PCM/IAS + mitigation: should I just give in & pay up?

grassmarket

Thanks again - I’ll look all that up this evening.

1. Should I be communicating with IAS or PCM? When I appealed to IAS, they said I had 1 chance to submit evidence & no more. Having already dismissed my ‘appeal’, won’t IAS just reject any further attempt at correspondence?

2. As a visitor, I would never know if PPC had changed, without comparing permit to signage (in the dark). Wouldn’t  PCM just say it was resident’s responsibility to provide correct permit (which of course they couldn’t in my case). 

Sorry to play devil’s advocate, I’m just trying to anticipate their likely responses. 

Coupon-mad

1. Should I be communicating with IAS or PCM? When I appealed to IAS, they said I had 1 chance to submit evidence & no more. Having already dismissed my ‘appeal’, won’t IAS just reject any further attempt at correspondence?

Nope that's not how IAS 'works'.  Did you miss the thread this afternoon from someone who has been playing email tennis with a PPC within the IAS process since October?!

Edit:  but you missed that boat, as you now say they already DISMISSED your appeal?  Never mind, it was a farce of a kangaroo court anyway.

2. As a visitor, I would never know if PPC had changed, without comparing permit to signage (in the dark). Wouldn’t  PCM just say it was resident’s responsibility to provide correct permit (which of course they couldn’t in my case). 

No.  Read the IPC CoP about new restrictions.

You needed to quote it at IAS stages of email tennis and say you are a friend/relative of an elderly resident and were only familiar with the old rules and had no idea about PCM being there.  So, as a matter of fact and law, you cannot possibly have entered into a contract and they breached the IPC CoP rule for new/changed restrictions.

Add some pics of lack of visibility of any signs taken in the rain and dark, if you are allowed to attach new evidence.  Then reply AGAIN, citing PACE v Lengyel and attaching the transcript saying any contract was not only impossible to know about but void for impossibility for a visitor who could know nothing about the new changes.

EDIT: too late for that, if IAS have already predictably rejected mitigation (which they can't consider, so you went about this the wrong way).

The above advice is relevant to your court defence though. And you could send that in response to a solicitor's LBC.  That would look reasonable.

WHAT NOT TO DO is to roll over and pay the clamper thug firm and think your case is hopeless.  You just argued it the wrong way.

grassmarket

IPC CoP seems to have a few mistakes, including new/changed restrictions.
https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

Contents page says Changes to Operator’s T&Cs is in Part B on p11 (after Charges & before Complaints) - but it doesn’t exist. Instead there’s a section 9 Byelaws, & section 16 Postal Notifications, neither of which appear in Contents. 
The only reference I can find to these Changes is in Part E Schedule 1 Signage (at the end). Is that what you mean?

So - when PCM rejected my initial appeal, should I have ‘played tennis’ with them over all these considerations - even though they said my only options were to pay or a one-off appeal to IAS? 

I’ll gather the evidence you suggest, in case of LBC/court action.

1505grandad

What was the date of the parking event?

The following link gives IPC CoP downloads depending on parking event:-

https://theipc.info/downloads

unless event earlier

grassmarket

1505grandad said:

What was the date of the parking event?

The following link gives IPC CoP downloads depending on parking event:-

https://theipc.info/downloads

PCN date 14/12/21 thanks for link

Coupon-mad

You should have played email tennis with evidence and legal arguments (as I explained) at IAS stage and not relied on mitigation.  You could never have won on mitigation.

grassmarket

You’re right, of course. I did say in my initial post that I’d make a few mistakes!  But you’ve explained that I do have some valid legal defences, not just mitigation - so thank you. I understand these arguments to be:

1. No contract exists - due to failure of PCM to follow IPC CoP on Operator changes. Lack of clear signage changes, lack of resident to explain & provide new permit, darkness - all make contract impossible for me. PACE v Lengyel. 

2. Lack of suitable grace period (as required by IPC) - esp. due to the circumstances which made it harder/longer to find a permit. 

Is there no point in me making these arguments at this stage to PCM - if only to show Court I’ve tried my best to settle out of court? If not I’ll just take photos of signs in darkness, as you suggest & keep it all until if/when I get LBC. 

Coupon-mad

I think I'd get the darkness photo evidence and wait for the LBC.

grassmarket

An LBC from Gladstones has finally arrived. Dated 12 days ago (I was away for 10 days until yesterday). My first time away in months - they must be psychic! 
So - what to do now? I just want to get it over with quickly - but won’t pay a penny unless a court orders it. 

I’ve spent hours today reading the Newbies FAQs/thread & another by zzzLazyDaisy (link via Parking Cowboys) which I then found seems to be out of date - judging by later comments in the thread.
The MSE forum advice seems to be all about delaying things, ie frustrating the PPC (PCM in my case) with a SAR request, or (in LazyDaisy advice) sending Acknowledgement + request for more info to Gladstones, to comply properly with Practice Direction. 

Re SAR - I can’t even find an Data Protection email address on PCM’s Privacy page (as per MSE advice)

Re Acknowledgement - the Gladstones letter may be technically deficient - but is this LazyDaisy advice still valid, & what’s the point anyway? I know the PCM info from the Appeal - if they send it again I’d still refuse to pay.

I want to lance the boil, one way or another - & move on. I have my defences: no contract (inadequate/unreadable  signage about new Operator & no Resident to tell me); inadequate grace period; mitigating circumstances. I have my evidence: darkness photos of signage; Operators own photos showing lack of grace period; my phone records & Resident’s hospital admission documents to prove the medical emergency. 

I want Gladstones & (if necessary) a judge to decide if PCM’s case is valid - or not.

So - why not just dispute the debt via the official Reply Form (with all my evidence) & get it over with? 
 

KeithP

Probably best that you avoid LazyDaisy's advice. It is exceptionally old and some of it no longer applies.

Out of interest, how did you get to that thread? Is there a link to it somewhere that needs deleting?