Draft Appeal to IAS (PCM fine at Hayes and Harlington)

parallax78

Hi,

I have read the newbie thread as best I can (severely dyslexic sorry) and other posts on the forum. I was given a PCN at Hayes and Harlington station from PCM, seems very common. I have appealed and it was rejected. I am going to try and appeal via the IAS as it has been successful for others on here. So I drafted an appeal and wondered if you wouldn't mind having a read?

I realise the pictures I refer to may not appear on here as I am a new user

My arguments should hopefully be in red. I have read the IPC guidelines and I think I have a solid case for an appeal. Any advice appreciated.

---

Appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice number XXX


To whom it may concern:

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXX


I am in receipt of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) with the above reference number


I have responded to this notice and PCM have ‘denied my appeal’ on September 30th and informed me to contact the IPC


I therefore would like appeal this notice on the following points:



Site Signage not compliant with the IPC Code of Practice
Grace Period as defined within the IPC Code of Practice

In reference to the IPC guidelines, Part E:

Other Signs
Such signs must;
3) Advise drivers that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made for the Keeper’s details from DVLA, or, that they may be requested immediately such that a notice may be served on the keeper by post;

All correspondence of the PCN from Parking Control Management has been directed to me via post, this would mean they have applied for my personal details from the DVLA. As this notice was received within days of the alleged parking violation, PCM have not waited the required 28 days to contact the DVLA. I am currently waiting on confirmation from the DVLA for any Subject Access Requests for my personal details.

At no point has the driver of the vehicle been identified by myself, yet PCM have worded their PCN and appeal rejection in a manner that assigns blame to myself, causing anxiety and distress.

You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver

4) Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site;

The sign used as evidence by PCM (Picture 1 shown below) is not located in a location to be seen clearly upon entering the area. In fact, as picture 2 shows, it is actually located around the corner, at the entrance of a private car park for the apartment building.
Picture 1


Picture 2



5) Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be;

6) Contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at.

As can be seen by the photographs, the wording is neither legible nor clear to a driver and would require someone to exit their vehicle in order to read this type of sign.
Which then follows onto my next point of appeal:

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.

As mentioned above, the signage on site would have required a person to exit their vehicle in order to read and digest the information displayed. Regardless, the IPC guidelines specify that a 10 minute grace period be allowed. The evidence given by PCM clearly shows on time stamps that the vehicle was on site for less than one minute as it obviously executed a 3-point turn. Clearly within the 10 minute grace period.

PICTURES OF TIMESTAMPS HERE

Finally, the last picture given as evidence by PCM clearly shows the vehicle blocked from leaving the site by a vehicle in front of it, at which point the passenger is also seen leaving the vehicle. I would argue that as the right of way for the vehicle was blocked, the car was simply stopped to give way and not ‘parked’ as implied.

(Final image shown here, clearly shows my car blocked by other cars)

Umkomaas

3) Advise drivers that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made for the Keeper’s details from DVLA, or, that they may be requested immediately such that a notice may be served on the keeper by post;

All correspondence of the PCN from Parking Control Management has been directed to me via post, this would mean they have applied for my personal details from the DVLA. As this notice was received within days of the alleged parking violation, PCM have not waited the required 28 days to contact the DVLA. I am currently waiting on confirmation from the DVLA for any Subject Access Requests for my personal details.

Only relates to PCN attached to a windscreen. Where an ANPR or hand-held camera capture is involved the timescale is within 15 days of the date of contravention.

We don't ordinarily recommend appealing to the IAS as 85% of appeals are guaranteed to be rejected, further teeing up the motorist and buoying up the PPC for legal action to follow.

But you might get away with these elements, but will need to submit as much irrefutable evidence as possible to back your position:

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.

As mentioned above, the signage on site would have required a person to exit their vehicle in order to read and digest the information displayed. Regardless, the IPC guidelines specify that a 10 minute grace period be allowed. The evidence given by PCM clearly shows on time stamps that the vehicle was on site for less than one minute as it obviously executed a 3-point turn. Clearly within the 10 minute grace period.

PICTURES OF TIMESTAMPS HERE

Finally, the last picture given as evidence by PCM clearly shows the vehicle blocked from leaving the site by a vehicle in front of it, at which point the passenger is also seen leaving the vehicle. I would argue that as the right of way for the vehicle was blocked, the car was simply stopped to give way and not ‘parked’ as implied.

I'm not hopeful (given years of dealing with this stuff), but would be more than happy to be pleasantly surprised.

parallax78

Thanks for the feedback. I am not hopeful either but from what I read most people suggest it's worth a try when it's PCM.

I am more than happy for it to go to court as the timestamps of their pictures literally how me blocked by traffic within a period of 30 secs. That's when my passenger jumped out as I had no where to go.

