We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
IAS rejection - pay or ignore
LittleTrolley
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hello,
I am looking for advice that I am making the right choice, otherwise I will pay the PPC the amount they are asking for if my case does not look likely to win in court.
The situation:
Hello,
I am looking for advice that I am making the right choice, otherwise I will pay the PPC the amount they are asking for if my case does not look likely to win in court.
The situation:
I received a parking ticket outside my house in a private residential car park that recently had a PPC commissioned to come in to stop people parking outside of their allocated 1 space per house - despite only residents using the car park as no one would have the incentive to park there unless you lived at the development. None of the residents complained about the situation before the PPC were brought in and we all suspect it is because the developer had some spare spaces that he wanted £75 per month for that no one bought.
Anyway, I parked outside my house for less than 20 mins to go inside, pack and load my ice hockey bag then set off. In that time a “parking officer” came around and issued a ticket.
I did not know the parking rules prior to the ticket being issued. The PPC has (wrongly) alleged I had a tacit understanding of the “contract” as I am a resident.
I have appealed to the operator which was rejected (obviously) then to the IAS. I foolishly admitted to being the driver, and only after appealing to the IAS did I realise this was not advised on this forum.
The basis of my appeal is that the parking signs are completely unlit, therefore I could not have understand the parking rules. Both the operator appeals and the IAS appeal replies completely ignored this, saying the ticket was issued legally.
Here are the summaries of my appeals and their replies - I have omitted identifiable information:
TIME PARKING CHARGE ISSUED: 20:40
TIME VEHICLE WAS FIRST SEEN IN CONTRAVENTION: 20:32
REASON WHY CHARGE WAS ISSUED: No Permit Displayed
First appeal to the operator summary:
Unaware of the parking rules and couldn’t see the signs so could not gain understanding.
Operator Reply:
As a resident you are perfectly aware of the parking rules in this car park, we do not accept your somewhat lame claim that you ‘could not determine the rules of parking’.
Letters were sent to all residents prior to enforcement which you would have received.
As a responsible driver, the onus is on you to check the parking restrictions on the ample signage placed around the site as approved by the IPC.
There is entrance signage and other signage around the site which you would have noticed every time you use the car park, so saying you did not see the signs or you were unaware of the rules is absurd and frankly ridiculous.
I have summarised, but matched the tone and verbage that operator used in their reply.
Some things to note:
I did not have prior understanding of the rules as they suggest.
I did not see the letter they are claiming I have read. I live with 2 housemates, and the letter was not addressed to me.
The IAS appeal goes on to mention the same as my first appeal, but clearly state this time they have ignored the fact the signs are completely unlit at night time when my ticket was issued.
Here is the summary of the IAS appeal:
Specifically PART E - Schedule 1, Signage.
This section states "If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge."
The operator is in direct violation of this schedule. Further evidence of this can be seen by the form of a video which I am happily willing to submit with the option to do so.
The Operators's violation of the IPC's guidelines in regards to adequately lit signage is more than enough to dismiss this wrongly issued Parking Charge Notice. Once again, evidence for this is provided in my uploaded photo and the fact the parking officer had to use their flash on their camera to picture the signage.
Finally, the Parking Charge Notice has been incorrectly issued as The Operator is in violation of the IPC's Code of Conduct regarding adequately lit signage and professionalism and The Operator’s attempt at alleging I had tacit understanding of the terms and conditions of parking at the car park is unfounded and ultimately false.
I am, and always have been, more than willing to park in accordance with parking rules, but due to unlit parking signs at night this was not practicable.
-- I also mentioned how the operator was in violation of Part B, point 13.1: Professionalism but I feel that is irrelevant in the grand scheme.
The IAS dismissed my appeal with the following reply (summarised):
Very long. I will cut it VERY short:
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.
All photos of the car park in the same lighting conditions can be seen here: imgur.com/a/advsLfr
(copy paste the link above as I am a new user and cannot post links)
So finally, what I’m looking for is some advice as to next steps. Should I ignore the demand to pay the £100 before the end of this month, or should I just pay it as it is unlikely I would win at court?
Many thanks for your time
I am looking for advice that I am making the right choice, otherwise I will pay the PPC the amount they are asking for if my case does not look likely to win in court.
The situation:
Hello,
I am looking for advice that I am making the right choice, otherwise I will pay the PPC the amount they are asking for if my case does not look likely to win in court.
The situation:
I received a parking ticket outside my house in a private residential car park that recently had a PPC commissioned to come in to stop people parking outside of their allocated 1 space per house - despite only residents using the car park as no one would have the incentive to park there unless you lived at the development. None of the residents complained about the situation before the PPC were brought in and we all suspect it is because the developer had some spare spaces that he wanted £75 per month for that no one bought.
Anyway, I parked outside my house for less than 20 mins to go inside, pack and load my ice hockey bag then set off. In that time a “parking officer” came around and issued a ticket.
I did not know the parking rules prior to the ticket being issued. The PPC has (wrongly) alleged I had a tacit understanding of the “contract” as I am a resident.
I have appealed to the operator which was rejected (obviously) then to the IAS. I foolishly admitted to being the driver, and only after appealing to the IAS did I realise this was not advised on this forum.
The basis of my appeal is that the parking signs are completely unlit, therefore I could not have understand the parking rules. Both the operator appeals and the IAS appeal replies completely ignored this, saying the ticket was issued legally.
