Fighting a case in court

Joebo2k

I have received a Parking Charge Notice from  National Parking Enforcement for stopping in a zone which is reserved for deliveries for businesses for just over four minutes.
I did not disembark the vehicle or switch off the ignition but concede that there are still grounds for my having parked in contravention to their rules (as I understand you can still be charged with parking even if you do not exit the vehicle?).
I have appealed directly to NPE on the grounds that I do not accept their invoice as, while I was pulled up I read the terms and conditions and did not agree to their contract so I immediately left.
My question is as follows:
I have read that the result of an appeal from an independent appeals body (IPC in this case) may have a bearing on any potential court case. I have previously had a bad experience where I don't feel POPLA understood or gave any credence to my argument and I am not convinced about the impartiality of the two main regulatory bodies.
Given that I am not averse to challenging this in court, is it recommended that I do not follow the independent appeals process?
It is also worth noting that part of the evidence against me is a passenger disembarking my vehicle; however the passenger did so (and all photo evidence is time stamped) before the commencement of the supposed infraction. Any advice on if I can ask that this evidence is dismissed as it does not relate to the period when they claim I was parked would be much appreciated.

Redx

If you have appealed to NPE and been rejected , as is usual , nothing else to do until court , if they issue a court claim

No parking contract was on offer , so it's not parking , it's trespass and so only the landowner can deal with trespass

The short time you were there works in your favour

Do not bother with the IAS , let a judge decide on the so called evidence and charge

In the meantime , follow plan A , a landowner complaint and cancellation

Coupon-mad

Judges take zero notice of POPLA or IAS 'decisions'! and prefer to see that the Defendant has engaged and tried to resolve the dispute out of court.  Just never use the £15 IAS 'non-standard appeal' that (according to reports of IAS bizarre decisions, and according to their own states where just 5% are upheld!) sets people up to pay to fail.

AND - 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

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

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.

 

 

Joebo2k

Redx said:

If you have appealed to NPE and been rejected , as is usual , nothing else to do until court , if they issue a court claim

No parking contract was on offer , so it's not parking , it's trespass and so only the landowner can deal with trespass

The short time you were there works in your favour

Do not bother with the IAS , let a judge decide on the so called evidence and charge

In the meantime , follow plan A , a landowner complaint and yourself 

Thanks for your response, very useful.
I know you suggest no contract was on offer but the signage and pcn seem to suggest different.
My argument in court was going to be along the lines of "I stopped, read the contractual terms, did not agree to entering into said contract so I immediately left."
This is aligned to IPC code of practice. I guess I'll wait and see what trumped up charges they bring.

Castle

The offer of parking, (well actually unloading only), is only being made to "Authorised Suppliers in liveried commercial vehicles".

Coupon-mad

You seem not to be aware of the fact that a sign saying NO PARKING is not a contractual offer at all:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

It's only Earlham House - discussed to death on here and the subject of Local Councillors' complaints - did you Google this scam? This is a well known trap site, loads of Google results and petitions.  

AND - 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

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO.  Remove that layer and you remove the ‘drivers’ behind the race to court.

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.

 

 

KeithP

As said before, that is a forbidding sign.

The word 'only' in that sentence tells everyone that there is no parking allowed by anyone at any time unless they are delivering to the shopping centre.

That message is reinforced further down...