Surely this is predatory ticketing?

Recneps7

Dear IAS Assessor,

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds:

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.

3. Lack of signage.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper.




1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. states that I have breached the terms and conditions of parking. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Department for Transport guidelines state that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.” The BPA Code of Practice states: “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.” Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore, the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.


2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices .As Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. to provide me with a full copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. and the landowner will be insufficient and only The Deed of Title in the land would do. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party.

3. Lack of signage.

Site Signage not compliant with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice (COP):
a. The image of the site sign supplied by PCM fails to comply with point (1) of the ‘Other Signage’ section of Schedule 1; specifically it fails use the required language to identify PCM as ‘the creditor’
b. Site signage not compliant with IPC required standard wording in Schedule 1 of the COP; none of the phrases from Group A are present on the sign when a minimum of one is required.
c. Site Signage and position not compliant with the ‘Text Size’ requirement of Schedule 1. The sign was not positioned within 10 degrees of the site entrance. The (sole) sign was obscured from the site entrance by being placed on a wall which represents the parking restrictions for an obvious car park to the right with multiple signs within. Whereas, the place in which Ithe registered keeper parked had no visible signs when approaching it from Summerhouse Hill road when they are meant to be positioned within 10 degrees of the site entrance and visible from within the car. Whereas, as you can clearly see from the photos provided by PCM that the only sign on site was the one positioned high above my car where it is definitely not visible from within the car or when approaching it as it is behind you when approaching.
d. This breach of lack of signage is also emphasised by the fact that there are no road markings to make up for the lack of signage. Therefore, the registered keeper could have only come to the conclusion that there were no parking restrictions because there were no visible signs or single or double yellow lines or any white dotted lines to illustrate permit holder parking.
• PCM also have clearly not fully considered the notice to keeper’s previous appeal as PCM’s rejection letter states that “there is clear signage throughout the development”. However, as already stated there is only one sign which does not comply with IPC code of conduct which is also pictured in their rejection letter. The sign pictured in their rejection letter also emphasises the registered keeper’s defence that it is no sufficient as it is not readable in the slightest on the letter. This is clearly not adequate signage. Even is the registered keeper did turn around when they got out of the car and saw this sole sign, they could have easily mistaken it for any ordinary sign as the text is too small to read apart from the letter PCM at the top, but not everyone knows who PCM are and therefore this does not comply with the ‘Text Size’ requirement of Schedule 1.


4.No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper

Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

waamo

Looking at that appeal it looks like they drew your name out of a hat for a win.

Point 1 was rejected by the Supreme Court. The charge doesn't need to reflect any loss. That alone suggests a random selection.

It has long been thought by the regulars here that the IAS pick a random 20% to allow. They advertise that 80% of appeals will fail and this decision seems to cement that view. Do not expect an identical appeal to be successful in future.

In saying that well done on your win. It is always good to get one.

Umkomaas

Submit that again tomorrow and I'd guarantee it would lose. Based on appeal point #1 (GPEOL) it would even lose at POPLA.

I'm not wanting to appear to p|ss on your chips (a win at the IAS is a brilliant win - kudos, so very few manage that), but I'd honestly go buy a lottery ticket tomorrow. You've just won one lottery, lightning might just strike twice.

It's out of your life now and the PPC can really go swivel.

Recneps7

I knew the GPEOL would get rejected but thought it's worth keeping in anyway. If that's true then I'm happy either way but if you look at the photos that should have been the right decision anyway.