London Parking Solutions PCN with photographs, but not good ones! Modify template for 1st appeal?

ElBadger

So as Brown Trout predicted I've now received the rejection of appeal email from Robert Stephens and offered the IPS appeal which I know it is generally advised to be not worth bothering with, and that there's almost never a case for appealing to them, BUT the signage is so poor, the marking of the bays practically illegible (see photo attached), and it is not clear who the landowner actually is (I've tried the land registry site but there doesn't seem to be a record for the parking bays 1-13 or 1-14, as the case may be), and the PCN does not give an exacpt address in the "Location" field, just the street, so I'm wondering if maybe it's worth a try?

Coupon-mad

Yes, if you submit LOTS of photo evidence to the IAS and only use the version offered within 21 days (NOT the one that people are offered later, the ''ADR'' that costs £15 for the consumer to lose...an absolute embarrassment that it is certified as an ''ADR'') then it is worth a try.  Keep replying and replying when the IAS come back to you, don;t let the ball be handed back to the PPC - reply, reply, reply.  

We find lots of photo evidence of signs and being robust with replies causes some PPCs to drop out and give up.

Don't mention the landowner.  The IAS won't give a stuff.

Fruitcake

Normally, an appeal to the IAS kangaroo court is pointless, and a win by the PPC may embolden them. If it gets to court an uninformed judge may believe the IAS is a decent outfit, and may give them credence.

However, if you do decide to appeal, you need to keep repeatedly attacking and hammering each point at every stage.
The signs are forbidding.
The signs are confusing as they refer to a different number of bays to the top sign.
The top sign that the man on the Clapham omnibus would read first says the site is managed by a completely different company.
The charge of £100 is in tiny font.

Complain to the IPC that the scammers are using a prohibited premium rate phone number on the white sign.

ElBadger

Many thanks both Fruitcake and Coupon-mad, I think I'll give it a whirl! I've prepared the below appeal with photos for IPS, could you possibly give it a look over? Thanks so much!

I would like appeal this notice on the following points:

In the appeal rejection letter from London Parking Solutions (LPS), it was stated that “Notice of the terms and conditions of parking is served by way of numerous large warning signs which are displayed at prominent places throughout the site”. It is averred that in fact, the signs are sporadically placed, hidden in some areas, unremarkable, and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. Additionally, the signage doesn't meet the same high standards The Supreme Court built into their judgment in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis case where the charge was in a much larger font size than that of the text showing the charge on the London Parking Solutions sign (see photos #1 & 2). The text which mentions the £100 fine is in such a small font as to be practicably illegible.

The signage is confusing in nature and contains spelling errors, for example on the small yellow London Parking Solutions sign it says, “By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contracturl terms” (see photos #1 & 2).

On the white sign at the bottom of photo #1 it should also be noted that London Parking Solutions are illegally using a premium rate telephone number without declaring the service charge where the number is advertised.

In your rejection letter to my initial appeal you state that, “With regards to the signage, you will note from our evidence that a large yellow sign was located next to your parked vehicle”, however said “large yellow sign”, which is the sign most drivers would read, does not mention London Parking Solutions, only “T.C.B.S Enforcement Agents” (see photo #1). And whilst the T.C.B.S sign refers to “Bays 1-14”, the LPS sign refers to “Bays 1-13” so it is unclear which “location” is being referred to. The marking of said bays is practically illegible in any case (see photo #3).

 

Furthermore, your signage is the purported contract which the driver enters into, but it is far from clear with whom the driver is purportedly entering into a contract with as whilst the, “large yellow sign” mentions “T.C.B.S Enforcement Agents”, only the smaller yellow sign below mentions “London Parking Solutions”, so which company is the driver supposedly entering into a purported contract with? There are too many signs containing contradictory information at the site (see photos #1 & 2]

 

With reference to the purported contract, your signs state that, “Parking permitted for permit holders only”, so no contract is being offered to non-permit holders, and therefore if no contract has been offered then there can be no possibility of said contract having been broken. As all signs forbid parking for non-permit holders, then nothing is being offered to non-permit holders, which is a fundamental element of contract law, so there can be no contract.

 

In the rejection of appeal letter you state that, “we advise that a permit is required to be on display at all times when parked at this location” and that, “Failing to display a permit results in a breach of the terms and conditions of the site”. However, it is far from clear from the poor-quality photos that a permit has not been displayed (see photos #4, 5 & 6).

 

You also state that. “It is clear from these images that you were not present at the sign/reading the contents, and that your vehicle was stationary. On this basis, you are deemed to have breached the terms and conditions”. However, in my initial appeal I requested that you send me all photos taken of the vehicle at the location, which you failed to do, so I have no way of confirming whether this statement is true. [In the photos that you did provide, a person is in fact visible “present at the sign” and this person could well have been me, having read the sign? (see photos #7 & 8)] NOT SURE ABOUT THIS LAST BIT IN [ ]

 

Lastly, your signs state, "Any vehicle left unattended may be removed at any time" and "Any unauthorised vehicles taxed or untaxed may be removed without notice". Such action is illegal, and I shall be contacting my MP about this matter.

PHOTO 1:

PHOTO 2:

PHOTO 3:

PHOTO 4:

PHOTO 5:

PHOTO 6:

PHOTO 7:

PHOTO 8:

Coupon-mad

That's good! 

Bear in mind the IAS doesn't let you copy and paste wording so you must type it all out again.

Also remove all the 'you' and 'your' because this appeal is addressed to the IAS 'assessor' (such as they are - anonymous and clueless) and not the parking firm so it's not ''you'' or ''your'' at this stage.

ElBadger

Fab, thanks so much C-m! And yes, noted about the use of "you" and "your" - I will change accordingly. Going to be a slight pain to type out again, but hopefully worth it!

ElBadger

Well, I posted my appeal to the IAS on Monday, logged in today to check if anything had happened and was greeted with "Operator conceded due to mitigation"!! So I guess that means I won and it's over? Not quite sure what the "mitigation" entailed, other than them having absolutely no right to impose a fine, but if it's over then I'd just like to thank Coupon-mad, Fruitcake and everyone else on this great forum who helped me fight these swines. Just goes to show that sometimes an appeal to the IAS is worth it, not that they even got involved in this case really, but if you hammer the points home with the operator they might just conceed. Thanks so much everyone!

Umkomaas

Well done on a very rare success at the IAS. The IAS never find against one of their own, rather than do so, they whisper to them that they quietly withdraw. So much for neutrality and impartiality. They all pee in the same pot!

nosferatu1001

Thinkof it like "as a gesture of goodwill we cancelled..."

It wasnt "goodwill"
It was they knew they lost. 

farmasiyen

Thank you.