BP forecourt PCN

Coupon-mad

Wow, that's terrible!

paulb76

Coupon-mad said:

For IAS, don't use a template, just appeal as keeper, saying what you have observed about the signs from going to have a look, and pointing out that the operator has shown no evidence of any breach of any term and if they want to make a prima facie case, the least they need are signs facing the right way, and evidence of a breach of a term by the driver, who will not be named but denies any breach and had no opportunity to learn of any terms anyway, due to what was clearly a lack of signage on any reasonable view.

Evening.
I am just going through the ias stuff. 
Even that site seems like its set up to try and catch you out.
Are the questions here answered correctly? I wasn't sure because its being done as registered keeper.
were you the driver has option to say prefer not to say as well as yes or no.

paulb76

KeithP said:

paulb76 said:

'I cannot provide non domestic rate payer details due to GDPR'

That statement is only true if the ratepayer is an individual.

Had another response from council again saying landowner info/ non domestic rate payer is gdpr.
Email to local councillor asking for advice/help to locate info has been duly ignored.
Everyone so helpful!

paulb76

advice please.
I need to tick all of these to submit. bit dubious about ticking. is it normal to have to?

paulb76

@Coupon-mad and @Fruitcake
Can either of you advise on the post above? Or anyone that might know.
Many thanks

Coupon-mad

No idea, looks like the usual standard IAS appeal though.

paulb76

Coupon-mad said:

No idea, looks like the usual standard IAS appeal though.

Received response after initial ias appeal putting as suggested about the signs facing the wrong way and evidence not actually showing anyone breaching he terms. They uploaded a site map of signage but they obviously just show big blue crosses to make it seem obvious when in reality it is not. Any pointers as what to add in response? Is it worth adding that the car was not left un attended as there was someone with the car anyway at all times. they say the driver can not leave the car un attended. This doesn't specifically mean just the driver? this is what they put.
On this occasion, the vehicle was parked in an area strictly reserved for patrons of the garage, whilst on site at all times. The parking attendant notes & photographic evidence indicate that the driver parked at the location in order to collect food from McDonald’s. The appellant avers that the signage was not sufficient in bringing the terms to their attention. I have reviewed the signage on site and am confident that it is adequate and compliant throughout the parking area. Photographic evidence shows the vehicle to be parked in close proximity to at least 2 enforcement sign and the Signage Map provided below demonstrates ample additional signage. When parking on private land, it is the motorist’s responsibility to first check for signage and park according to the advertised terms and conditions. Should one disagree with these terms, alternative parking must be sought immediately. If one chooses not to read the terms, they are deemed to have accepted them, as long as sufficient notice has been given. Otherwise, all drivers could simply refuse to read the signs and be exempt from the terms they entail. Further, it should be noted that it has not, nor has it ever been, a defence in contract law to say that one did not read the terms. The onus remains on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms.

Coupon-mad

So the advice is you keep replying and contesting what they say, and putting them to proof as to the signs that you have evidenced were facing the wrong way (if you did) and say that they haven't proved otherwise.  Make this a game of 'appeal tennis' until they give up or the IAS makes a 'decision'. 

And ignore it if you lose because even MPs have sussed it as a kangaroo court.  No use to consumers and some truly bizarre decisions are made, in favour of the PPCs. If there is an appeal 'service' that upholds just 5% of appeals, you can't expect the public to have any confidence in its independence.

paulb76

Coupon-mad said:

So the advice is you keep replying and contesting what they say, and putting them to proof as to the signs that you have evidenced were facing the wrong way (if you did) and say that they haven't proved otherwise.  Make this a game of 'appeal tennis' until they give up or the IAS makes a 'decision'. 

And ignore it if you lose because even MPs have sussed it as a kangaroo court.  No use to consumers and some truly bizarre decisions are made, in favour of the PPCs. If there is an appeal 'service' that upholds just 5% of appeals, you can't expect the public to have any confidence in its independence.

OK. I might attach some more pics.
The signage also says at the top 'drivers who leave their vehicles unattended at any time either before or after using the garage will be subject to enforcement' 
I will also put that the vehicle was not left unattended at any time. This is shown in their 'evidence' so why is the driver subject to any enforcement at all, in contradiction of signage. They cannot make up their own definition of unattended.

Coupon-mad

Yes, state that.  Not sure you can add new photos now.