Theias dispute appeal rejected

UMZLDN

Please see the latest response from IAS barister

The adjudicator made their decision on 31/10/2019 09:54:09.

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. I am satisfied that the signage throughout the site and visible from the position of the vehicle makes it sufficiently 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. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

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.

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.

Umkomaas

UMZLDN wrote: »

Please see the latest response from IAS barister

Pretty much a template adjudication we have seen many times. The PPC mighty be buoyed by the decision, encouraging them to sue through the courts.

You’ll need to present your case for a Judge to decide. I suggest you have a read through the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, to get a feel for what you might have to do some time in the future. The PPC has 6 years to pursue through the courts.

Coupon-mad

Yep, ignore that farce completely. This is why we say not to do IAS.

UMZLDN

I got a letter from a debt recovery agent stating that if i do not pay further action will be taken and further solicitor charges be added to my balance. they have also increased the amount to £160..

Can anyone recommend any good solicitors to get legal advice please

KeithP

UMZLDN wrote: »

I got a letter from a debt recovery agent stating that if i do not pay further action will be taken and further solicitor charges be added to my balance. they have also increased the amount to £160..

Post #4 of the NEWBIES thread tells you exactly how to deal with debt collectors letters.

Have another read of post #3 above.

UMZLDN wrote: »

Can anyone recommend any good solicitors to get legal advice please

No, sorry, can't think of one.

Not one that knows about private car parking issues and would be cost effective anyway.