Here are the summaries of my appeals and their replies - I have omitted identifiable information:
TIME PARKING CHARGE ISSUED: 20:40
TIME VEHICLE WAS FIRST SEEN IN CONTRAVENTION: 20:32
REASON WHY CHARGE WAS ISSUED: No Permit Displayed
First appeal to the operator summary:
Unaware of the parking rules and couldn’t see the signs so could not gain understanding.
Operator Reply:
As a resident you are perfectly aware of the parking rules in this car park, we do not accept your somewhat lame claim that you ‘could not determine the rules of parking’.
Letters were sent to all residents prior to enforcement which you would have received.
As a responsible driver, the onus is on you to check the parking restrictions on the ample signage placed around the site as approved by the IPC.
There is entrance signage and other signage around the site which you would have noticed every time you use the car park, so saying you did not see the signs or you were unaware of the rules is absurd and frankly ridiculous.
I have summarised, but matched the tone and verbage that operator used in their reply.
Some things to note:
I did not have prior understanding of the rules as they suggest.
I did not see the letter they are claiming I have read. I live with 2 housemates, and the letter was not addressed to me.
The IAS appeal goes on to mention the same as my first appeal, but clearly state this time they have ignored the fact the signs are completely unlit at night time when my ticket was issued.
Here is the summary of the IAS appeal:
Specifically PART E - Schedule 1, Signage.
This section states "If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge."
The operator is in direct violation of this schedule. Further evidence of this can be seen by the form of a video which I am happily willing to submit with the option to do so.
The Operators's violation of the IPC's guidelines in regards to adequately lit signage is more than enough to dismiss this wrongly issued Parking Charge Notice. Once again, evidence for this is provided in my uploaded photo and the fact the parking officer had to use their flash on their camera to picture the signage.
Finally, the Parking Charge Notice has been incorrectly issued as The Operator is in violation of the IPC's Code of Conduct regarding adequately lit signage and professionalism and The Operator’s attempt at alleging I had tacit understanding of the terms and conditions of parking at the car park is unfounded and ultimately false.
I am, and always have been, more than willing to park in accordance with parking rules, but due to unlit parking signs at night this was not practicable.
-- I also mentioned how the operator was in violation of Part B, point 13.1: Professionalism but I feel that is irrelevant in the grand scheme.
The IAS dismissed my appeal with the following reply (summarised):
Very long. I will cut it VERY short:
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.
All photos of the car park in the same lighting conditions can be seen here: imgur.com/a/advsLfr
(copy paste the link above as I am a new user and cannot post links)
So finally, what I’m looking for is some advice as to next steps. Should I ignore the demand to pay the £100 before the end of this month, or should I just pay it as it is unlikely I would win at court?
Many thanks for your time
0
Comments
-
Pay - No
Ignore - No
What rights do you have to use the area/parking space?
forget permits or any signage what does your lease say?
were you consulted on the introduction of this scheme?
who allowed this company to operate in the area?
name of parking company??
was this really their response???
this is not the type of reply you should or would expect from a professional outfit:Operator Reply:
As a resident you are perfectly aware of the parking rules in this car park, we do not accept your somewhat lame claim that you ‘could not determine the rules of parking’.
Letters were sent to all residents prior to enforcement which you would have received.
As a responsible driver, the onus is on you to check the parking restrictions on the ample signage placed around the site as approved by the IPC.
There is entrance signage and other signage around the site which you would have noticed every time you use the car park, so saying you did not see the signs or you were unaware of the rules is absurd and frankly ridiculous.
The above is wrong in so many ways, even by PPc standards its low
You must check your lease/freehold and tell us what exactly it says regarding parking.
you must also drag whoever it was that took on this company into it
There is no independent appeal with an IPC company
Check your lease/your rights to the space immediately, this is critical, plus name the parking company they need shaming - this is almost on a Trevor whitehouse low and for good measure the management company/whoever allowed this scum to operateSo finally, what I’m looking for is some advice as to next stepsFrom the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
The appeal determination acknowledges you are a resident. If they know and accept that why do you need a permit?0
-
Which parking firm0
-
Parking companies act so cocky at times. The hate it when people get one over on them0
-
What rights do you have to use the area/parking space?
forget permits or any signage what does your lease say?
I will dig out my lease tonight but I know that it says we have 1 assured parking space per household, I was not parked in this one. The PPC was brought in about 4 months after the lease started.
We were not consulted, the developer/management agency has just brought them in.were you consulted on the introduction of this scheme?
who allowed this company to operate in the area?
Countrywide Parking Managementname of parking company??was this really their response???
this is not the type of reply you should or would expect from a professional outfit:
Yes, I have cut out a lot of the letter as I know PPCs check these forums and don't want my case to be identifiable. But the verbage ("ridiculous", "lame", "frankly absurd") and tone are exact.0 -
Countrywide Parking Management0
-
The appeal determination acknowledges you are a resident. If they know and accept that why do you need a permit?
A PPC has been brought into our residents car park to ticket us if we don't park in our designated bays with permits on show, despite none of us residents having a problem with the parking situation before the PPC was brought in, especially seeing as no one was using the car park but us residents, and it's not as if members of the public were clogging it up or we were parking in other's designated bays. Countrywide Parking Management has issued lots of tickets looking for the smallest BS reason to dish one out, much to the anger and frustration of us residents.0 -
Seems to me that the MA or MC broke the landlord and tenant act by not having the residents vote on it , so check this aspect
The PPC may be breaking the law on peaceful enjoyment too0 -
What did you make of the clear and concise post-IAS appeal info already laid-out for you in the Newbies Sticky?0
-
I also had my appeal dismissed by IAS. Now getting letters from a firm called Gladstone’s. Make me sick0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards