Advice needed on next steps - HX Car Park Management - Site 1085 Salterhebbble Halifax HX3 0QE

PCN_BoBeB

Is there anything to be lost in appealing via the IAS, except time and effort?
theyve started they allow 5 minutes grace period to read the t&c, however the first photograph is 29 minutes past the hour, and the last photo is 34 minutes past the hour.
i think I read on the forums that 10 minutes is the accepted time to read and digest - is this correct?

Or is it as that the driver is liable and not the hirer and as they’ve not established whom the driver is then the PCN is void, regardless of the timings?

Redx

read the IPC CoP to see what it says about grace periods , each trade body has their own CoP until the new BSI CoP comes into force (eventually not not soon)

a loss at the IPC would be placed before a judge , hence why we say NO , dont do it, save your ammunition for the big fight , not the skirmish

a driver is always deemed to be libale in law, whereas they have to follow POFA for a keeper to be liable, to fully comply with POFA which is rare in hire or lease vehicle cases, mainly because of the lack of hire or lease paperwork

non compliance with POFA is a strong fail for a parking company and is the usual reason a hirer or lessee wins

Coupon-mad

PCN_BoBeB said:

Is there anything to be lost in appealing via the IAS, except time and effort?
theyve started they allow 5 minutes grace period to read the t&c, however the first photograph is 29 minutes past the hour, and the last photo is 34 minutes past the hour.
i think I read on the forums that 10 minutes is the accepted time to read and digest - is this correct?

Or is it as that the driver is liable and not the hirer and as they’ve not established whom the driver is then the PCN is void, regardless of the timings?

I'd give it a go, if it were me, but not saying who the driver was (you don't have to).  State that whilst you are the hirer of the car you have looked at the evidence and can see that photos were taken over a period of just less then 5 minutes and this would never be long enough for a driver to arrive, park, go over and read signs and decide to leave, given this is (what? a large and busy car park?  Are the signs pathetically small and badly placed and not near the P&D machines?  Was it night-time so dark?).  Quote the IPC CoP.

Remember not to slip into ''I did this...''

Then as a secondary point, quote the POFA paras 13 & 14 and point out that the operator failed to invoke hirer liability because they didn't include the documents with the Notice to Hirer that the Act requires.

PCN_BoBeB

IPC CoP 15.1 doesnt state an exact time,
"Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site"
HX are a member of the BPA and BPA 13.1 states
13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.
However, they are saying that the the vehicle was parked in an area that must be kept clear at all times 24/7 so could this invoke 13.4 and as such the "grace period" does not apply - looking at the "evidence" provided there is no hatched area, it was not in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramp etc.
13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc.
As it stands right now, I`ve not appealed via IAS, but have not yet decided whether to do so as it appears some people would recommend and some people wouldn't. 
I have to admit, I don`t understand "hirer liability" as a defence and am concerned that if this would go to court I would struggle relate this to the court and have it form part of my defence. Is it possible anyone could put it in laymen terms?
I`m going through the IPC CoD and it does say under 5.1
Specify the vehicle and the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
There is no period of parking - only incident / time / date so would this be something to appeal to IAS or just leave it for the court date?
I have to admit, looking at 7. Independent Appeals Service
You agree to accept the decision of the IAS and for it to be binding upon you
Is this saying that you accept their decision and are not going to take it further (i.e have your day in court?)

KeithP

PCN_BoBeB said:

HX are a member of the BPA and BPA 13.1 states...

HX Car Park Management Limited may well be a member of the BPA, but they are not a member of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme. They are a member of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.

The BPA's Code of Practice is not relevant.

But that was all discussed on 28th August.

PCN_BoBeB

KeithP said:

PCN_BoBeB said:

HX are a member of the BPA and BPA 13.1 states...

HX Car Park Management Limited may well be a member of the BPA, but they are not a member of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme. They are a member of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.

The BPA's Code of Practice is not relevant.

But that was all discussed on 28th August.

OK - BPA CoD not relevant  - however there remains a number of queries regarding the IPC CoD.
I`ve been going through POFA 13 / 14 and trying to get my head round it, is it the fact that they haven't provided the documentation below to the hirer.

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)

a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. 

Edit - I can see now how a couple of people have explained this, and now I`ve got my head round POFA 13/14 it makes more sense.

KeithP

PCN_BoBeB said:

I`ve been going through POFA 13 / 14 and trying to get my head round it, is it the fact that they haven't provided the documentation below to the hirer...

Yes, exactly that. Parking companies never get that right.

nosferatu1001

Yes, it is exactly that. So the appeal to the IAS starts with thsi must be upheld...

PCN_BoBeB

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, it is exactly that. So the appeal to the IAS starts with thsi must be upheld...

Has IAS ever failed to uphold an appeal when this has been used as a defence - some of the esteemed members of this forum indicate that IAS is a waste of time and it can halm your chances if you do appeal via IAS

nosferatu1001

Right now you have a good chance of this. 
Because the consultaiton is on for the new parking bill
IF they reject, then of course you point out this when you respond to the consultation. Youre just letting them know this is a compelte winner.