Napier Parking - Failed IAS Appeal / Final Demand

p_a_u_l

Hi,

I have read the FAQs and sticky threads but I would like a bit of guidance.

I received a FCN from Napier Parking in one of their ANPR controlled car parks (pay on leaving). I visit the car park regularly and normally pay the £1.00/1.50 charge without issue with cash.

When I went to pay, all of their machines were out of order showing various different error messages (I have photos of the out of order machines and screen messages). As I was unable to pay, I left the car park.

Naively, when the fine arrived I appealed direct to the operator which was rejected because "I should have called them on the number on the sign to report the fault". Again, naively, I appealed to the IAS as directed which was rejected (on the 14th day) with the following response:

"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. The Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms.

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.
"

I was then sent a demand for £100 within 14 days from the operator.

I'm not sure what I should do next because part of me would like "my day in court" and I believe this is unreasonable behaviour on part of the operator as I was unable to fulfill my side of the contract due to the multiple errors displayed on their meters.

Any help is much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Paul

Coupon-mad

When I went to pay, all of their machines were out of order showing various different error messages (I have photos of the out of order machines and screen messages). As I was unable to pay, I left the car park.

You have a defence and you have evidence. This is winnable.

You should not have bothered with IAS, as I expect you read in the NEWBIES thread!

Wait for Napier to sue, probably using BW Legal as usual, and they'll muck it up. We will help you.

Umkomaas

You're at the end of the line in terms of appeal (yet another IAS victim!), so my preference would be to invite them to issue court proceedings within 14/21 days in order to get this swiftly in front of a judge.

If you don't take the attack to them, you are left in limbo, with likely aggro from (powerless, yet irritating) debt collectors, and never knowing whether court proceedings will drop through your letterbox on any day between now and 2024 (they have 6 years to pursue you through the county court).

Best you take control.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

p_a_u_l

Ok great, thank you for your speedy replies.

I think I will invite them to issue court proceedings - is there a template I should follow? Do I outline what my defence will be and include the photographic evidence to give them a chance to cancel the FCN?

Your input is very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Paul

nosferatu1001

No, just write something here
OUtline that their machines failure is none of your concern, and therefore the contract if any existed was frustrated. It is their responsibiity to ensure their machines are functioning and not the motorists.
PCN not FCN

You outline the defence and state you have photographic evidence of the machines being out of order.

p_a_u_l

Invitation to issue court proceedings has been sent based on advice above.

Ill keep you updated.

Paul.

beamerguy

This is a typical case of the great IPC/IAS scam

How stupid of the IAS to ignore your evidence

The Gladstones / IPC / IAS scam is not fit to be an ATA
and one that is not required

Let us hope that Sir Greg Knight fully understands the scam
and acts accordingly

p_a_u_l

Well, it's been a strange few months since my first post...

I sent a letter off explaining the circumstances and invited them to issue court proceedings. In the meantime, I was contacted repeatedly by BW Legal via telephone. I instructed two different advisors that I would deal with the matter through mail only and informed my request was noted. I have received several calls from them since my requests which I think would be in breach of GDPR (but I digress...)

Today, I have received a letter of claim and they have very kindly given me 30 days to provide my final response with a questionnaire style letter to complete and return.

My question is, do I just re-iterate my case, send the supporting photos and do I just sit out the next 30 days and wait for them to issue proceedings?

Your thoughts and expert guidance would be very much appreciated.

Paul

Quentin

The newbies FAQ thread (#2) advises on Court claims right through from the lbcca you now have received to the hearing

The_Slithy_Tove

p_a_u_l wrote: »

Today, I have received a letter of claim and they have very kindly given me 30 days to provide my final response with a questionnaire style letter to complete and return.

If it is a proper LBC, then treat it as such with a response appropriate for what it says (e.g refuting the claim; telling them it doesn't conform to the Pre-Action Protocol; telling them what they must provide you with). Do not go anywhere near a form provided by them.

Don't re-iterate your case. That's pointless. You must respond specifically to the content of the Letter of Claim (as above).