Parking Charge at High Point Village/Hayes and Harlington Train Station (PCM, from IPC)

Smenon

estevenin said:

Update after response from IAS, as expected, dismissed. Here's the answer for entertainment purposes :

"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.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map and site photographs have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. The Appellant's contention that the signage is insufficient, which is not supported by any evidence is not accepted. It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary.

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided I can see that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay/was parked across two bays. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The courts have interpreted vehicles that are stationary on private land as being parked within the meaning of the signage, irrespective of the period parked and factors such as whether the driver remained with the vehicle, the engine remained running etc. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the Appellant was parked on this occasion and the Appellant's assertion to the contrary is not accepted. Grace periods only apply to a period of permitted parking and therefore are not applicable in these circumstances and no parking outside marked bays is permitted. The Appellant is also quoting the incorrect code of practice (the Operator being a member of the IAS not BPA). As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed"

It's actually quite funny, they have written "It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary". It is actually not allowed to get out of the vehicle.

So I suppose the next step is to ignore every communication that I receive from the Parking Company (or should I politely decline - or refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971) - to pay ?), until there is a potential small claim for this case ? So I should be in peace for a couple of months or so. 

Hi! Just wanted to check the update. We had exactly the same case, same place, except (1) total stopping less than 2 minutes (2) their evidence photos on website spans across 38 seconds (3) driver did not get out or switch off ignition (4) passenger got out to read the sign. To make it all worse the letter they supposedly posted on 29/10 arrived us on 13/10. 

Any update or thoughts will be appreciated in fighting this shame of a scam. 

Coupon-mad

@Smenon - welcome!

Sit tight and just ignore the daft £170 threatograms. See post 4 of the NEWBIES thread (no link. See my signature).

Obviously you MUST email them if you move because you must keep your address updated with both the DVLA and the scam parking operator.

You can't risk missing seeing a claim form if one comes next year or later.

That is all.

And complain to your MP. It is a hot topic and MPs' postbags are commonly about private parking firms. Don't believe me? Watch the most recent debate in May:

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/8f99a416-40a5-4c75-b9b6-d3234774a25c

Sit tight. There's no appeal system worth trying; the IAS is a kangaroo court. PCM are a notorious ex-clamper who was outed in Watchdog and they'd have no chance in front of a judge:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html?m=1

Believe us. We do court cases here daily and Judges are not fooled by this rogue industry.

Smenon

thank you that is very helpful and informative.