PCM - IAS appeal dismissed. Unfair ticket.

geezer131313

My parents were coming to visit me in my flat (car park operated by PCM), I gave Dad visitor scratch card which requires you to scratch date and time of arrival, it is then valid for 24 hours from that scratched time. I paid £10+postage for a book of 10 scratch cards. My dad accidently scratched 03.00 rather than 15.00, realised his mistake so crossed the 03.00 in pen and scratched the 15.00 instead. In hindsight it wouldn't have mattered because he was leaving at approximately 20:00 anyway, so 03:00 would have sufficed.

Notice parking attendant paying close attention to my dads car, and wasn't sure why. Called out the window and he claimed the parking scratchcard was not valid as two times were scratched out. My dad and i ran down to explain the genuine error, but all he did was point at the corner of the scratchcard which reads "Card invalid if more than one Day, Date, Month, Hour, Minute & year are scratched out". Fair enough, his mistake. Attendant then hands my dad a ticket! We were asking him if he was joking, and he was saying he is only going by what he has in front of him.

Now i didn't seek any advice at this stage. I appealed the next day essentially explaining the above. Few weeks later received a letter that i had to get my Dad to sign to say i am acting on his behalf. Sent this away, all done.

PCM then rejected the appeal by saying 'i parked in a manner whereby you agreed to pay a charge'

Again, didn't seek any advice thinking that the common sense of IAS will prevail. Appealed to IAS stating he never entered any contract to pay £100 PCN to PCM, given we scratched a scratchcard that cost me £1 a go, essentially wasting it, and the fact we explained error to attendent before he issued the ticket. Also stated how no loss was incurred as we used the scratch card and thus they made their £1 out of it, and £60 (raising to £100 after 14 days) was not reflective of any loss.

IAS then dismissed appeal with the following:

"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.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. The permit displayed had clearly been incorrectly scratched off and was therefore considered invalid in accordance with the wording on the permit itself.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

The Appellant raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the Operator was clearly communicated to the Driver by way of the signage on the site. If the Driver considered the charge to be excessive, the Driver had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the Operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

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.
"

Now what is interesting is the above states that the vehicle was unoccupied. The time on the issued ticket is a time later than that we explained the error to the parking attendant. We made it clear in our IAS appeal we were present when the ticket was issued but they have clearly overlooked this.

Can you please provide some advice on this? If successeful, i will genuinely be happy to donate the value of the ticket to charity (and prove it in this thread!).

Many thanks in advance.

Umkomaas

You'll have to convince a Judge on the details of this. There is no silver bullet. Just defend it (with help from here) if PCM issue proceedings.

Please prepare yourself for such an eventuality by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3, which takes you right through the court process from Letter Of/Before Claim (you're not at that point yet) to the actual court hearing.

If, in the meantime, you receive debt collector letters (which are harmless), please read post #4 of the above sticky.

geezer131313

Thanks for your quick reply. Is this something that you feel has grounds for appeal? I have no experience in this.

Umkomaas

geezer131313 wrote: »

Thanks for your quick reply. Is this something that you feel has grounds for appeal? I have no experience in this.

There's no further appeal route open to you. Leave it for a Judge ...... if it gets that far.

geezer131313

Sorry, that is more what I meant - is this grounds enough to let it go the whole way to a judge? By your answer I assume yes, and I should therefore not be paying.

Ralph-y

have you complained to the HA who employ the scammers ?


Ralph:cool:

waamo

geezer131313 wrote: »

Sorry, that is more what I meant - is this grounds enough to let it go the whole way to a judge? By your answer I assume yes, and I should therefore not be paying.

Only pay if a kid ge tells you to. A judge will only tell you to pay if you lose in court. If you study well enough here you may well never be told to pay.

Coupon-mad

is this grounds enough to let it go the whole way to a judge?

There are ALWAYS grounds to make PCM lose in court (they always do, v us).

D_P_Dance

Complain to your MP. These companies have no place in residential car parks imo.

On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

geezer131313

Not part of a HA. Private flats

MothballsWallet

Is the flat rented/owned?
If rented, what does your tenancy agreement say about parking? Because that takes precedence over what PCM think or say.
Is there a management company/management agent (MA)?
Is there a residents' association?

If you can find out who contracted PCM, you may have another way by complaining to them - they're PCM's principal, and are liable in any court action - and it's not unknown for a cancellation that way.

I'me sure the other regulars will correct me if I'm wrong and add their suggestions.