Also, is it worth mentioning that one of their images was taken when her dress was caught by the wind? They have sent me a rather revealing image of her underwear which she is not happy about! XD

Umkomaas

Also, is it worth mentioning that one of their images was taken when her dress was caught by the wind? They have sent me a rather revealing image of her underwear which she is not happy about! XD

Not sure on this. It's a pity they are not BPA members, as you could have written to the BPA and asked for their guidance. Their former Chief Executive was an upskirting specialist.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133778/british-parking-association-quits-film-up-skirts-patrick-troy/

:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

You do not need to waste time on this preamble:

I am in receipt of a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (PCM) with the above reference number

I have responded to this notice and PCM have ‘denied my appeal’ on September 30th and informed me to contact the IPC

And yes, make a point of this as the IPC might review the case and tell PCM to cancel!

Also, is it worth mentioning that one of their images was taken when her dress was caught by the wind? They have sent me a rather revealing image of her underwear which she is not happy about! XD

parallax78

I have updated the letter, taking into account everyone's points. Thanks for the help

I therefore would like appeal this notice on the following points:



1. Inappropriate conduct of parking enforcement officer.
2. Site Signage not compliant within IPC Code of Practice (COP):
3. Grace Period as defined within the IPC Code of Practice

Point 1 - Inappropriate conduct of parking enforcement officer.

As evidenced by the photograph below, the parking enforcement officer responsible for gathering this evidence has taken inappropriate photographs of the passenger of the vehicle as she was alighting the vehicle.

Regardless of the weather conditions on that day, a photograph of this nature to be retained by a private company and stored on their website is a gross invasion of privacy and a clear act of voyeurism.

The image should have been deleted immediately by the officer or staff at PCM. To be used as evidence in an alleged parking violation is not only unnecessary, but a disgusting and embarrassing act for the person or persons involved. This has caused great distress and anxiety to the person in the photograph and is seeking counsel on what steps to take next.

Point 2 - Site Signage not compliant within IPC Code of Practice (COP):

In reference to the IPC guidelines, Part E:

You must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver

4) Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site;

The sign used as evidence by PCM (Picture 1 shown below) is not located in a location to be seen clearly upon entering the area. In fact, as picture 2 shows, it is actually at the far end of the road, at the entrance of a private car park for the apartment building.

Picture 1


Picture 2

5) Have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be;
6) Contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at.

As can be seen by the photographs, the wording is neither legible nor clear to a driver and in order to be able to read and understand the implications of them as defined by points 5 and 6. A driver would need to park and exit their vehicle in order to read and fully digest the information. This is true for all signs in the area.

Other signs in and around the area are of similar size and contain text too small to read from a vehicle. Road markings are also not clearly visible when approaching from the roundabout, not giving drivers the chance to read and fully understand the information in the signs.

Which then follows onto my next point of appeal:

Point 3 - Grace Period as defined within the IPC Code of Practice

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.

As mentioned above, the signage on site would have required a person to exit their vehicle in order to read and digest the information displayed. Regardless, the IPC guidelines specify that a 10 minute grace period be allowed. The evidence given by PCM clearly shows on time stamps that the vehicle was on site for less than one minute as it obviously executed a 3-point turn. Clearly within the 10 minute grace period.

Finally, the last picture given as evidence by PCM clearly shows the vehicle blocked from leaving the site by a vehicle in front of it, at which point the passenger is also seen leaving the vehicle.

PCM state that “If the driver was unable to park inside a bay then alternative unrestricted parking should have been found”

It is clear from the image below that as the right of way for the vehicle was blocked, the car xxxxx was simply stopped to give way and not ‘parked’ as implied. In fact the photographic evidence shows the car to be on site for approx. 22 seconds. Stopping to give way to a vehicle that performs an abrupt 3-point turn is not considered parking on any road, simply giving way, in order to avoid a collision.

Fruitcake

You could if you wished contact the police about the inappropriate image as an instance of upskirting, and get a crime number. I would if it was a female member of my family.

I would also complain to the DVLA and your MP about this improper use of imagery.

KeithP

parallax78, it would be a good idea to obliterate your vehicle's registration number from your most recent post.

Coupon-mad

All the numbers are really confusing. Where you quote the IPC CoP, don't have their CoP para number on the left or it looks like it's your own numbering.

I'd add more here, up to you if you use the 'cash cow' wording I suggest:

This has caused great distress and anxiety to the person in the photograph and is deciding [STRIKE]seeking counsel on[/STRIKE] what steps to take next, which will include a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner and the MP for the area, who we know is well aware of PCM's so-called 'enforcement' at this notorious cash cow location.

Also add a point abut breach of the IPC CoP re 'professionalism' (might be 'professionally' for the purpose of search) and 'predatory ticketing'.

Search the CoP, control & F, for those words and quote it but not putting the random para numbers on the left of any new paragraphs.