Operator under IPC code failing to address appeal points

Umkomaas

goroaming wrote: »

Hi there,
I'm slowly following the processes but your comment about there being no CCJ risk is very interesting can you outline why that is? I'd have thought that if a case went to court that the result would be an order to pay and then a CCJ issued?

Thanks in advance

GoRoaming

You'd have to lose first, and that's far from a given.

But if you did, you pay it within the timescale given by the Judge and the CCJ is expunged as if it never occurred in the first place. It is totally within your control.

goroaming

Hi again,

The reason that I asked about a "Grace period" before is because it explicitly states in the IPC code of practice that there must be a stated period of grace of at least 10 minutes unless the signs on the site explicitly say that there is no period of grace at that parking site. I can quote the section if that helps?

Regards

Goroaming

Coupon-mad

You don't need to quote it for our benefit. We know!

goroaming

So sorry I've not worked out how to selectively quote text from people. These were all from Robin of Loxely...............deleted this post and going back to RobinofLoxley's original post to quote it correctly.

Umkomaas

So sorry I've not worked out how to selectively quote text from people.

Simply press the QUOTE button below the post you wish to quote from and the whole of that post will appear in parentheses - if necessary, edit out the irrelevant bits so you have what it is you wish to quote.

Then make sure you take your cursor from between the parentheses, place it below them, then type away your response/question. A bit like riding a bike, once learned, you'll be well away.

The way you're doing it now using different coloured text is very difficult on the eye, and I gave up reading very shortly after your first couple of lines.

goroaming

Umkomaas wrote: »

Simply press the QUOTE button below the post you wish to quote from and the whole of that post will appear in parentheses - if necessary, edit out the irrelevant bits so you have what it is you wish to quote.

Then make sure you take your cursor from between the parentheses, place it below them, then type away your response/question. A bit like riding a bike, once learned, you'll be well away.

The way you're doing it now using different coloured text is very difficult on the eye, and I gave up reading very shortly after your first couple of lines.

Yay I got it I think.

goroaming

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

VCS along with other PPC's do trawl the forum but it's not a problem, even if they do identify you from your posts.

With 3 PCN's at I'm guessing £100 a pop (or have they added an extra £60 to each of them?) it's a lot of money to be handing over to the scammers. No one on here would advise paying them.

Will I have to actually go to court? I thought I saw on here someone completed a "witness statement" and got the fine quashed on the basis of that.

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

As they are relying on POFA to pursue for the parking charges the have to strictly comply with all the requirements of POFA. There is every chance they will slip up with that.

Yes they said that they would add in £60 for additional costs but I've seen the thread and printed it off by beamerguy and Coupon-mad I think which says that those extra costs are often considered double charging and are an abuse of process.

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

As they are relying on POFA to pursue for the parking charges the have to strictly comply with all the requirements of POFA. There is every chance they will slip up with that.

I thought that the operator has not complied with POFA because it explicitly states on POFA that you must have the period of parking. They had the time but did not show the period of parking. In addition the IPC code of conduct explicitly states that the Notice to Keeper must have both the time of parking and the period of parking. Which to my mind clearly shows that they have not complied with their own professional body. I made these points in my appeal and they were ignored or not replied to.

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

You say there were 3 PCN's over a 2 day period. What were the 'period of parking' times and dates stated on the PCN's and what were the issue dates of the PCN's? Also were there 'tickets' placed on the vehicle's windscreen?

No tickets on screen they said that "soft ticketing" allows them to send them by post later. There were no "period of parking" times shown on any of the PCN's that they issued and I felt that this would immediately make them invalid but comments from forum users said that was a fine point and that many judges will say that the time is sufficient without the period of parking. The first one was morning about 10:25 second one about 22:00 Hr so within 24 Hrs and third on the next morning about 09:15 so within 12 Hrs.

Note that there were three tickets issued two on one day and the third the following day.
It explicitly states in the IPC code of practice that they are not allowed to issue a second parking ticket for the same offense in the same 24 hour period. It also says in the IPC code that if a new day occurs then they cannot issue a ticket within 12 Hrs of the previous ticket for the same offense.

They broke both those rules, BUT! On appeal to the IAS the operator withdrew the middle PCN so not now issuing two in the same day and not issuing the third within 12 Hrs of the previous PCN. I think this is a very cynical ploy on their part to try and keep two PCN's apparently valid. I don't think their dropping one affects their failure to comply with their own code but the IAS completely ignored this and it did not feature in their adjudication. In fact the IAS specifically says that it cannot take professional codes of conduct into account which makes them rather useless as everyone here says.

I plan to write to the operator and ask them on what grounds they dropped the middle PCN. I don't think that they have any but if they did would that be useful? I doubt that they will reply. I asked the IAS and they said that the operator received further information but I think that is made up nonsense.

There are no lights of any kind on the signs at the ticket machine or the specific "No parking" sign that they are relying on to show I parked in an alleged prohibited area.
I've since been back to the site and they have changed the signs and increased the number presumably in response to my claims of inadequate signage. I have pictures that show this quite well I think.

goroaming

Here are a few more choice arguments from the operator that will presumably mean I have to defend against them in court.

Operator says:
The signage in the location the appellant parked clearly informed them this was a no parking area unless they were willing to accept liability for a charge. There is nothing misleading or confusing about the signage. It states “No Parking”.

I say:
The same sign that says "No Parking" also 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" This is contradictory and clearly confusing. In addition since I raised these points the operator has added two more new and subtly different signs to the area. The new sign says "No Parking" and these new signs do not have the contradictory statement that permits parking so now there are three signs two new ones that are not contradictory and one old one with contradictory statements on it. I have photographs of these now.

Operator says:
At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions before leaving their vehicle parked in situ.

I would respond:
Despite any time stamp on the purchased ticket they have no idea when the car was parked there or even for how long so they are trying to excuse the lack of light for the signs by saying the car headlights would have illuminated the signage. Don't they have to prove that was the case ie that headlights were used? It is not a public highway so they could have been turned off and the signage was well below the eye level and bonnet level. The sign also directs the user to the main sign at the ticket machine where there is no such sign about "No Parking"

The operator says:
The appellant appears to believe we have not demonstrated a period of parking, the time and date stamped photographs submitted clearly show the appellant's vehicle parked on site from 10:06:53 through to at least 10:09:15.
This was not stated on the NTK where there is no period of parking shown only a time of alleged breach.

That's enough for now but there are more items I'll have to defend against what are the forums thoughts on these points so far?

Coupon-mad

No tickets on screen they said that "soft ticketing" allows them to send them by post later.

The IPC CoP doesn't allow that, if you check! There are ONLY two scenarios given an the only postal version is where there is ANPR. But as you found out, no-one in the scam industry cares about that:

In fact the IAS specifically says that it cannot take professional codes of conduct into account which makes them rather useless as everyone here says.

But a court will.

Yes you are likely to have a hearing at a local court, unless they discontinue near the end. See it out, and win. It is exhilarating, believe me!

KeithP

goroaming wrote: »

Operator says:
The signage in the location the appellant parked clearly informed them this was a no parking area unless they were willing to accept liability for a charge. There is nothing misleading or confusing about the signage. It states “No Parking”.

A sign that states "No Parking" is a forbidding sign and cannot possibly form the basis of a contract.