IAS Appeal

mjc126

I took a photo that morning - thirty minutes before the car drove into the car park - of my dog in our local park (110 miles away) - whilst the location isn't given - I could replicate the view with the location switched on as proof.
It is actually quite astonishing the information I have just found in that data.

Umkomaas

Get every bit of conceivable evidence to make your case incontestable by the IAS. It will, of course, have to go hand in hand with a demolition of keeper liability.

mjc126

Hi again.
If anyone was available, would you mind checking over the wording of my IAS appeal please? I wasn’t sure about the reference to the case at the bottom, as it refers to a POPLA appeal – does it matter using this if this is an IAS appeal?



PCN Number: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx. I wish to appeal the £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Topher Ltd/PCN Parking Solutions for an Overstay in a car park in Bath. Whilst I am the registered keeper I do not drive the vehicle. The vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as that driver is insured. I am exercising my right not to name that person.


The Topher/PCN Parking Solutions Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the timing of receipt. There is no reference on the ‘Notice’ to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions have been met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. Topher have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced showing a ‘date of posting’ of 02/03/2017. This is 17 days after the alleged event, shown as 13/02/2017. The notice was received by on 06/03/2017, 20 days after the alleged event.

This means that Topher have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period.


No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


As proof that I was not the driver, I have attached evidence of a credit card purchase I made some 110 miles away, around the time the vehicle reportedly left the car park, along with a map of a timeline of my movements the same day as the event, as detailed from the data of my smartphone.


I have also attached a letter from my company, advising that I was working in our office in Sutton Coldfield that day.


It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

Fruitcake

You would be better quoting Henry Greenslade who was not only the lead PoPLA adjudicator, but also a respected barrister.

You should also tell them not to bother with quoting Elliot vs Loake as this has been debunked by so many judges now that it has become a joke.

Coupon-mad

I wish to appeal the £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Topher Ltd/PCN Parking Solutions for an Overstay in a car park in Bath.

'alleged overstay'

The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper

Attach a scan of both sides because if you don't prove the dates on it, then the PPC could manage to avoid this point by not showing it themselves (then the IAS *person* could easily say YOU have failed to evidence the dates because the NTK wasn't produced...)!

Remove the POPLA appeal; it doesn't help an IAS appeal.

Attach a screenshot of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA to shove it down their throat.

If you quote Henry Greenslade from the POPLA Annual Report 2015, then attach that section of the POPLA Annual Report as proof (a screenshot or saved PDF, not a link, in case the POPLA Assessor sticks their nose in the air and says they are not required to follow links...).

Make sure the map of your movements from your Smartphone shows the date/time (not a cropped version) and prove it is your Smart phone with a screenshot of a bill addressed to you (not joking, the IAS *person* might say it could be anyone's Smart phone!).

It seems from bizarre decisions in the public domain that the IAS try very hard to make decisions for the parking firm - so think 'how can I prove this? How can I prove that?' throughout and then think outside the box, if you were the *person* making the decision, how would you find a way to ignore/twist your appeal against you? Plug those gaps!

You could add:

The parking operator may try to rely upon Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2016]and/or ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] neither of which have any application to the matter in hand. CPS v AJH Films dealt with a company keeper/employee driver (not the case here - the driver was not acting as my agent in any way and the operator has no evidence to support that twisted interpretation of case law, should they try it). Further, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis dealt with a case where Mr Beavis was the driver. I was not the driver and have proved my location at the time beyond reasonable doubt, discharging any liability I may have had.

As such, I cannot be held liable as the keeper and this operator has not produced any evidence of the identity of the driver and has failed to show how I could possibly be liable in law.

mjc126

Thank you Fruitcake and Coupon-mad (again!). Your input, as ever, is invaluable.

I've done a re-draft and have added other items I'm sending as evidence. Would you mind checking it over again if you have a moment please? Thank you.



