Car Parking charges and false information from Ipserv Ltd

Jenni_D

The key words there are consider and best practice ... neither of which give any mandatory requirement of the PPC. (The only thing mandated was making the change clear on the signs ... they'll argue that Permit Holders Only is clear). Whilst this may be useful for court it won't be a game winner.

Cardriver45

Jenni_D said:

The key words there are consider and best practice ... neither of which give any mandatory requirement of the PPC. (The only thing mandated was making the change clear on the signs ... they'll argue that Permit Holders Only is clear). Whilst this may be useful for court it won't be a game winner.

Is there anything that gives me a strong case to argue in court (though I appreciate there are no guarantees) other than the forbidding nature of signs in that they don't contain an offer for non-permit holders to park and pay the charge?

NCC1701-A

Cardriver45 said:

Jenni_D said:

The key words there are consider and best practice ... neither of which give any mandatory requirement of the PPC. (The only thing mandated was making the change clear on the signs ... they'll argue that Permit Holders Only is clear). Whilst this may be useful for court it won't be a game winner.

Is there anything that gives me a strong case to argue in court (though I appreciate there are no guarantees) other than the forbidding nature of signs in that they don't contain an offer for non-permit holders to park and pay the charge?

More experienced posters will offer better advice, but in addition to the forbidding nature of the sign, they accepted your payment for parking - if they didn't want you parking there the ticket machine could have recognised and rejected your registration as one without a permit.  

Umkomaas

Cardriver45 said:

Jenni_D said:

The key words there are consider and best practice ... neither of which give any mandatory requirement of the PPC. (The only thing mandated was making the change clear on the signs ... they'll argue that Permit Holders Only is clear). Whilst this may be useful for court it won't be a game winner.

Is there anything that gives me a strong case to argue in court (though I appreciate there are no guarantees) other than the forbidding nature of signs in that they don't contain an offer for non-permit holders to park and pay the charge?

I think you're getting yourself in an unnecessary lather worrying about 'court'.  Have they issued any form of court threat to you?  Do you honestly think they would put any of this in front of a Judge given the hornets' nest you've already disturbed?

I'd concentrate on poking more sticks into the nest; I guess they have more to fear from you than you them!

Cardriver45

Umkomaas said:

I think you're getting yourself in an unnecessary lather worrying about 'court'.  Have they issued any form of court threat to you?  Do you honestly think they would put any of this in front of a Judge given the hornets' nest you've already disturbed?

I'd concentrate on poking more sticks into the nest; I guess they have more to fear from you than you them!

Thanks. I was just weighing the options of if I didn't have a very good case if to pay the charge when it was at a discount. But that's great what you say so I definitly want to keep digging.

I've submitted the SAR and they've confirmed receipt and that they are dealing with it

Cardriver45

This was the reply from my MP. Not much help there;

Further to our recent correspondence, please see below a reply I have received from Sara Roberts, Head of Approved Operator Scheme at the British Parking Association, regarding your formal complaint about IPSERV.

Ms Roberts has conducted a review of your complaint and has set out her findings.  She informs me that the Parking Charge Notices, ******** and ******** were correctly issued but that as ******** was issued too late the fine was cancelled. INSERV. IPSERV Limited confirm that a notice has now been amended to show the correct information about Parking Charge Notices.

I am sorry to send you such a disappointing reply, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again if you have further concerns about this or any other matter.
 

With kind regards,

patient_dream

BUT did Ms Roberts provide proof to your MP ???

KeithP

Cardriver45 said:

This was the reply from my MP. Not much help there;

Further to our recent correspondence, please see below a reply I have received from Sara Roberts, Head of Approved Operator Scheme at the British Parking Association, regarding your formal complaint about IPSERV.

Ms Roberts has conducted a review of your complaint and has set out her findings.  She informs me that the Parking Charge Notices, ******** and ******** were correctly issued but that as ******** was issued too late the fine was cancelled. INSERV. IPSERV Limited confirm that a notice has now been amended to show the correct information about Parking Charge Notices.

I am sorry to send you such a disappointing reply, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again if you have further concerns about this or any other matter.
 

With kind regards,

I can't recall what that bit in bold is all about, but if the BPA are saying that the Parking Charge Notice that you received was 'flawed' in some way, then surely that is good justification for that PCN to be cancelled too.

Jenni_D

KeithP said:

Cardriver45 said:

This was the reply from my MP. Not much help there;

Further to our recent correspondence, please see below a reply I have received from Sara Roberts, Head of Approved Operator Scheme at the British Parking Association, regarding your formal complaint about IPSERV.

Ms Roberts has conducted a review of your complaint and has set out her findings.  She informs me that the Parking Charge Notices, ******** and ******** were correctly issued but that as ******** was issued too late the fine was cancelled. INSERV. IPSERV Limited confirm that a notice has now been amended to show the correct information about Parking Charge Notices.

I am sorry to send you such a disappointing reply, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again if you have further concerns about this or any other matter.
 

With kind regards,

I can't recall what that bit in bold is all about, but if the BPA are saying that the Parking Charge Notice that you received was 'flawed' in some way, then surely that is good justification for that PCN to be cancelled too.

The OP mentioned that a change had been made to the signs on site following their complaint?

Cardriver45

KeithP said:

Cardriver45 said:

This was the reply from my MP. Not much help there;

Further to our recent correspondence, please see below a reply I have received from Sara Roberts, Head of Approved Operator Scheme at the British Parking Association, regarding your formal complaint about IPSERV.

Ms Roberts has conducted a review of your complaint and has set out her findings.  She informs me that the Parking Charge Notices, ******** and ******** were correctly issued but that as ******** was issued too late the fine was cancelled. INSERV. IPSERV Limited confirm that a notice has now been amended to show the correct information about Parking Charge Notices.

I am sorry to send you such a disappointing reply, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again if you have further concerns about this or any other matter.
 

With kind regards,

I can't recall what that bit in bold is all about, but if the BPA are saying that the Parking Charge Notice that you received was 'flawed' in some way, then surely that is good justification for that PCN to be cancelled too.

I think that was because they said that its 14 days from date of contravention to date of issue, when in fact it should be to date of expected receiving by keeper. They also put the incorrect date on the reply letter to my appeal for that NTK as well but said that because it was within 14 days they were not going to cancel it.