HX Car Park Management Ltd at Tesco Petrol Station, Willow Brook Centre, Bradley Stoke

Coupon-mad

Why are you trying IAS when the third post of the NEWBIES FAQS advises against it?

Are you doing it hoping they won't bother to contest it (20% of cases are dropped) and with your eyes wide open, knowing you won't be paying and will almost certainly lose, if it goes to pseudo 'adjudication ' by the IAS' anonymous staff?

deficit

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you trying IAS when the third post of the NEWBIES FAQS advises against it?

Are you doing it hoping they won't bother to contest it (20% of cases are dropped) and with your eyes wide open, knowing you won't be paying and will almost certainly lose, if it goes to pseudo 'adjudication ' by the IAS' anonymous staff?

I have no intention of paying them anything.  I'm just seeing if they'll drop it and save me having to bother writing all the court stuff.  I know chances are low

Umkomaas

deficit said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you trying IAS when the third post of the NEWBIES FAQS advises against it?

Are you doing it hoping they won't bother to contest it (20% of cases are dropped) and with your eyes wide open, knowing you won't be paying and will almost certainly lose, if it goes to pseudo 'adjudication ' by the IAS' anonymous staff?

I have no intention of paying them anything.  I'm just seeing if they'll drop it and save me having to bother writing all the court stuff.  I know chances are low

Do you really think it's worth the bother?  In all likelihood you'll end up having to write 'all the court stuff' in any case.

deficit

Umkomaas said:

deficit said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why are you trying IAS when the third post of the NEWBIES FAQS advises against it?

Are you doing it hoping they won't bother to contest it (20% of cases are dropped) and with your eyes wide open, knowing you won't be paying and will almost certainly lose, if it goes to pseudo 'adjudication ' by the IAS' anonymous staff?

I have no intention of paying them anything.  I'm just seeing if they'll drop it and save me having to bother writing all the court stuff.  I know chances are low

Do you really think it's worth the bother?  In all likelihood you'll end up having to write 'all the court stuff' in any case.

I guess you could argue either way.  I'd already written an appeal to the parking operator and it doesn't take much effort to adapt that into an IAS appeal.  The IAS appeal is likely to be a waste of effort... but not much effort... and there is a chance it could save having to do a high effort activity, which is the court bit.

If, of course, there's a reason for not doing the IAS appeal other than it probably being a waste of time, that would definitely change things and I wouldn't do it.  Is anyone aware of such a reason?

Coupon-mad

No but if it were my relative, I wouldn't.  In fact, I have two relatives ignoring an IPC firm PCN.  They did a first appeal to look reasonable, then went into ignore mode for the laughable £170 threatograms.

My reasoning is this:

We know the Government are regulating the industry this year and we know a Single Appeals Service (SaS) is coming in.

We also know that the MoJ did a completely separate public consultation about 'Mediation in court claims' and the outcome says the Govt has decided to inflict Court Mediation on every case (looks like that will come in later this year).

The two things together make me wonder if there will hopefully be a mechanism to refer old unpaid PCN cases to the new (independent) SaS - even late, as an ADR - instead of a useless (for parking cases) Court Mediator.  Either before or during small claims. It's certainly what members of this forum called for in two recent submissions.

But the numbers of unresolved cases are huge.

So, I just wonder, if this happens at any point, maybe it's better to be a person whose case has never been through any kind of secondary appeals service.  If any old cases get referred to the SaS as an ADR surely it might first be those that have never been 'adjudicated' by any description?

All of the above is my thought process about what might happen to resolve old cases, and not any inside info by the way!

deficit

Unless I had a browser compatibility issue, the IAS site does not let you paste text in, so you have to write it all in again, which is a bit pathetic and the cynic in me thinks it's to put people off bothering to enter the appeal they've written (I have though) or to encourage mistakes to be made.

Anyway, we'll see.  I think 20-25% chance of getting the PCN cancelled is worth a shot vs having to go through all the CCJ rigmarole.  If rejected, I will say nothing further until I recieve a claim from county court.  Thanks all

Fruitcake

You are correct. You cannot paste text into an IAS appeal. I believe this is deliberate, and the IPC being petty and making it as difficult as possible for motorists.

