Worthy of a poor signage appeal?

PenniPinch

Hi

I had my generic appeal (from this site) to "Have a nice car park" immediately rejected.

I'm not sure from reading the newbies stuff if the appeal to IPC is mandatory? I'm not sure what my appeal basis is? Other than it really did look like standard on-street car parking and totally oblivious to those signs on the walls of the salon, they are tiny?

To the side is Kippax Co-op which i thought i was parking at.

Spoke to the salon on the phone said it was an honest mistake, in the evening (19:45) they said everyone says that and wouldn't reverse it.

I'm tempted to just pay it at this point.

Middle pic is from google maps, is GG&CO (used to be AnnMarie)

Pic they sent of vehicle:



Sign on wall



Above is what they sent when i asked for evidence of signage, It isnt where I parked which is where that white golf is.

NTK:

fisherjim

No appeal is mandatory, you don't appeal to a plumber's invoice.

The signage is totally inadequate where are the signs on the entrance to the car park as stated in the joint BPA/IPC COP?

Where are the prominent signs or references to either CCTV or ANPR neither of which is differentiated on the NTK or referenced in the car park only in tiny font (a legal requirement).

It says "we have checked the record and the driver left site.....) but do not state what "record" they are talking about.

I wouldn't think of paying these scammers they make up rules to trap you with no proper signage to warn you.

Gr1pr

We dont recommend appealing to the IAS , after a rejection of the initial appeal 

Court is where a fairer hearing might occur,  assuming it actually got that far 

No appeal is mandatory,  all of them are optional 

PenniPinch

Thanks. I guess I'll wait then. 

Car1980

Report them 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11928665

Coupon-mad

PenniPinch said:

Thanks. I guess I'll wait then. 

Good. That's better.

I'm tempted to just pay it at this point.

Please don't! Not even when you get the daft £170 threatograms.

That's just funding the "outrageous scam" (Hansard, 2018) operated by this rogue industry. Nobody on MSE funds a 'scam' to make it go away.

More to the point: the case is easily defendable. None of the terms on that sign were breached (or capable of being 'agreed') by you.

It was 8pm and the salon was closed, so:

- the first t&c isn't a term at all and in fact the offer is ONLY made to one 'employee' and some customers. You were neither. There's no contractual offer to other drivers, like you. Nothing of value is offered to you.

- the second t&c is for customers with permission only and that term was void for impossibility at night time;

- the third t&c wasn't breached.

And the area and signs and CCTV camera were all unlit, and the CCTV itself was hidden high on a wall so you didn't consent or know about being filmed, either.

Covert surveillance is illegal. The IPC 'Joint Code'  probably references the DPA 2018  and/or the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, which were both breached.

In all the premises, the term to impose a parking charge is unenforceable.

You could have some fun by running the above appeal at IAS to see how HANCP cope and to get an evidence pack (download & keep it)... that is, if they don't concede the appeal. 20% of IAS appeals see PPCs offer 'no contest' do it can be worth a whirl (knowing that the IAS is a kangaroo court so no trusting it or taking it too seriously).

Just DO NOT PAY even when the IAS fob you off!  You'll never pay this.