i-Park NFU Mutual Penrith

cherrycrumble

I have also received a parking ticket from this company back in June. I appealed at the time..... explaining that I had only breaked to allow my child to put on their seatbelt which they'd removed before entering the main road. My break lights are clearly lit in the image they sent. They declined the appeal so I contacted nfu who sent me the same reply about contacting ipark.
 I have came home to a notice of debt recovery from dcbl for £160. It also states that this case is not subject to high court or bailiff action.
Any advice appreciated.

Umkomaas

Any advice appreciated.

Read the advice about debt collectors in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, fourth post. Come back on a new thread of your own if the PPC commences court proceedings against you. Nothing to do until then. 

Coupon-mad

I said these 'should go to IAS' but only with that video and I don't think you can add new evidence now.   

@nosferatu1001, the OP didn't find the video until we pointed it out...too late, they'd already started a doomed IAS appeal and are stuck with trying to rescue it now with the video, or expecting to lose.  Not that it matters.  No-one will pay unless they are mad!

No worries if you lose; only 7% were accepted by IAS 'adjudicators' in 2019 and 6% in 2018, according to the IAS' proud report...

vivaespana

nosferatu1001 said:

Should go to IAS... was a clue. Expecially as you cannot now back out. 
Yes you put the video in to the IAS. Find a way to do it. I dont knw why you would even cconsider leaving out key evidence. Boggles the mind. 

Have you used the IAS site recently?? It only accepts files that are 15MB, the video is over 110000KB. We come here for some help as we are not all parking law experts or indeed computer whizkids....... So much information/guidance relating to these appeals, especially the limited stuff that is available for the IAS as most is geared towards POPLA, often refers to not showing your hand too soon as to what you might rely on in court or not revealing the driver details.  So please forgive us for not always grasping it......

Coupon-mad

especially the limited stuff that is available for the IAS as most is geared towards POPLA,

Because no-one does IAS. That is designed to warn people not to.

Try to find a way to send them the video, even if you do it as a formal complaint to the IPC, as well as/instead of to the IAS.

Be aware though, who runs the IPC.    Clearly you are not talking to an independent person...

nosferatu1001

110meg can be re-processed to reduce size, or you can send a drop box link, or similar. Be creative. 
This is nothing like not revealing the driver. 

vivaespana

Today I received a reply from the IAS and as expected, they dismissed the Appeal.  I made reference to the video twice in the hope that they would offer me an alternative way to send it to them but they didn't so I couldn't.................  

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible from the position of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting the Appellant's comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the driver did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued.

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.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

 

You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

I assume now it is time to wait for them to issue court proceedings....?

Umkomaas

I assume now it is time to wait for them to issue court proceedings....?

Yep - if they dare.

I haven't read back through the whole thread, but have you involved your MP in the case. If so (or even if not, get him/her involved now), copy that IAS decision, tell your MP they are known to be a kangaroo court, only make 7% of decisions in favour of the motorist, and are inextricably linked with the IPC, Gladstones Solicitors (the founders of the IPC) and the parking operators. 'Cahoots' isn't a term strong enough to describe the incest at play. 

Here's a link to the 7% evidence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77486647#Comment_77486647

Coupon-mad

Yes, and that video will come into play much later, at WS & evidence stage for a Judge.

AND PLEASE DON'T MISS YOUR CHANCE - get ANGRY and GET EVEN about this scam! 

Please now make a real difference because not enough people have::

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 

On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 

But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

 

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

 

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

 

VeryBusy

vivaespana said:

Fruitcake said:

Not having advertising consent is a criminal offence, but only the council can do anything about it. It cannot be granted retrospectively either.
If none exists then complaints should be made to the local council, ideally by everyone affected and all those in the fightback group.
Local press might also be interested.

Looking at the first photo, surely painting white lines on the road to identify the boundary adjacent to the curve of the wet tyre tracks, and painting the words "residents only" or similar would have more effect than putting up scameras.
That way motorists leaving the drive through would realise the parking spaces do are not part of the cafe. Warning notices in Mucky D's not to park nearby might help as well.

I will bring the signage stuff to the attention of the local councillor who is on the FB group as nobody seems to have mentioned them recently, yet I have read the full planning application and cannot see any reference to signage.  I wasn't sure if this was because the signs appear to be on each of the lighting/anpr colums for which they have applied for and received planning permission.......

Do you know the name of the facebook group please? I live 200 miles away and have been given a PCN for pulling in for no more than 4 minutes. I know the signage has been altered again since this threads main chat, but the problem is still evident especially for unsuspecting passers by, we didnt see any signage telling up we couldnt park, that there was CCTV or that we would be charged     Any help gratefully received as soon as possible please. 
Also there are lots of abbreviations i dont know what they mean yet.  Do the IPC  uphold the clauses from AOS (Accredited operator scheme)/ thank you