You are incorrect in your assumption that you have a 20 - 25% chance of success at an IAS appeal. It is a 4 - 5% chance, and not worth the effort unless you have an overwhelmingly strong case. Losing an IAS appeal will also embolden the PPC and you then run the risk that a judge will think it a fair form of ADR, when it is nought but a kangaroo court.

I'm not sure what you mean by CCJ rigmarole. There will be no CCJ, even if you lost in court, as long as you follow the advice on this forum.

deficit

PCN cancelled by IAS.  Thanks all for your help.  This was the winning text but IAS do not tell you which point(s) were the winning ones, the just say its cancelled and it will no longer be pursued.

A site visit was conducted to determine whether there was in fact adequate signage in place.  A copy of the relevant sign is attached; it addresses permit holders only.  A basic binding contract in UK law must comprise some key elements, including: offer, acceptance and consideration.  The sign makes no offer of parking to the non-permit-holder, it is forbidding, therefore there can have also have been no consideration and no acceptance of terms.  The signage at the site therefore fails to create any form of contract with the operator and therefore no possibility of a breach.

I assume that HX intend to rely on Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (POFA) as grounds to pursue the keeper for this alleged debt and that the PCN is intended to be relied upon by HX as a Notice To Keeper (NTK).  POFA paragraph 9 (2) (f) states that "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid".  As I have set out in this appeal, the applicable conditions have not been met, therefore HX have no right to recover any alleged debt from the keeper.

Their notice fails to comply with POFA and it is now too late for them to deliver a POFA-compliant NTK because  the "relevant period" as defined in POFA paragraph 9(5) has expired.  Specifically (and without limitation):

1. The NTK does not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, it simply states "the period of parking preceding the incident time".  A period has both a start and an end time.  This NTK therefore does not satisfy POFA paragraph 9(2)(a).

2. The NTK does not contain the mandatory warning required by POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) stating that their right to recover from the keeper is conditional upon all the applicable conditions under POFA being met.

3. Even if the alleged debt were genuinely due, which it is not, HX have no right to add costs of debt recovery or legal claims.  POFA paragraph 4 (5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100.

Furthermore, no liability may be transferred to the keeper under POFA if the driver is not themselves liable.  A site visit was conducted to determine whether there was adequate signage in place.  A copy of the relevant sign is attached.  It forbids all parking except by permit holders. Courts have repeatedly held that where signage forbids parking (whether at all or without a permit), whilst the landowner might have a claim for unliquidated damages for trespass against the driver, the car park operator has no contractual claim against the driver for the sum specified on the signage. See PCM-UK v Bull et al (2016) and UK Parking Control v Masterson (2016). In both cases it was held that forbidding signage cannot provide the basis for a contractual claim by the parking operator for the amount specified on the sign; any financial liability of the driver being limited to a claim by the landowner, not the parking operator, for damages for any loss actually suffered by the landowner as a result of the trespass.

In the alternative, if HX do not intend to rely on POFA, then HX have no legal grounds to pursue the driver or the keeper of the vehicle for the alleged debt at all.  All of the above is supported by Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Ian Mark Edward (2023).

Given the legal contraventions above, it is reasonable to say that either HX do not comply with IPC CoP v8 paragraphs 25.1 or 27.1.  They are either unaware of their legal obligations or don't care about them; either way, they fail to implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their business.  

The tone of the correspondence received from HX to date has been arrogant, threatening and, due to the false claims made therein, tantamount to harassment, contravening IPC CoP v8 paragraph 27.1.

Whilst I appreciate the need for parking control on private land, I do not appreciate the apparent predatory business tactics of HX whereby it is insisted that people going about their lawful daily business have entered into some kind of non-existent contract.  Nor do I appreciate harassing and distressing letters, making unwarranted veiled threats towards my credit rating.

Given the above points, I expect IAS to inform HX that this PCN is to be cancelled with no further action.

deficit

Do i need to do anything to move it to a completed cases or successful cases forum?  or am i done now?  always good to make sure others get the benefit in future as these things are very time consuming and any duplication of work that can be avoided is a big bonus to someone.

Coupon-mad

deficit said:

Do i need to do anything to move it to a completed cases or successful cases forum?  or am i done now?  always good to make sure others get the benefit in future as these things are very time consuming and any duplication of work that can be avoided is a big bonus to someone.

Well done!  I missed this in February.  Proved me wrong.  Winning at IAS is rare. Nicely done!