London Parking Solutions (PCN Parking solutions - Hove/paymypcn.net)

Coupon-mad

forgot to include their NtH, assuming this is compliant (apart from the bit about the hirer being liable)

Far from it, look what has to be included by the parking firm, with the NTH! para 13/14 of Schedule 4.

CB1979_2

ah yes, sorry i meant apart from the bit about the hirer being liable and also about not sending the hire agreement, etc.

but assuming all the dates stack up, etc.

cheers

Coupon-mad

The dates stack up but the omission of enclosures means it is not a complaint NTH. We have never seen any PPC get this right - every hirer can win at POPLA, if theirs is a BPA Member.

Normally we wouldn't say to try IAS but in your shoes, I would. I think they will fold to avoid scrutiny of this predatory operation and lack of evidence. Their grainy photos quality is dire, and there are no pictures where the car and a readable sign are in one image.

The so-called pic of the sign doesn't match any seen in the grainy images, your car is near a yellow, big sign (illegible). And the so-called pic of the sign doesn't show the t&cs or anything readable about £100 'parking charge'. No contract formed with the driver to pay a charge then, if it can't be read from the evidence of the signs.

Certainly let's work on this over the weekend to get it written as a strong IAS appeal to make a rare foray into that 'service' to try to kill this trash off.

Show us a draft in your own words with bullet points showing all the IAS appeal points suggested so far.

CB1979_2

right here we go, first attempt bear with me and any waffling/nonsense! (and again any help would be most grateful)

To Whom It May Concern


RE: PCN No. xxxxxxxxx

After appealing directly to London Parking Solutions (see attached CB/1) and their subsequent internal appeal rejection (See attached CB/2). I am appealing to the IAS on a number of points:

1. I am the hirer of the vehicle, I am NOT the driver of the vehicle.
LPS contacted ERAC (Enterprise Hire Cars) who replied stating I was the hirer of the vehicle (See attached CB/3). As ERAC have followed protocol and replied they have discharged their liability by naming the hirer.
LPS then failed to follow the strict guidelines set out in POFA 2012 in respect of failure to furnish the required documentation set out in POFA Paragraph 13(2) points (B) & (C) (highlighted below). LPS are in contravention of Paragraph 13(2) AND Paragraph 14(2) of POFA 2012. As this has not happened, LPS cannot use POFA to assume keeper liability.
LPS therefore forfeit their right to hold the hirer of the vehicle liable for the invoice, LPS know this yet still insist trying to hold the hirer liable.

Keepers Liability and POFA 2012
As stated in paragraph 13(2) of POFA 2012...

"The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—

(a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

(c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

AND

Paragraph 14(2) and (3) of POFA 2012:

(2) The conditions are that —
(a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.


2. I’d also like to take the opportunity to state that LPS breached the IPC Code of Practice, namely PART B 14 “Predatory Tactics”, simply by the way the photos of the car were taken obviously on a hidden camera/spycam on clothing only over a 6 minute period (only two photos show the front of the car -taken with the same time stamp of 16:05 - and NO close-up dashboard photos have been presented) all the whilst the car had two occupants sat in the driver & passenger seats (as you can see from the photos the occupant sat in the driver’s seat even has their window open, photos were taken from the same side and in front of the vehicle and yet they were never approached to ask to see the permit). This is would be deemed non-compliance of the IPC Code of Practice and considered as a serious breach of the Code of Practice as set out in Schedule 2 – Compliance Monitoring, resulting in 6-12 sanction points awarded to LPS.

3. I also draw your attention to the IPC Code of Practice PART 15. “Grace Periods”. 15.1 states “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”.
Again there are 10 photos (see attached CB/4)all time stamped between 16:05 and 16:11, the three relevant photos showing the front of the car that would prove if a permit was displayed or not are all time stamped 16:05, this breaches the IPC Code of Practice Part 15 Grace Periods, as it does not give the driver of the vehicle sufficient time to read the signs and decide whether to leave or not or even to display the permit (again this can’t be seen due to the poor quality of the photos and no close-up photo of the dashboard displaying the permit).

4. Also note the photo of the sign is not time stamped, therefore there is no evidence this is the photo of the sign on said date or time, again the poor quality of the other photos doesn’t help.

5. I would also draw your attention to the wording of the parking sign.
It states “Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit in the windscreen (applicable to individual bays where relevant), parked fully within the confines of a marked bay, OR permit holders only”.
As there are no close-up pictures of the dashboard to show if there was a valid permit displayed this is not contravening any terms. In fact the only photos showing the front of the car (yet no close up of the dashboard showing the permit) were both time stamped 16:05 (maybe 16:06 – as the photos are of such poor quality) and both show the car is occupied, the permit may have been displayed or the occupants may have been getting the permit out of a bag, you can’t tell from the poor photos. If LPS had done the decent thing and simply approached the occupants, LPS may have been presented with the said permit and they could have then had a nice clear close-up photo for their records. As there is no proof of a non-displayed permit then there is no proof of a contravention.

6. Finally, the photo of the sign does not clearly show the terms & conditions referring to a £100 “parking charge”, if the sign can’t be read from the evidence provided, then no contract could possibly be formed with the driver.

With all the evidence I have provided it is clearly evident LPS are in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, non-compliant with POFA 2012 and have provided poor quality of photographic as well as their predatory tactics. Therefore I hope the IAS as an independent body will obviously find in my favour and overturn LPS’ internal appeal rejection.

Yours Sincerely

CB1979_2

any thoughts?
am I way off the mark?

need to file this tomorrow (i know my fault for leaving it!)

Coupon-mad

Just a little amusing thought...what about illustrating the appeal with a photo of you?! LOL, this would make the IAS gits scratch their heads on how to make the PPC win!

What I mean is, can you see the driver in the photos clearly enough on the original and would a photo of you show it wasn't the same person (different sex or hair colour?). So where you say you were not the driver you can show it's true.

Even if not, go for it and we'll see what the outcome of this one is. I still think the evidence is so dire that the PPC will possibly withdraw (some do, at IAS, when they know their photos are terrible).

CB1979_2

the photos i've uploaded are direct links to the ones on the paymypcn site that is the best quality i've been provided.

unfortunately I couldn't provide a photo to prove it wasn't me as the occupant of the vehicle is of a similar look and build to me (me, my brother and my friends all do look quite the same).

but are my general points/wording alright, haven't quoted anything incorrectly or messed anything of any great deal.

I'll re-read it all again and sort out any spelling/grammatical errors.

just logged onto the IAS site i actually have until the 12th to appeal, so have a few more days if i need it.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me. A rare case worth trying an IAS appeal (knowing not to pay, if you lose).

Umkomaas

With all the evidence I have provided it is clearly evident LPS are in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, non-compliant with POFA 2012 and have provided poor quality of photographic evidence as well as their predatory tactics. Therefore I hope the IAS as an independent body will obviously find in my favour and overturn LPS’ [STRIKE]internal[/STRIKE] initial appeal rejection.

A couple of suggestions to tidy up your final paragraph?

CB1979_2

right cheers guys appeal has gone in.

you've given me hope, but deep down i know they'll reject! haha