Parking Charge Notice - 12 Minutes - Euro Parking Services - IPC - Appeal Rejected

craigbainton

@troublemaker22

Is this the correct way to respond on the IAS appeal site?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's right.

craigbainton

Response from IAS:

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 26/02/2024 10:06:40.

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 07/02/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 07/02/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

Vehicle entered the site at 18:48 and left at 19:00. No payment was made for the duration of the stay.

The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.

You now have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 04/03/2024 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

craigbainton

Here's a bunch of images included regarding the site:

Debszzzz2

"The operator reported that the appellant was the driver" is a blatant lie. The appellant has not identified the driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

craigbainton

Does anyone have advice on how I should respond?

Coupon-mad

troublemaker22 said:

Well done on finding the landowner. The accountants are being used as a post box so it's reasonable to expect them to do their job and pass your letter to their client.   It may well be that waiting for a girl friend for 12 minutes is not the kind of use of their private street that the landowner wants to encourage or protect, but no harm in asking - provided you don't give away the identity of the driver as the landowner could pass the letter on to EPS.

When the rejection comes in from EPS, try the following appeal to IAS:

1.   I appeal as keeper.  The operator has candidly admitted in its purported parking charge notice to keeper ('NTK') that it does not know the name and address of the driver.  I have no obligation to identify the driver and I respectfully decline to do so.

2.    As there is no presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle drove it on any particular day, the operator cannot pursue me as driver.

3.   Parliament has provided a statutory procedure to enable an operator who does not know the name and address of a driver to pursue the keeper instead.  That procedure is set out in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’).

 4.  In order to pursue a keeper under POFA, an operator must comply with the strict requirements for keeper liability set out in POFA. Partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient. 

5. In a case such as this, where the parking charge is initiated by a notice sent to the keeper (‘NTK’) without the prior delivery of a notice to the driver, the NTK must comply with all the requirements of POFA Paragraph 9 in order to be effective.

5.  POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) says that the NTK must specify 'the period of parking to which the notice relates' The operator's purported NTK does not specify the period of parking to which the NTK relates as a period has a start and an end and the operator's purported NTK specifies only a single point in time.  This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

 6.  In addition, POFA paragraph 9(2)(f) says that the NTK must contain a warning that makes express reference to 'all the applicable conditions under [POFA]' being met. The operator's purported NTK does not make any reference to the applicable conditions under POFA. This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

7.  Furthermore, as an accredited IPC operator, the operator must comply with the IPC's Code of Practice as well as POFA.

8.  Paragraph 16.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice says 'Where a Parking Charge is issued Notices must comply with the applicable requirements as set out in Schedule 3'.  Schedule 3 echoes the POFA requirement  for a period of parking to be specified in the NTK and refers to an example NTK in Appendix 5 where the following form of words is prescribed:

'Period of Parking:

From: (Date and Time of entry)

To: (Date and Time of Exit)

...

This charge relates to the period of parking specified above, the charge having been incurred for the reason stated and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the Site at the time of parking.'

9. The operator’s purported NTK lacks all the above information and therefore fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the IPC Code of Practice. This failure alone renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

10.  IAS arbitrators are required to apply the law and the Code strictly without regard to mistakes or extenuating factors.  So even if the operator's multiple failures to comply with POFA and the Code can be regarded as mistakes, the appeal must succeed.

One of the (few) good things about the IAS process is that you will have multiple opportunities to comment on the operator's responses, so you can expand on the above and/or comment on the operator's failure to address your points if need be.

Don't lose sight of IAS's reputation as a kangaroo court that is biased against the motorist.  Though other forum experts may disagree, I think it's worth appealing to IAS in cases like yours.  Anyway, IAS standard appeal decisions are binding on operators but not on motorists, so you have something to gain but nothing to lose by appealing to IAS under the standard appeal procedure.  Avoid the binding IAS non-standard appeal procedure like the plague.

Reiterate the above and ignore it if you lose.

craigbainton

An update, IAS dismissed the appeal. Just the waiting game now I suppose

craigbainton

Their email:

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The signage at this site is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms; payment must be made for parking. The Appellant failed to make any payment for parking when his vehicle was recorded as entering the site at 18.48 and leaving at 19.00 on the 1st February 2024.

I have not been supplied with the NTK so am unable to determine whether there are issues with the content.

I am aware that the operator is pursuing the Appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle and that the NTK was sent in good time in order to comply with PoFA.

The Appellant has given no explanation as to why payment was not made for parking.

Having considered all the issues raised, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.

This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "

Coupon-mad

Wow. If ever there was a reason why we say the IAS is a farce, a kangaroo court, it's this:

"I have not been supplied with the NTK so am unable to determine whether there are issues with the content.

I am aware that the operator is pursuing the Appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle and that the NTK was sent in good time in order to comply with PoFA."

IMHO that's plain bent.