We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
Operator under IPC code failing to address appeal points
goroaming
Posts: 31 Forumite
Hi all,
I got a parking ticket, first of three in a two day period for allegedly parking in a restricted area of a car park. Below are some of the operators responses to my formal appeal and my response to their response in red after their words in black. Can anyone help me further with information/suggestions/case precedents or other good advice in relation to their arguments? I think I’ve got a good case but you never know. I am the registered keeper not driver and they are not aware of who the driver was.
Operators arguments in black my responses in red - sorry it is so long I am stressed about it and don't want to miss anything.
10. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which where explained in the formal Notice sent on 18 September 2019. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.
Are they saying that they don’t need to follow the requirements of PoFA in terms of notifying the driver because I was unable to identify the driver? Or are they saying that they do not need to comply with PoFA in its entirety? Can they just ignore the PoFA requirement to specify the period of parking?
11. The adjudicator will note that contrary to the appellant’s contention the NTK complies with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
The PoFA Schedule 4 says that they must include the period of parking in any notice to keeper. They later, in point 13 say that they don’t need to give a grace period for the alleged offence of parking in a restricted area, surely that is not correct? It doesn’t say anything about this in the IPC code of conduct other than minimum grace period must be 10mins. No exceptions or examples of exceptions for the grace period are given. The requirements for period of notice in POFA are:
“9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must:
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;”
The IPC code says:
3. Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR cases)
3.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(a) Be in writing.
(b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(c) Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that they have not been paid in full.
(d) State that a Notice to the Driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given. (e) Describe the requirement to pay charges in respect of the specified period and detail those charges.
(f) Describe the circumstances in which the charges arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of the driver and any other facts which made the charges payable).
(g) Explain that parking charges relating to the specified period have not been paid in full by the driver and detail the total amount of unpaid parking charges
(h) Specify the period of parking and the time of the issue of the Notice to Driver.
12. When entering this private car park it is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the advertised Terms and Conditions of parking. In the area where the appellant parked these clearly state ‘No Parking’ and ‘Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following:…Parked in a restricted area of the car park or land’. By parking in a restricted area of the car park, the appellant became liable for this PCN. If the appellant was unable to comply or make use of the helpline then their option, if they wished to avoid liability for a charge, was to leave the site and seek alternative parking elsewhere.
There are laws and cases or guidelines that say if one party is in a stronger position when negotiating a contract that it is their responsibility to ensure that the wording and conditions of the contract are fair and not open to interpretation but in the event of their being a reasonable alternative interpretation then any dispute must/should be decided in favour of the weaker party in the contract negotiations. The customer is clearly the weaker party in this case as the operator writes the contract to suit themselves but can anyone give me a legal case or precedent that I can quote in relation to this?
13. The appellant states the Notice to keeper is invalid. The PCNs we send out comply with the IPC code of practice. It is not required to specify a parking ‘period’ for this contravention. The date and time of the contravention were on the NTK. As the appellant’s vehicle was observed parked in a ‘No Parking’ zone no grace period was required to be given.
This is a lie! Both the PoFA act 2012 Schedule 4 sub section 9 and the IPC code of practice state that any notice to keeper must include the time of the offence and the period of parking. They have broken both those requirements and so the notice to keeper is clearly invalid.
There wasn’t anything on any of the notices that said there is no grace period if a car is parked incorrectly while a customer is using the grace period to assess if they want to park. It is my contention that they cannot prove how long the car was parked for, they didn’t record the period of parking, and so they don’t know if they issued the ticket in the grace period or not. Also they do not comply with the minimum requirement of IPC code to have a 10 min grace period.
The exact wording for the "Grace period" in the IPC code is:
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.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.
14. The appellant states the signage is confusing and misleading. The supplied site photographs show the amount and type of signage in the car park. We maintain that the amount and size of the signage at the car Park in question is such that it is implausible that any motorist could enter the site and not be aware that terms and conditions apply to parking on the site.
They did not answer any of the points that identified why the signage was in error, confusing and contradictory. Is this type of avoidance likely to hold up under scrutiny?
15. We would refer the adjudicator to the contravention photographs (supplied), which clearly show the appellant’s vehicle parked next to a ‘No Parking’ sign. This is shown most clearly in photographs #4-5.
I wrote that the car is parked adjacent to a sign that says. “If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times.”. The sign says both these things so it is contradictory and confusing to any car park user. Is this a good argument?
16. We note the appellant’s comments regarding the ticket machine. However we note that the appellant managed to successfully purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket. We would also note that the instructions on the ticket machine bear no IAS CASE SUMMARY consequences for the appellant’s contravention; the PCN was issued for parking in a restricted/prohibited area.
The instructions on how to obtain a ticket are entirely incorrect not just in part but entirely. I maintain that those instructions on the ticket machine form part of any contract that they say the car park user agrees to when they use the car park and that if they are entirely wrong then the contract is invalid because it has information that is wrong, confusing and deliberately intended to trap the user into an alleged breach. So because the instructions are wrong the contract is invalid as there is no agreement on the conditions that cannot be met by a user.
17. As previously explained to the appellant, the DVLA recently changed the administrative requirements that a Private Parking Operator must adhere to in order to obtain registered keeper details in relation to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice. 'Soft Ticketing', the process of a non-formal notice being placed on a vehicle, advising the motorist to check online or by phone to see whether they have committed a parking contravention, has now been discontinued. These policies and procedures are compliant with our Accredited Trade Association, the International Parking Community and have been forwarded to us as part of a direct instruction from the DVLA. As such, we maintain that the lack of a physical Notice, affixed to the vehicle on the date of the observed contravention, does not constitute grounds for the cancellation of this Notice; as we maintain reasonable cause to pursue such a legal debt.
This is clearly predatory to me as it doesn’t allow car park users to change behaviour before subsequent tickets can be issued by the operator. Just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it can’t be used in a predatory fashion by the operator. Do group members agree?
18. The IPC code of practice clearly states ‘Parking operators must ensure that they only issue parking charges in accordance with their advertised terms on any site. Such terms shall not entitle any operator to issue more than one parking charge in the same calendar day for the same parking event. In the event of a new calendar day the operator must not issue a further parking charge for the same parking event within a 12 hour period from when the previous parking charge was issued. Where a vehicle is moved at any point, this constitutes a new parking event.’ This information is freely available on the IPC website.
They broke this by issuing more tickets for the same offence inside this time period but without getting any proof of period of parking or if a new parking event had occurred.
19. The appellant states that what constitutes the bay markings is unclear and confusing. As previously stated, the motorist is required to park within a marked bay. As this requirement is made clear on our Information Boards throughout the site, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they are parked within bay markings. If bay markings were not visible, then vehicles should not be parked in that area as it would not be marked as a bay. It follows that if bay markings are sufficiently visible to mark an area as a bay, they are sufficiently visible for motorists to ensure that they park correctly within such markings. However the pertinent point in this case is that, as clearly shown, by our photographic evidence the appellant’s vehicle was parked in an area where parking is prohibited at all times.
20. VCS categorically deny any claims of predatory behaviours or practices.
See point 17 and combine that with the errors on the ticket machine instructions, the failure to comply with the minimum 10 mins grace period in the IPC code of practice and confusing signage and repeatedly issuing tickets inside a prohibited time period for issuing repeat tickets. That is surely predatory? Any opinions?
21. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park.
I want to fight this on numerous points in relation to their signage not complying with their own IPC code of practice ie that they did not clearly mark the period of parking as is required by schedule 4 sub section 9 in the POFA act 2012 and which is expressly required in the IPC code of practice. They also do not offer the minimum 10 min grace period on their signage which is also required by the IPC code. I want to prove that there was no contract and that there cannot be a contract founded on the IPC code of practice when they do not follow it to the letter. Is this s a good defence can anyone cite cases in law where this works?
22. We are not pursuing the Charge Notice on the basis of any company’s loss but as a result of a contractual breach of the Terms and Conditions, observed on the day in question. Any motorist who familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be notified of the relevant Charges. Specifically the signage states “If you breach the contractual Terms and Conditions of this private land you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £100.”
I am not sure how to fight this claim other than to say that there was no contract. Even though a parking ticket was correctly bought and paid for and on display there was no contract because the signage relating to the period of Grace (10 minutes in IPC code minimum) but 5mins on the car park signs means that their signage is not in accord with the code of practice and so they don’t follow their own “Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice” which means that the foundation on which they claim a contract has been agreed on is untrue. Is this s a good defence can anyone cite cases in law where this works?
23. Ultimately when entering this private land it was solely the responsibility of the appellant to fully comply with the contractual terms and conditions displayed, IAS CASE SUMMARY by their failure to do so the appellant rendered themselves liable for the PCN, which was correctly issued.
I want to explain that agreement to comply requires there to be a valid contract on offer and that if the contract is invalid then there is no agreement and no contract. I think that having site notices that contravene the IPC code of practice by not stating that there is a ten minute grace period automatically makes this contract invalid as they state the basis of their contract is on fulfilling their obligation as defined by their professional body the IPC. Is this a good defence?
I got a parking ticket, first of three in a two day period for allegedly parking in a restricted area of a car park. Below are some of the operators responses to my formal appeal and my response to their response in red after their words in black. Can anyone help me further with information/suggestions/case precedents or other good advice in relation to their arguments? I think I’ve got a good case but you never know. I am the registered keeper not driver and they are not aware of who the driver was.
Operators arguments in black my responses in red - sorry it is so long I am stressed about it and don't want to miss anything.
10. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which where explained in the formal Notice sent on 18 September 2019. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.
Are they saying that they don’t need to follow the requirements of PoFA in terms of notifying the driver because I was unable to identify the driver? Or are they saying that they do not need to comply with PoFA in its entirety? Can they just ignore the PoFA requirement to specify the period of parking?
11. The adjudicator will note that contrary to the appellant’s contention the NTK complies with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
The PoFA Schedule 4 says that they must include the period of parking in any notice to keeper. They later, in point 13 say that they don’t need to give a grace period for the alleged offence of parking in a restricted area, surely that is not correct? It doesn’t say anything about this in the IPC code of conduct other than minimum grace period must be 10mins. No exceptions or examples of exceptions for the grace period are given. The requirements for period of notice in POFA are:
“9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must:
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;”
The IPC code says:
3. Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR cases)
3.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(a) Be in writing.
(b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(c) Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that they have not been paid in full.
(d) State that a Notice to the Driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given. (e) Describe the requirement to pay charges in respect of the specified period and detail those charges.
(f) Describe the circumstances in which the charges arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of the driver and any other facts which made the charges payable).
(g) Explain that parking charges relating to the specified period have not been paid in full by the driver and detail the total amount of unpaid parking charges
(h) Specify the period of parking and the time of the issue of the Notice to Driver.
12. When entering this private car park it is the responsibility of the motorist to read and comply with the advertised Terms and Conditions of parking. In the area where the appellant parked these clearly state ‘No Parking’ and ‘Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following:…Parked in a restricted area of the car park or land’. By parking in a restricted area of the car park, the appellant became liable for this PCN. If the appellant was unable to comply or make use of the helpline then their option, if they wished to avoid liability for a charge, was to leave the site and seek alternative parking elsewhere.
There are laws and cases or guidelines that say if one party is in a stronger position when negotiating a contract that it is their responsibility to ensure that the wording and conditions of the contract are fair and not open to interpretation but in the event of their being a reasonable alternative interpretation then any dispute must/should be decided in favour of the weaker party in the contract negotiations. The customer is clearly the weaker party in this case as the operator writes the contract to suit themselves but can anyone give me a legal case or precedent that I can quote in relation to this?
13. The appellant states the Notice to keeper is invalid. The PCNs we send out comply with the IPC code of practice. It is not required to specify a parking ‘period’ for this contravention. The date and time of the contravention were on the NTK. As the appellant’s vehicle was observed parked in a ‘No Parking’ zone no grace period was required to be given.
This is a lie! Both the PoFA act 2012 Schedule 4 sub section 9 and the IPC code of practice state that any notice to keeper must include the time of the offence and the period of parking. They have broken both those requirements and so the notice to keeper is clearly invalid.
There wasn’t anything on any of the notices that said there is no grace period if a car is parked incorrectly while a customer is using the grace period to assess if they want to park. It is my contention that they cannot prove how long the car was parked for, they didn’t record the period of parking, and so they don’t know if they issued the ticket in the grace period or not. Also they do not comply with the minimum requirement of IPC code to have a 10 min grace period.
The exact wording for the "Grace period" in the IPC code is:
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.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.
14. The appellant states the signage is confusing and misleading. The supplied site photographs show the amount and type of signage in the car park. We maintain that the amount and size of the signage at the car Park in question is such that it is implausible that any motorist could enter the site and not be aware that terms and conditions apply to parking on the site.
They did not answer any of the points that identified why the signage was in error, confusing and contradictory. Is this type of avoidance likely to hold up under scrutiny?
15. We would refer the adjudicator to the contravention photographs (supplied), which clearly show the appellant’s vehicle parked next to a ‘No Parking’ sign. This is shown most clearly in photographs #4-5.
I wrote that the car is parked adjacent to a sign that says. “If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times.”. The sign says both these things so it is contradictory and confusing to any car park user. Is this a good argument?
16. We note the appellant’s comments regarding the ticket machine. However we note that the appellant managed to successfully purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket. We would also note that the instructions on the ticket machine bear no IAS CASE SUMMARY consequences for the appellant’s contravention; the PCN was issued for parking in a restricted/prohibited area.
The instructions on how to obtain a ticket are entirely incorrect not just in part but entirely. I maintain that those instructions on the ticket machine form part of any contract that they say the car park user agrees to when they use the car park and that if they are entirely wrong then the contract is invalid because it has information that is wrong, confusing and deliberately intended to trap the user into an alleged breach. So because the instructions are wrong the contract is invalid as there is no agreement on the conditions that cannot be met by a user.
17. As previously explained to the appellant, the DVLA recently changed the administrative requirements that a Private Parking Operator must adhere to in order to obtain registered keeper details in relation to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice. 'Soft Ticketing', the process of a non-formal notice being placed on a vehicle, advising the motorist to check online or by phone to see whether they have committed a parking contravention, has now been discontinued. These policies and procedures are compliant with our Accredited Trade Association, the International Parking Community and have been forwarded to us as part of a direct instruction from the DVLA. As such, we maintain that the lack of a physical Notice, affixed to the vehicle on the date of the observed contravention, does not constitute grounds for the cancellation of this Notice; as we maintain reasonable cause to pursue such a legal debt.
This is clearly predatory to me as it doesn’t allow car park users to change behaviour before subsequent tickets can be issued by the operator. Just because it is legal doesn’t mean that it can’t be used in a predatory fashion by the operator. Do group members agree?
18. The IPC code of practice clearly states ‘Parking operators must ensure that they only issue parking charges in accordance with their advertised terms on any site. Such terms shall not entitle any operator to issue more than one parking charge in the same calendar day for the same parking event. In the event of a new calendar day the operator must not issue a further parking charge for the same parking event within a 12 hour period from when the previous parking charge was issued. Where a vehicle is moved at any point, this constitutes a new parking event.’ This information is freely available on the IPC website.
They broke this by issuing more tickets for the same offence inside this time period but without getting any proof of period of parking or if a new parking event had occurred.
19. The appellant states that what constitutes the bay markings is unclear and confusing. As previously stated, the motorist is required to park within a marked bay. As this requirement is made clear on our Information Boards throughout the site, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they are parked within bay markings. If bay markings were not visible, then vehicles should not be parked in that area as it would not be marked as a bay. It follows that if bay markings are sufficiently visible to mark an area as a bay, they are sufficiently visible for motorists to ensure that they park correctly within such markings. However the pertinent point in this case is that, as clearly shown, by our photographic evidence the appellant’s vehicle was parked in an area where parking is prohibited at all times.
20. VCS categorically deny any claims of predatory behaviours or practices.
See point 17 and combine that with the errors on the ticket machine instructions, the failure to comply with the minimum 10 mins grace period in the IPC code of practice and confusing signage and repeatedly issuing tickets inside a prohibited time period for issuing repeat tickets. That is surely predatory? Any opinions?
21. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park.
I want to fight this on numerous points in relation to their signage not complying with their own IPC code of practice ie that they did not clearly mark the period of parking as is required by schedule 4 sub section 9 in the POFA act 2012 and which is expressly required in the IPC code of practice. They also do not offer the minimum 10 min grace period on their signage which is also required by the IPC code. I want to prove that there was no contract and that there cannot be a contract founded on the IPC code of practice when they do not follow it to the letter. Is this s a good defence can anyone cite cases in law where this works?
22. We are not pursuing the Charge Notice on the basis of any company’s loss but as a result of a contractual breach of the Terms and Conditions, observed on the day in question. Any motorist who familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be notified of the relevant Charges. Specifically the signage states “If you breach the contractual Terms and Conditions of this private land you agree to pay a Parking Charge Notice of £100.”
I am not sure how to fight this claim other than to say that there was no contract. Even though a parking ticket was correctly bought and paid for and on display there was no contract because the signage relating to the period of Grace (10 minutes in IPC code minimum) but 5mins on the car park signs means that their signage is not in accord with the code of practice and so they don’t follow their own “Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice” which means that the foundation on which they claim a contract has been agreed on is untrue. Is this s a good defence can anyone cite cases in law where this works?
23. Ultimately when entering this private land it was solely the responsibility of the appellant to fully comply with the contractual terms and conditions displayed, IAS CASE SUMMARY by their failure to do so the appellant rendered themselves liable for the PCN, which was correctly issued.
I want to explain that agreement to comply requires there to be a valid contract on offer and that if the contract is invalid then there is no agreement and no contract. I think that having site notices that contravene the IPC code of practice by not stating that there is a ten minute grace period automatically makes this contract invalid as they state the basis of their contract is on fulfilling their obligation as defined by their professional body the IPC. Is this a good defence?
0
Comments
-
I haven't had time to read through the whole post but here are a few initial observations.Are they saying that they don’t need to follow the requirements of PoFA in terms of notifying the driver because I was unable to identify the driver? Or are they saying that they do not need to comply with PoFA in its entirety? Can they just ignore the PoFA requirement to specify the period of parking?
No they are saying as they don't know the name of the driver i.e. they have not been informed of the name, they are relying on POFA to transfer the liability for the charge to you the keeper.
To do this they DO need to comply fully with the requirements set down by POFA.
The period of parking can just be the actual time the vehicle was seen parked in a restricted area, it could only have been there for a matter of seconds but that is enough for them. They are right in that in this case grace periods do not apply as to them as the vehicle was parked in an area that parking was not allowed, thus breaking their T&C's.
What you need to check is that they have issued the NTD (if applicable) and NTK correctly to comply with POFA, such as having certain wording and being issued within the specified timescales.
Which PPC was this and what car park?0 -
Far too ‘busy’ a wall of text. Please paragraph it up to make it easy on the eyes of regulars who have to read dozens upon dozens of post every day.
Why are you using forum non-default font in your post? Are you copying and pasting direct from Word? If so you’ll find yourself prevented from posting before we start. Please read the following:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5637311/warning-do-not-copy-and-paste-content-from-word-pdfs-etc-into-your-postsPlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
You seem to be conflating 'period of parking' with 'grace period' which are two different things.The PoFA Schedule 4 says that they must include the period of parking in any notice to keeper. They later, in point 13 say that they don’t need to give a grace period for the alleged offence of parking in a restricted area, surely that is not correct?
The NTK would be considered substantially compliant by many a Judge, if it has a period on it - even just one single time of issue of the PCN.
The IAS will certainly not uphold your appeal, so we hope you are not tin the midst of a completely pointless IAS appeal, a kangaroo court, considered bent as a nine bob note and designed to make you think you have no case when you lose against the IPC's beloved fee-paying PPC.
Oh dear, I see you are. Good luck with that then:The adjudicator will note
You are not at defence stage, you are utterly wasting your time at IAS stage!Is this a good defence?
As for the grace period, no, the signs don't have to say what it is. I have no idea why people keep asking this, why would a sign have to say what the period of grace is....
The POFA does not impose that and nor does any CoP and it would be pretty stupid if it did IMHO, because it would mislead people and human nature would be such that people would see it and think ''oh good, I'll only be 5 mins'' then take twelve.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Really sorry I edited it again as best I could, this is the default font in the online system it is times new roman is it ok?0
-
I checked and PoFA insits on the "period of parking" see quote from it and from IPC code of conduct below:
POFA says exactly this:
“9 (1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must:
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;”
The IPC code says:
3. Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR cases) It's more or less the same for ANPR cases as well.
3.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(a) Be in writing.
(b) Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(c) Inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that they have not been paid in full.
(d) State that a Notice to the Driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given. (e) Describe the requirement to pay charges in respect of the specified period and detail those charges.
(f) Describe the circumstances in which the charges arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of the driver and any other facts which made the charges payable).
(g) Explain that parking charges relating to the specified period have not been paid in full by the driver and detail the total amount of unpaid parking charges
(h) Specify the period of parking and the time of the issue of the Notice to Driver.0 -
Thanks how do I get the exact wording that they are supposed to use? I was sure that the POFA wording insisted on the "period of parking" and I've shown that quotation from it below. I was really depending on that
Now I think I shouldn't have contested it if I don't have the grounds to win.
It was in Coventry but I was told not to post the actual car park or the operator as that breaks the forum rules. I have to say that I'm surprised that the grace period, that their IPC code insists on, wouldn't apply in this case as the code doesn't say anything about not applying if the parking bay isn't used correctly. By that logic I could park in a bay, badly with a wheel out, then go and read the signs and find out that because I didn't like the requirement to park in a bay that I had got a ticket in the first ten minutes before I decided not to park there. That doesn't sound right?0 -
You won't win at IAS.
You have found the right wording but there is no independent appeal. They lied.
Stop busting a gut over a pointless stage you should have ignored. Thee cases are 99% winnable at court stage and it's a good life experience with no CCJ risk.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Sorry what font should I use? The default here is times new roman but it went to Ariel via notepad I'll edit it to whatever font it should be if I know what that is.0
-
It's the one you type in here! No need to use Notepad as an in-between.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I checked and PoFA insits on the "period of parking" see quote from it and from IPC code of conduct below:
You don't seem to be grasping that the term 'period of parking' doesn't necessarily have to be a specified amount of time from entering to leaving a car park, which could be ascertained by ANPR cameras at the car park entrance for example.
The 'period' could be stated on the NTK as a specific time down to the minute or second when the vehicle was observed and photographed allegedly breaking the car park's T & C's.
If you left your car and it was out of your view long enough for the PPC Norris to go up to it and take a photo then yes that could happen. No it wouldn't be right but PPC's don't play fair.By that logic I could park in a bay, badly with a wheel out, then go and read the signs and find out that because I didn't like the requirement to park in a bay that I had got a ticket in the first ten minutes before I decided not to park there. That doesn't sound right?It was in Coventry but I was told not to post the actual car park or the operator as that breaks the forum rules.
Don't know who told you that but that's rubbish. Was it VCS or Excel?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.1K Spending & Discounts
- 242.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards