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

Coupon-mad

OK, so just amend your bullet points and say that the 'NTH' didn't enclose any of the required documents that are prescribed under para 13/14 of Sch4 of the POFA 2012 and if the IAS Assessor is minded to 'assume' they did, this is not the case and such documents were not within the prima facie case evidence either.

Then list the other obvious stuff about blurry photos that even the operator admits were taken from the 'far distance' and show no signage terms on the day nor clear evidence of a permit. Retrospective proof of a permit is not indicative of never having a permit on display, it is merely something not worth trying with IPC firms because they pretend they can't cancel retrospectively. Hence no appeal with the permit would have been worth trying, and in any case you are the hirer and the permit would have been place on the dash by the driver (not a hirer).

Just pull apart their basic evidence case, blow by blow.

CB1979_2

Thanks again (getting boring saying that!! haha)

before I submit, a quick look over if you may (not sure if i should mention the "agent" or not)

I wish to reply to the points listed.

The appellant was the keeper. – this is incorrect, I was the hirer only and the operator knows this, having obtained my details from the hire firm, Enterprise Cars aka ERAC. The operator is not entitled to assume who was driving and they have not made that out as an argument anyway. Their 'prima facie' case admits they are trying to rely upon the PoFA.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA. - then LPS have failed due to non-compliance of PoFA (para 13/14 of Sch4 applies).
ANPR/CCTV was used - no, it wasn't. The IAS can see for themselves this was a hand-held camera as the (very blurry) pictures are shown from various angles and not from ANPR or CCTV.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/05/2017 – this was sent to ERAC, a PCN entitled 'Notice to Hirer' was posted on 25/05/17 however none of the statutory enclosures defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA were ever served, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance with PoFA means this wasn’t a valid Notice to Hirer either.
The ticket was issued on 07/05/2017 – Photographs were taken on this date, however no ticket has been issued on that date, not even to ERAC/nor on the windscreen (as per the very blurry photos).
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA - no it wasn't, because they knew I was the hirer, and therefore to follow the PoFA they had to enclose the hire agreement with a 'Notice to Hirer', instead which LPS has failed to do.
The charge is based in Contract - there was no contract breached and no evidence of a lack of permit or even a photo taken on the day of the wording of any sign (the alleged contract), from what the operator admits is the 'far distance'.

No proof has been provided that an issuing agent observed the vehicle 10 minutes beforehand, no photographic evidence has been provided showing the vehicle was there for 10 minutes beforehand and more importantly NOT showing a valid permit. No evidence has been provided to show a valid permit wasn’t displayed, the photographic evidence is poor at best.

The integrity of the issuing agent shall be put into question, the evidence provided of various photographs over a six minute period (only three photos with the same time stamp show the front of the vehicle and the photos are so poor, you can’t see the permit or any detail of the vehicle), the agent has used predatory tactics by taking sneaky photos instead of simply asking the occupants of the vehicle to see their permit, of which the agent could have then taken a nice clear photo. Again, I reiterate this is a serious breach of the IPC Code of Practice of using predatory tactics, resulting in sanctioning points to LPS.

However all this is irrelevant, as LPS have not proven who was driving, they have not provided the documentation (namely the hire agreement) defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance of PoFA means PoFA cannot be used to obtain keeper/hirer liability.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, worth a try in your case as the photos are so terrible.

I would avoid saying

However all this is irrelevant,

maybe change to:

However the main issue, as LPS have not proven who was driving, and have chosen to make their prima facie case hang on the POFA, is that they have not provided the documentation (namely the hire agreement) defined in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, nor shown in evidence, therefore non-compliance of PoFA means PoFA cannot be used to obtain keeper/hirer liability.

CB1979_2

sent off again, cheers (again!)

Coupon-mad

Bear in mind the odds are stacked against you, as this is IAS, but so what, if you lose you still don't have to pay.

Your case had some elements worth trying though, the combo of the dreadful photos and the lack of NTH compliance made it worth a try.

CB1979_2

yeah, i appreciate all the help.

would rather it got cancelled than them try and chase 6 years down the line! haha

as they have my work address, can i notify them at a later date to change my address to my home address?

Obviously i don't want any threatening letters turning up at work or court papers, etc (especially if i've moved on from there!)

Coupon-mad

Yes you could do.

CB1979_2

just an update, that there's no update (I know you all like to be kept updated )

i replied on the 11/07/17, so I think they have until tomorrow (??? - 5 working days) to reply to my reply, then it gets sent to ajudicator.

CB1979_2

DUM DUM DUMMMMMMM

decision made and now ignore until court papers.

The adjudicator made their decision on 28/07/2017.

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage to the front of the vehicle makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was stationary at the site for a period of time with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I have also considered the manner in which the PCN was served on the Appellant and, despite the Appellant's claims to the contrary, I am satisfied that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

waamo

A robust appeal and really strange reasoning from Skippy may well discourage them from trying court.