PCNNumber: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx. I wish to appeal the £60 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Topher Ltd/PCN Parking Solutions for an alleged overstay in a car park in Bath. I have attached a copy of the PCN for your information. Whilst I am the registered keeper I do not drive the vehicle which can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as that driver is insured. I am exercising my right not to name that person.


The Topher/PCNParking Solutions Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the timing of receipt. There is no reference on the ‘Notice’ to‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions have been met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. Topher have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, (full wording of paragraph 9 is attached) which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline andwording:-

The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for servicefor the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.


The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”

You will see the Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced showing a ‘date of posting’ of 02/03/2017. This is1 7 days after the alleged event, shown as 13/02/2017. The notice was received by me on 06/03/2017, 20 days after the event.

This means that Topher have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period.

The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: (I have attached a copy of the wording from the Popla Annual Report 2015 for your information):

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges fromthe keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of avehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to namethe driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that theywere the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of IntendedProsecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied whenrequested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988,a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.[...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability doesnot generally pass.''


As proof that I was not the driver, I have attached evidence of a credit card purchase I made some 110 miles away, around the time the vehicle allegedly left the carpark, along with my credit card, so that you can see it is in my name. I do not violate the terms and conditions of my credit card provider by allowing anyone to know my PIN number.


I also attach a screenshot of data from my phone of my movements on the day of the event, as detailed in google maps. I have also taken a screenshot from my desktop computer of the same timeline which gives the details more clearly.

I have attached a screenshot of the location of the Post Office in relation to Aldi,as detailed on the timeline.


I have also provided a screenshot of the details of a photograph taken that morning during the walk of 58 minutes as detailed on the timeline. Please advise how I could have taken that photograph and arrived at a car park 110 miles away some45 minutes later?


I attach a copy of my phone providers bill for my smartphone.


I have also attached a letter from my company, advising that I was working in our office in Sutton Coldfield that day along with a screenshot from my desktop computer of emails I have sent during the day.

The parking operator may try to rely uponCombined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2016] and/or ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis [2015] neither of which have any application to the matter in hand. CPS v AJH Films dealt with a company keeper/employee driver (not the case here - the driver was not acting as my agent in any way and the operator has no evidence to support that twisted interpretation of case law,should they try it). Further, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis dealt with a case where Mr Beavis was the driver. I was not the driver and have proved my location at the time beyond reasonable doubt, discharging any liability I may have had if an operator had complied with the POFA (which this operator did not in any case).

As such, I cannot be held liable as the keeper and this operator has not produced any evidence of the identity of the driver and has failed to show how I could possibly be liable in law. Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

It is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

Coupon-mad

Actually, I just re-read what I wrote which needs a re-write here:

The parking operator may try to rely uponCombined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2016] and/or ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis [2015] neither of which have any application to the matter in hand. CPS v AJH Films dealt with a company keeper/employee driver (not the case here - the driver was not acting as my agent in any way and the operator has no evidence to support that twisted interpretation of case law,should they try it). Further, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis dealt with a case where Mr Beavis was the driver. I was not the driver and have proved my location at the time beyond reasonable doubt, discharging any liability I may have had if this operator was proceeding on the assumption I was driving. [STRIKE]if an operator had complied with the POFA (which this operator did not in any case).[/STRIKE]

Apart from that I would give this a go and make sure you upload all the evidence including both sides of the NTK and your photos etc., before hitting 'submit' (as you don't get a second chance to add evidence after hitting that button).

mjc126

Thank you so much Coupon-mad. I will upload all of this today.
I'll let you know what I get back from them.

mjc126

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to all that have commented to help me - yet again you have been brilliant!


Email received as follows this morning - much quicker than I expected....


'Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Topher Limited has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.'

I guess it shows that if you have sufficient evidence there are times when you can win at IAS appeal stage.

Have a wonderful Easter everyone.

DoaM

Well done. Obviously even the Kangaroo Court couldn't find a way to twist this one.