PCM - Rejection letter received - Should I appeal to IAS?

grisld

Dear Forum

I got a PCN for my car being briefly stopped on a private road. The road is well signposted re. no stopping etc... My car was only stopped for long enough to read the signs (no more than a couple of mins) and then left the private road. (They take the biscuit these companies!)

So I appealed the initial letter using the generic template mentioned on this forum not stating who the driver was and I have now received a response advising my appeal is rejected and I can either pay or appeal to IAS. Is there any guidance here regarding what to do in this situation?

The letter says:
'You parked in a manner whereby you agreed to pay a charge. The parking attendent recorded that the vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay.' ...

It goes on to say I have a number of options:
1) Pay the PCN with the discounted amount within 14 days or the full charge after this time.
2) 'If you believe the decision is incorrect the Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type.'
It says if I use the IAS then the offer of a discount is withdrawn.

It continues to say that if I 'do nothing' they will seek to recover monies owed via debt recovery and this may proceed to Court. Also advising that if no payment is received with 28 days then they may refer my case to their instructed debt recovery service and/or solicitors at which point the charge increase by about 60%.

Can anyone advise of good practice regarding this? Has anyone experience of appealing to IAS? If so is there a template for such appeals that has been successful? In short is it worth it?

Your help/advice is very much appreciated.
With best wishes

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

Go there now to learn about the game you are now caught up in

In particular understand the futility of appeals to IPC companies and the IAS

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

Fruitcake

Please double check and confirm the name/initials of the parking company.

There are many companies with similar initials.

grisld

Thanks Quentin
I did not believe that I had mentioned any details regarding who was driving here. I have referred to 'my car' and not to a named driver. If even this is too much then I'm happy to edit and remove?
I read the forum post as you suggested and it does say that PCM appeals to IAS can sometimes be successful as they may enter a 'no contest'.
If I was to appeal then it would be based on my vehicle only being stopped for long enough to read the signs and then move on (a couple of mins). Is it worth it?
Many thanks

grisld

Hi Fruitcake
It is Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM).
Best wishes

Coupon-mad

Yes try an IAS appeal as PCM are so useless and admitted on Watchdog they 'make it up sometimes'.

Try searching the forum for PCM IAS predatory seconds to find a recent one written.

grisld

Thanks Coupon
I think I found the one, Hayes and Harlington.
Best wishes

grisld

Dear Team

I would very much appreciate if someone could give my appeal the once over and let me know if any changes are necessary?

Many thanks

IPC IAS Appeal

Dear IAS

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle reg xxxxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge notice xxxxxxx. I wish to appeal against this notice.

In relation to this appeal it is my view that the following case law, legislation and guidance is relevant.

IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, Sections:
14. Predatory Tactics
14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.
And
15. Grace Periods
15.1 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.
15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
And
Part E Schedule 1 - Signage

Caselaw:
Jopson Vs Homeguard, case number 9GF0A9E
19. The appellant!!!8217;s case could also be put in another way. The purported prohibition was upon !!!8220;parking!!!8221;, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.
20. Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word !!!8220;park!!!8221;. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: !!!8220;To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space!!!8221; and !!!8220;To leave in a suitable place until required.!!!8221; The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes.

Legislation:
Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Section 69
Contract terms that may have different meanings
1. If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

In relation to the above guidance, caselaw and legislation I will set out my argument as follows:

1)
The car was not parked. It had stopped or paused briefly to enable the driver to read the signs. The time stamps on the photos submitted by PCM show that the driver had not stopped for more than a couple of minutes at most. This is only enough time to read the signs that are difficult to read from a car as they are quite high up, about 7 or 8 feet, and with small print.
In relation to this point it is my view that the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice Section 15.1 applies:
!!!8216;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.!!!8217;

I would contend that !!!8216;a sufficient amount of time!!!8217; is at least a few minutes, particularly given that the signs are not easily readable from a vehicle and as such could be seen as a means of attempting to entrap a driver into leaving their vehicle in order to do so.

