thinking that there is no way this charge would be upheld. How wrong I was.
2) The comments made by the adjudicator for the dismissal don't seem to make any sense unless I am missing something
3) Is this another case of incompetence by the IAS or was my dad in the wrong?
1) it would appear this is incorrect, as this INVOICE has not been cancelled or dismissed by the PPC nor by the IAS. SO YOU HAVENT GOT OUT OF ANYTHING AT ALL
2) They never do, the NEWBIES sticky thread warns you that an IAS appeal is a waste of time , what counts is a judge`s decision and until then its an uninportant piece of paper , demanding money with menaces (threat of court) , NOT the mumblings of a hired gun who is not impartial
3) chances are your dad did nothing wrong and was within the GRACE PERIOD , but only a judge can decide , but yes its evidence of more incompetence by the IAS
its now 6 years of hassle and a possible court case for the correct decision to be made , by a judge
the IPC and the IAS are a waste of space (as are the 2 morons that run them plus GLADS too) , read parking pranksters numerous blogs to see why0 -
You are now in ignore mode.
Your rejection backs up the general concensus of opinion that an IAS appeal is futile and the recommendation on MSE is not to bother with this kangaroo court in the first place.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Sorry I should have made it more clear, I meant that I got MYSELF out of a previous parking charge not related to this one. I now appealed on behalf of my dad which has been rejected by both the IAS and PPC.
The reason why I appealed to the IAS was because I felt that the appeal was strong and there was no way they could reject it. I now realize why the recommendation is to not bother with the IAS.
I also read on this forum that London Parking Solutions are small fish and very unlikely to go to court. Hopefully that will be the case.0 -
you have more chance of winning a double rollover on the lottery than winning at the corrupt IAS m8 , despite your strong arguments
it is what it is , so now its IGNORE anything EXCEPT an LBC or an MCOL over the next 6 years
these honeytraps are set to catch the ill informed and unwary and are flourishing all over the country as its easy money for greedy unscrupulous people0 -
Thanks for the responses.
I will ignore and post in this thread if they do try going to court.0 -
unfussyrope wrote: »Thanks for the responses.
I will ignore and post in this thread if they do try going to court.
The NEWBIES thread tells you why it is safe to ignore deb collectors, as that might be the next move by the parking scammers.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
The main hurdle will be to make sure Dad doesn't panic & pay it when these nasty threatograms arrive, making him think he has to phone them and pay or face court.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
That won't be a big hurdle. I told my dad to keep all the letters and send me pictures of every single one. Just hope it doesn't go on for 6 years!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards