No return within 90 minutes PCN

go-on-then

'  All signage , letters etc is audited by the IPC to ensure high compliance '

Have had a quick looked at the t + c signage at the time of alleged offence and  have already found 7 things that go against their CoP.
 Quelle surprise. 

Coupon-mad

The 2 Trade Bodies only audit a tiny percentage of signs on site.  Most locations have never even been looked at.

go-on-then

A complaint was sent to IPC about the signage at the time of the event not being compliant with their (made up) CoP.  
 Points such as  - no grace period as per sch 13   13.3
 Not stating ES Parking as the creditor  as per  sch 3  Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions   c) Identify yourself as the creditor 
Not stating the amount of any additional charges that will be added , as per sch 3  Signs Displaying Terms and Conditions.
Also mentioned the £60 Abuse of Process and ES Parking's claim that
' the amount is a predetermined  and nominal contribution to our clients losses and as a direct result of your non payment ' .  Said the claimant will be asked to prove to the court how the added £60 is legal.   Also that the PCN not POFA compliant therefore cant prove the driver etc.

Reply from IPC
Thank you for contacting us regarding one of our members.  The requirement under the IPC code to issue a notice to keeper within 14 days of the parking event only applies where the operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, otherwise the operator has 60 days to request details from the DVLA and a further 60 days to chase the outstanding charge.  Where the prescribed timeframes of POFA cannot be met, cases can still be pursued   e.g. under contract law.   It is however,  important that any correspondence issued by the car park operator does not cite the intention to recover an unpaid charge from the vehicle's keeper as there would be no legal basis to do so. 
Our CoP states that an operator may add additional charges up to £60 for non payment prior to court action, this is currently not mandatory to display the amount of the additional charges on the signage.  
Please note that we are unable to comment upon the lawfullness of individual parking charges. Were a recipient of a charge wishes to make such a challenge they need to follow the appeals procedure which such be detailed on every parking charge notice that is issued by and IPC member.  It should be noted that the Supreme Court considered the issue as to whether such parking charges were lawful in the case of Beavis v Parking Eye (2015) and found that on the facts of the particular matter , they were.
If you have received a parking charge and if you are concerned about the lawfullness of it then you should seek your own independent legal advice from a solicitor or contact Citizens Advice Bureau.  As such, unless they are claiming that you are liable for the charge pursuant to those provisions there has been no breach of our code.
We regret we are not able to assist you any further in this regard.

Doesnt make sense ?   Any comments to add to my reply ?! 

I will complain to DVLA about them accrediting an organisation that doesnt enforce compliance with it's own code of practice. 






   

Coupon-mad

Do complain to the DVLA but expect the same drivel as they are too close.

go-on-then

Just doesnt  make sense ! 

KeithP

go-on-then said:

Our CoP states that an operator may add additional charges up to £60 for non payment prior to court action, this is currently not mandatory to display the amount of the additional charges on the signage. 
   

Never mind what the IPC's CoP says, the contract allegedly agreed with the driver at the time of parking made no mention of that £60 'additional charge'.

Changes to a contract cannot be made after it has been agreed unless both parties agree to that change.
The Consumer Rights Act has something to say about that, I'm sure.

As well the CRA, the Supreme Court Beavis case also stated that the cost of recovery of the alleged debt is included in the parking charge.

The IPC cannot simply re-write the law to their own advantage.

Coupon-mad

go-on-then said:

Just doesnt  make sense ! 

We know.  This is the IPC.  Don't reply to them - they are not worth it.

go-on-then

I received a General Form of Judgment or Order which I replied to at the beginning of July saying that I objected to on the papers etc,  copied to Gladstones.  I had confirmation of that from the court but nothing at all from Gladstones.
I have now received another General Form , slightly different wording and a different Judge.

Upon considering the court file
And upon the court noting:
a) the impact of the covid 19 pandemic
b) the fact that the court capacity is restricted in terms of the number of face to face trials that can be held at the present time
c) the manner in which a trial proceeds is a matter for the Court.
Without a hearing and on the courts own initiative it is ordered that

1  This claim is allocated to the small claims track.  Further directions will be issued in due course and a small claims hearing will be listed on a date to be fixed, not before 2nd November 2020 subject to paragraph 2 below.
2  Civil Procedure Rule 27.10 provides that the court may, if all parties agree, deal with the claim on paper and without attendance at a hearing.  This may enable an earlier listing of the claim. If you wish the court to consider dealing with the matter on paper and without attendance at a hearing , you should notify the Court in writing and send a copy of your letter to all other parties within 14 days of receipt of this Order.  The file will then be referred to a District Judge for further directions.
3  Because this order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.  A party making such an application must send or deliver the application to the court ( together with any appropriate fee ) to arrive wthin 7 days of service of this order. The application notice should identify;
a  If the applicant requires the small claim hearing to be dealt with on paper without a hearing ;
b  If not whether or not the  small claim hearing can be dealt with justly , by telephone. 

Shouldn't I have received something from Glads after my email about the papers objection and I was wondering why I have received another General Form ?

Would I be ok to send the same response to this form as I did the first one or not pls ?? 

Ralph-y

you should not agree ever .... to a hearing on papers ....

try this for starters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

Ralph

go-on-then

I didnt agree to it. I sent a reply to the court saying I didnt agree as per coupon mads template ,   with my personal circumstances.