In order for a contract to be valid it is necessary that the offeror gives the offeree sufficient time to read and understand the contract. I would submit that the amount of time given for the driver to read the awkwardly placed signs from the car (no more than two minutes) and to make a decision about whether to enter into a contract with the landowner/operator about remaining on site is not enough time to do so. In any event the driver decided that they did not wish to remain on site and promptly left, therefore I would contend that no contract can be said to have been accepted or in place between the operator and the driver.


2)
Part E, Schedule 1 of the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, states:
!!!8216;Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.!!!8217;

I would argue that given that the signs are 7 or 8 feet high, above the ground level, and that the sign is small and the print is also small that therefore it is not easy to read by the motorist and so does not comply with this part of the guidance. I would again suggest that this could be viewed as a means of entrapping a motorist into leaving their vehicle, adding weight to an argument that the vehicle was parked. It is my view that this could therefore be interpreted in relation to Section 14.1 of the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, Predatory Tactics.

3)
In order to comply with the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, PCM would need to agree:

1) that a driver is entitled to a reasonable amount of time to consider the terms.
2) that signs can be easily read by a motorist
3) that a driver is entitled to consider the terms before making the decision to park

In order to understand the terms relevant to the area of private land in question there can be no assumption or requirement by the operator for the driver to adhere to any terms prior to those terms being understood and agreed. To suggest otherwise would be contradictory.

4)
I would argue that in order to be parked the driver must leave the vehicle or have stopped the vehicle for more than a few minutes.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb !!!8216;park!!!8217; as:
!!!8216;bring (a vehicle that one is driving) to a halt and leave it temporarily!!!8217;.

In Jopson Vs Homeguard (above) the Judge Harris QC states:
!!!8216;it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.!!!8217;
!!!8216;merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it!!!8217;.

It is noted from the photographic submissions of PCM that the driver did not leave the vehicle at any time and in relation to the above caselaw from Judge Harris QC I would submit that the driver had only paused for a few moments or minutes, in this case to enable them to read the signs.
I would therefore suggest that the above definitions of !!!8216;parking!!!8217; as described by both the Oxford English dictionary and by Judge Harris QC in Jopson Vs Homeguard do not apply in this case.

I would further like to bring the IAS attention to Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which clearly states:
!!!8216;If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.!!!8217;
The driver is the consumer in this instance, so I would argue that the definitions and terms I have stated above should be interpreted in the way that is most favourable to the driver of the vehicle.

5)
I am deeply troubled and concerned by the practices of PCM at the site in question and would invite the IAS to consider whether Predatory Tactics are being exploited as clarified in Section 14.1 of the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I would go further to suggest that if the operator is concerned about drivers on the private land in question that they should consider changing the signs to either !!!8216;No Entry!!!8217;, or put a gated entrance in place as is the case in many privately owned roads and car parks. This would avoid any misunderstanding and time and trouble for innocent motorists. I would suggest that given the proximity to a busy train station that the failure to do so could be interpreted as predatory tactics and merely seen as a way of PCM generating revenue for themselves and the land owner.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely
!!!8230;


CC. MP for the area

Coupon-mad

Looks worth a try as long as you also upload Jopson v Homeguard.

No harm done if you lose, and I still think PCM are worth a prod with a stick at IAS stage!

grisld

Dear all

I appealed to IAS, as suspected it was rejected without really giving much consideration to my points.

I now have a letter from a debt recovery service. The charge has gone up a bit (not a lot). They're asking for full payment by a set date and advise that their client PCM is assessing my case for enforcement through the county court. They're threatening the addition of further costs (solicitors, court costs etc...). I'm very inclined not to pay and let this go to county court to challenge it.

I would be interested in the views of the more experienced members of this forum to advise me on next steps?

Your support is very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I'm very inclined not to pay and let this go to county court to challenge it.

Quite right. Come back at Letter before Claim stage, or claim stage.

In the meantime, search the forum for PCM defence true as keywords, and change the advanced search to SHOW POSTS (not threads).

You will be looking at all the latest PCM defences in seconds, which will help.