We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
PCM IAS Appeal Dismissed
cpr87
Posts: 3 Newbie
Keeping the details as brief as possible here, but hopefully I've given enough to get some advice. I recently had an IAS appeal dismissed (no surprises there). As stated, this is a charge from PCM UK Ltd.
PCM were enforcing on a private residential road, which is part of a larger estate owned by an organisation akin to a charity (not sure what their legal designation is, but that’s irrelevant; the point is, they are the landowner for the whole area).
Unaware that this was a private road, the driver parked on the road for an hour while attending an event locally, surprised to find a parking attendant having just left a parking ticket on returning. The reason the driver was unaware of the restrictions is that all the signs were obscured by trees (the signs were attached to the trees, which were in full leaf at the time). Photos were taken of the obscured signs, and there is absolutely no way the signs could be seen from where the vehicle was parked. The photos were taken immediately after the incident, and the car is in shot. Dashcam footage is also available showing the car pulling into the road and parking.
On the entrance to the road, there is 1 sign, but it is at a junction, and on the offside (driver’s side) of the car, and at a height of around 8-10ft - totally out of the way for the driver, who was busy concentrating on the junction (and pedestrians who were crossing the road at the junction - again, shown on dashcam footage).
PCM rejected the appeal immediately, stating that the signage had been audited when it was installed, and was adequate. IAS rejected the appeal, but the assessor (unusually, I should imagine), said that he had sympathy with the appeal given the circumstances, but could only judge based on PCM’s stated grounds for dismissing the appeal (vehicle not displaying a valid permit), and could not take the mitigating circumstances (lack of signage) into account.
My appeal is on the basis that no contract can have been entered with PCM, on account of the driver being totally unaware of the restrictions due to obscured signage (to reiterate, this was totally invisible from the road, and I have evidence of this).
Obviously I am not planning to pay the £100, but I’d appreciate some advice on what to do; should I write a letter to PCM explaining the circumstances again, or should I simply wait for the inevitable debt collectors’ letters and potential court summons? Thanks!
PCM were enforcing on a private residential road, which is part of a larger estate owned by an organisation akin to a charity (not sure what their legal designation is, but that’s irrelevant; the point is, they are the landowner for the whole area).
Unaware that this was a private road, the driver parked on the road for an hour while attending an event locally, surprised to find a parking attendant having just left a parking ticket on returning. The reason the driver was unaware of the restrictions is that all the signs were obscured by trees (the signs were attached to the trees, which were in full leaf at the time). Photos were taken of the obscured signs, and there is absolutely no way the signs could be seen from where the vehicle was parked. The photos were taken immediately after the incident, and the car is in shot. Dashcam footage is also available showing the car pulling into the road and parking.
On the entrance to the road, there is 1 sign, but it is at a junction, and on the offside (driver’s side) of the car, and at a height of around 8-10ft - totally out of the way for the driver, who was busy concentrating on the junction (and pedestrians who were crossing the road at the junction - again, shown on dashcam footage).
PCM rejected the appeal immediately, stating that the signage had been audited when it was installed, and was adequate. IAS rejected the appeal, but the assessor (unusually, I should imagine), said that he had sympathy with the appeal given the circumstances, but could only judge based on PCM’s stated grounds for dismissing the appeal (vehicle not displaying a valid permit), and could not take the mitigating circumstances (lack of signage) into account.
My appeal is on the basis that no contract can have been entered with PCM, on account of the driver being totally unaware of the restrictions due to obscured signage (to reiterate, this was totally invisible from the road, and I have evidence of this).
Obviously I am not planning to pay the £100, but I’d appreciate some advice on what to do; should I write a letter to PCM explaining the circumstances again, or should I simply wait for the inevitable debt collectors’ letters and potential court summons? Thanks!
0
Comments
-
It's the IAS. They routinely reject appeals. We tell people not to bother and expect a mountain of debt collectors letters.
Wait and see if they issue a claim.0 -
K
PCM rejected the appeal immediately, stating that the signage had been audited when it was installed, and was adequate.
How long ago was this 3 months, a year, 5 years, audited by whom the installer, the area manager, the IPC?
Do they have photo evidence and a site plan?
Just a brush off by the scamming Muppets to try to shut you up.IAS rejected the appeal, but the assessor (unusually, I should imagine), said that he had sympathy with the appeal
They have no sympathy only connived greed!....but could only judge based on PCM’s stated grounds for dismissing the appeal (vehicle not displaying a valid permit), and could not take the mitigating circumstances (lack of signage) into account.
Utter cobblers, lack of signage is not mitigating circumstances it is a failure of the PPC to adhere to the IPC COP. The PPC should be thanking you for highlighting this, not giving you a fake charge because of their negligence.
Don't engage with these Muppets any more unless you feel like telling them you have written to your MP, outlining their scam, and would also welcome the chance to present your evidence and photographs to a judge in the SCC to show how they are knowingly using predatory tactics to trap unsuspecting motorists, supported by their partisan appeals service.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards