Euro Parking Services at it again!

Guys_Dad

If you appeal to IAS, I would do it on the single point that you parked in a bay and the photos show that. You then show what a hatched area looks like and keep it simple and short, but refer to the signs where it says where you can park.

IAS have a sad record of rejecting even 100% valid appeals as it gives Gladstones (who run the IPC and set up the IAS) a chance to get a court fee by taking hapless cases to court) a further income.

So fret not if they reject your appeal - it is expected. You will have your day in court where the PPC will be Gladstoned (see Parking Prankster's blog about being Gladstoned)

fisherjim

Their response is typical scammers bull:

...vehicles must park within marked bays..

Which they have not defined.


we have no option but to reject this appeal.

A lie they have the option to uphold the appeal, but choose not to as there is no money in it.

The signs are
prominently displayed in and around the site and are obvious to any person who enters the site. It is incumbent upon motorists
to read them. If they choose to ignore them then they submit to the terms nonetheless.

I think even a judge would consider you did not ignore them, you parked in a space any reasonable person with normal eyesight would consider to be a parking bay.

Also if this was a paid for car park that space would be a cash earner for the landowner, these Muppets would be taking revenue from them by making it a no go area.

Coupon-mad

I am now preparing to contest this on IAS website.

For once, I think - go for it! You do have to show all evidence (attach photos) and might lose but so what (means nowt) this one is so ludicrous I think the PPC will struggle to show a prima facie case!

NomiKaay

Hi Everyone,

After appealing to IAS using the advice above, I have had my appeal challenged by Euro Parking Services; my initial appeal to IAS and their response is below. (Sorry about the picture links, I still can't post links here)

My appeal

The alleged contravention did not occur. The parking attendant got it wrong as the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The attendant alleges that the vehicle was 'Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space'. I can assure you, as evident from the pictures attached, that the vehicle was indeed parked within the markings. The non-parking bays are clearly marked with hatched markings around the carpark; please refer to Aerial view of the carpark for hatched areas. If the bay was a non-parking location, it should have been clearly marked with hatched markings to indicate so.

My evidence - In addition to the pictures in my first post, I uploaded the aerial view with the hatched markings.

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/3r9T3sm.jpg

Euro Parking Services

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/04/2017 16:08:38.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The ticket was issued on 28/03/2017.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The contravention at issue here is that the Appellant’s car was "Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space". This is in reference to our terms and conditions which are clearly and prominently displayed at the car park in question.

The specific term of the contract that the Appellant was in breach of states that; "Vehicles must be parked wholly WITHIN the confines of a MARKED bay or space".

It cannot be said that the Appellant's vehicle was parked WITHIN the confines of a MARKED bay or space when the space they parked their car in was not “marked” as such. Photographic evidence of the Appellant's car we have submitted clearly shows corroborates our argument that it was not parked in a marked bay or space.

I have taken note of what the Appellant says that "there are no hatched markings on the ground" presumably of the bay he/she parked in.

For avoidance of doubt, it cannot be said that the Appellant parked within the confines of a marked bay or space, within the definition given and graphically illustrated in our signage prominently displayed in this car park.

Further, we have included photographs showing marked bays. These show specifically white lines on both sides of a marked bay.

The Appellant is deemed to have accepted our terms when they parked their car on this site, especially as they admit that they saw the our signage.

Clearly, they had not complied with our terms and conditions in parking their car in a place not marked as a bay or space. We submit therefore that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued and that we submit that the Appeal should be dismissed.

EPC Evidence -

h t t p s://i.imgur.com/CP6Z6Xk.jpg
h t t p s://i.imgur.com/3ktLWCe.png
h t t p s://i.imgur.com/czzwvL1.png
h t t p s://i.imgur.com/Bh88Ekf.png
h t t p s://i.imgur.com/LXCLFYa.png
h t t p s://i.imgur.com/WBolzMo.png

I am now not sure what to do next as IAS website suggest the following 2 options.

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 24/04/2017 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

I would appreciate your response.

Thank you

NomiKaay

Can someone please help in this regard?