Operator under IPC code failing to address appeal points

goroaming

Thanks,
I'm sure that you are right but honestly, I'd be just as happy if they dropped it or didn't pursue it but I am girding myself up for the full haul all the way to court if I have to.

Here is another two choice snippets that they gave me and again any comments will be much appreciated.

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 (time on one photo) through to at least (time on other photo).

My reply would be along the lines of:
The IPC code of practice and POFA explicitly state that the NTK must state the period of parking and it doesn't.

Would the time stamp on two photographs be considered stating the period of parking? The time stamps might be construed to prove a period of parking of about a few mins, which is less than the 5 mins grace period that is offered on the site notices and much less than the 10 mins that the IPC code of practice insists on - so again their signage fails to meet their own association standards and that brings me to the next point.


Operator says:
The concept of a grace period pertains to a period of permitted parking. Motorists are not permitted to park in this No Parking area for any period of time. The appellant's ticket on display cost (a few pounds) and expired at (expiry time of ticket), this would indicate as per the attached tariff board that it was valid for (several) hours meaning it was purchased approximately (early morning). As such the appellant's vehicle was parked there for a substantial period of time.

My response as keeper would be
The IPC code of practice does not allow for the refusal of a grace period for any reason whatsoever. It very clearly states that there MUST be a ten minute grace period. It does not say that this does not apply if a customer parks in a no parking zone in their code of conduct and it does not say this on any of the notice boards on the site.
I think that they cannot presume when the car was parked or for how long based on the time stamp on the parking ticket. I think that they must prove that the car was parked for more than ten minutes (the compulsory IPC code of practice grace period) and that it does not matter if the car was correctly parked or not because nothing in the IPC code or the signs on the site say that the grace period does not apply to any area that is designated "no parking". It is not possible for them, or me as keeper not driver, to know when the car was parked, if it left and returned or didn't so any period of time they submit is entirely fabricated and not based on fact.

Any comments? Do members agree or think that this is not relevant?

Thanks in advance.

goroaming

Thank you that sounds really useful. Would I need to find a precedent for that? Will a Judge be likely to see that as an absolute truth that they have failed to make a valid contract or is there still some level of subjectivity/interpretation by the Judge?

Does anyone have a precedent that I can quote/use?

Umkomaas

Any comments? Do members agree or think that this is not relevant?

Save it all for the Judge. None of it will make a blind bit of difference to the PPC or the IPC or the IAS.

goroaming

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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:
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!

OK they are saying that even though there is no ANPR cameras on the site at that location, it may be different in the adjacent multi-story car park that this ground car park is allegedly part of, that it is an ANPR case because the enforcers/parking operators take digital pictures and that there is a provision for this to count as ANPR. This sounds really like a big fat lie to me but they insist on it and say:

Operator says:
The section of the IPC Code of Practice the appellant has quoted (D 3.1) relates to cases where a Notice to Driver has been left on the vehicle. We have never claimed to operate under such practices. As noted in our Prima Facie cases we utilise postal notification. The pertinent section of the Code of Practice for this, which we adhere to, is C, 5 - ANPR and Postal Notification cases. The time of the contravention is clearly noted on the PCN.

So I really don't know if this is an ANPR case or not. They did not show any ANPR pictures and all their pictures were taken by an enforcement officer which they don't deny. The signage does say that this is an ANPR site but I think that might only be in the multi-story car park as there is definately no ANPR cameras at the site the car was parked in.

What do members think of this please? Is it ok to say "big fat lie"? or will I get censored?

goroaming

Umkomaas wrote: »

Save it all for the Judge. None of it will make a blind bit of difference to the PPC or the IPC or the IAS.

I'm sorry I am just trying to get my thoughts in order and construct useful phrases and arguments when I can to build up my defense bit by bit and not get too stressed about it as I go along. The comments members have made and suggestions they gave have been so useful and reassuring so far. I really do thank you all.

Umkomaas

I think we're drowning in questions!

Which parking company is pursuing you?

RobinofLoxley

Which parking company is pursuing you?

It's VCS. Earlier in the thread the OP wasn't to keen on revealing who it was.

Coupon-mad

So I really don't know if this is an ANPR case or not

It is not, you are overthinking it, but SAVE IT FOR A JUDGE.

goroaming

KeithP wrote: »

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

Hi KeithP,
Sorry I may have inadvertently misled you. The operator is relying on the fact that sign includes the words "No Parking" but it says a whole lot more on the sign about the operator, who to pay and how much to pay for failing to comply and so on. I could post the photo of the sign for you to see? If I knew how. Does that change the comment that you made above at all?

KeithP

goroaming wrote: »

Hi KeithP,
Sorry I may have inadvertently misled you. The operator is relying on the fact that sign includes the words "No Parking" but it says a whole lot more on the sign about the operator, who to pay and how much to pay for failing to comply and so on. I could post the photo of the sign for you to see? If I knew how. Does that change the comment that you made above at all?

Then perhaps the sign should say "you can park here, but it will cost you £nnn".

I maintain that a sign that says "No Parking" is not offering a contract to park.


To show us a photo, upload the image to a free webhosting site and post the link here.