Parking appeal dismissed by independent adjudicator

Snoopycat44

Hi

I’m being pursued by a private parking operator as the registered keeper of vehicle that entered a National Parks car park managed by them. The vehicle was in the car park for 21 minutes, the first 10 minutes of which was ‘free’, starting at approximately 10.45 at night.

I’ve advised the operator that I will not be naming the driver in accordance with POFA, but my main grounds for appeal are that, whoever was driving, he or she could not have entered into a contract with the operator as the signage at the site could not be read at night. Other than a ticket kiosk, which gives off a small amount of light, there is no artificial lighting in the area either from the adjacent main road or within the actual car park itself. Signage is limited to the entrance (one large and two small) with no repeat signage anywhere else on site. The operator’s code of practice states that signage needs to be illuminated and there needs to be sufficient repeater signage as well.

When submitting my appeal to the adjudicator, I did attach photographs of the site at night but these were very grainy due to the fact that the area is, with the exception of the ticket machine, pitch black. They’ve dismissed my evidence on the grounds that it proves nothing whilst pretty much taking everything submitted by the operator at face value. This includes the fact that the photographs of signage submitted by the then where of a different car park (they manage another one close by) but the operator chose not to respond to my points on this and the adjudicator totally ignored it. The points I’ve raised about the code of practice have also been ignored and the adjudicator has simply sited a criminal case (ELLIOTT v LOAKE) as precedent stating that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a vehicle keeper can be deemed to be the driver and as I have not provided such evidence my appeal is dismissed.

I’m assuming the operator will now take this through the courts as I’ve no intention of paying or naming the driver. As this is my first foray into the world of challenging a private parking ticket in my 30+ years as a driver, I’d appreciate any advice or comments from users of this forum.

Thanks

Umkomaas

It might help if you told us who the parking company is.

Ryandavis1959

At least you engaged with the IAS, which you will be able to show to the judge that you have done everything you can to resolve the dispute, which shows your compliance with the new PAP. If it does go to court then use this to your advantage if you get to claim costs. You have done all you can now, time to wait out the next six years if a claim does not land on your doormat.

KeithP

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

...which shows your compliance with the new PAP.

Is there anything in the 'new PAP' that an individual needs to comply with?

The very first sentence of The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims is:

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Protocol applies to any business (including sole traders and public bodies) claiming payment of a debt from an individual (including a sole trader).

Umkomaas

At least you engaged with the IAS, which you will be able to show to the judge that you have done everything you can to resolve the dispute

With the flip side of this coin being that the PPC now has further confirmation that their charge was legitimate and potentially enforceable - as confirmed by the independent appeals service which specialises in private parking charge disputes.

@Ryan - you’re either pretty ill-informed about this stuff and are giving advice that is suspect, or you are following some other agenda - neither of which is helpful to the OP.

If it does go to court then use this to your advantage if you get to claim costs.

As might the PPC - with a vengeance!

But firstly we have no idea who the PPC is, nor do we know whether the independent appeals service was the IAS or POPLA.

@OP - please confirm.

Edna_Basher

Its seems to have the hallmarks of Park With Ease Ltd - hopefully the OP will soon confirm which PPC they're dealing with.

I assume that the adjudicator was from the IAS - I doubt that POPLA would stoop so low as to try to rely on Elliott v Loake.

Snoopycat44

The operator is indeed PWE; trying to be opaque as possible as I’m given to understand that PPCs scour these forums for information in support of their claims.

beamerguy

Snoopycat44 wrote: »

The operator is indeed PWE; trying to be opaque as possible as I’m given to understand that PPCs scour these forums for information in support of their claims.

Yes they do scour these forums but as long as you
do not show personal/private info, it's ok

As we know, the IAS is the biggest scam in the UK and
we know they are stupid but ..... it is the height of stupidity
for them to quote Elliott v Loake.

If they don't understand that the courts have said
many times that Elliott v Loake is NOT relevant, then
they are truly incompetent

However, if they think that is the key factor, you will win.

Sooner or later, you will probably get the inventor
of the scam, Gladstones Solicitors contact you with an LBA
and they are more incompetent than the IAS

Half_way

the terms IAS and independent adjudicator do not make a match.
To start with, what was the name of this independent adjudicator?

Snoopycat44

Thanks to everyone whose responded on this. The appeals service in this instance was the IAS and the full text of their response is as follows:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator’s role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver not paying the correct tariff for parking within 48 hours of leaving the site, agrees to pay the parking charge.

The Appellant claims there was insufficient notice of the contractual terms due to the lack of visible signs at night. The Operator has provided a number of photographs of the entrance, most of them from the internet, and two others of unclear provenance, which depict nothing. Even if I accept all of this evidence, I am unable to allow the appeal. There is no evidence to show that the signs within the parking area could not be seen, which would be required to satisfy me there was insufficient notice.

The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

The Appellant claims the Operator has not suffered loss. Loss is irrelevant as the charge is the amount the driver agreed to pay for parking without paying. Once the driver has agreed to pay the Operator does not have to justify the amount based on how much they lost.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant’s vehicle leaving the land they manage twenty minutes after it arrived and evidence no payment was made for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed."

There's a typo in the second sentence of the third paragraph though where the ajudicator refers to the operator when, in fact, they obviously mean the appellant.

nosferatu1001

Its the IAS. Theyre a bunch of crooks. 83%+ of appeals are turned down.