Feedback request on my defence to DCB court action - Myrtle street carpark liverpool

Coupon-mad

Thanks, I will take a look tomorrow.

This sort of evidence is exactly what we need to blow up the lies about DRA stage being 'debt resolution'.

Can you copy & paste your IAS result here too? They are appalling and not impartial or independent. Like the IPC trade body, both are wholly owned by Will Hurley Ltd!

We need that as evidence too. Show us.

You will be a great person to respond to the Public Consultation yourself in August, once you have got your head around the main issues.

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Also I wanted to add, in addition to the emails (that they at times didn't reply to) the letters kept coming in the post too, just to keep piling on the pressure. 

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks, I will take a look tomorrow.

This sort of evidence is exactly what we need to blow up the lies about DRA stage being 'debt resolution'.

Can you copy & paste your IAS result here too? They are appalling and not impartial or independent. Like the IPC trade body, both are wholly owned by Will Hurley Ltd!

We need that as evidence too. Show us.

You will be a great person to respond to the Public Consultation yourself in August, once you have got your head around the main issues.

Absolutely ill get that posted tomorrow, just the same generic nonsense ignoring every valid point I raised, and I didn't know they were all owned by the same people, it makes total sense. And Absolutely I would be eager to give my account of what happened from start to finish next month. As you'll see in the emails, there was zero attempt at engagement, copy and paste replies and so far as just cold replies at the end, they wouldn't even respond in a human way, just robotic demands for payment. 

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks, I will take a look tomorrow.

This sort of evidence is exactly what we need to blow up the lies about DRA stage being 'debt resolution'.

Can you copy & paste your IAS result here too? They are appalling and not impartial or independent. Like the IPC trade body, both are wholly owned by Will Hurley Ltd!

We need that as evidence too. Show us.

You will be a great person to respond to the Public Consultation yourself in August, once you have got your head around the main issues.

This was my IAS reply: 

Dear ...

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XX

Vehicle Registration: XX

Date Issued: 29/11/2024

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment on this occasion as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,

The Independent Appeals Service

LoneStarState

Nomoreparkingfinesplease said:

 This was my IAS reply: 

Dear ...

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XX

Vehicle Registration: XX

Date Issued: 29/11/2024

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment on this occasion as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,

The Independent Appeals Service

Hi Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Would you be ok with possibly providing the original IAS adjudication outcome email you received?  I will PM you once you've confirmed that's ok.

I'm currently writing a large comprehensive complaint to the CTSI who have accredited the IAS a competent ADR entity and recently received an adjudication decision that is a carbon copy of yours and is also a carbon copy of this adjudication where the decision was made well over a year ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81179012/#Comment_81179012

Thanks

LSS

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

LoneStarState said:

Nomoreparkingfinesplease said:

 This was my IAS reply: 

Dear ...

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XX

Vehicle Registration: XX

Date Issued: 29/11/2024

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment on this occasion as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,

The Independent Appeals Service

Hi Nomoreparkingfinesplease

Would you be ok with possibly providing the original IAS adjudication outcome email you received?  I will PM you once you've confirmed that's ok.

I'm currently writing a large comprehensive complaint to the CTSI who have accredited the IAS a competent ADR entity and recently received an adjudication decision that is a carbon copy of yours and is also a carbon copy of this adjudication where the decision was made well over a year ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81179012/#Comment_81179012

Thanks

LSS

Of course, yes please drop me a message and I can send it over, and of course it's a carbon copy, I doubt they even read what I wrote!

LoneStarState

Nomoreparkingfinesplease said:

Of course, yes please drop me a message and I can send it over, and of course it's a carbon copy, I doubt they even read what I wrote!

Brill.  I'll send you a PM some time this evening or later in the weekend

LoneStarState

Nomoreparkingfinesplease said:

Of course, yes please drop me a message and I can send it over, and of course it's a carbon copy, I doubt they even read what I wrote!

Sorry for delay but PM Sent

Coupon-mad

@Nomoreparkingfinesplease

what happened to your NPC / DCB Legal claim in the end? If it was discontinued, please show us the attached NoD so we can count it.

So many Myrtle Parade NPC threads here in the past year!

Nomoreparkingfinesplease

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81925975#Comment_81925975

Still ongoing if you can believe it! So I did the mediation, offered nothing on principle of what they did. Then the calls started, everyday, minimum twice. Then emails asking me to call them, THEN an email saying their client would be open to a settlement. GFTO with that. I even emailed saying if they didn't stop calling I would raise it with the court as harassment. They havnt stopped by the way. So the hearing date is the very end of April but I read here about the court fees. The court fee is due by the 1st of April. So I have good time to submit a witness statement if they pay it, but not waste my time submitting it if they dont bother paying the fee. I can't tell you how much they have spent on letters, calls, emails, court mediation... so much of my life over this for ten minutes in a carpark two years ago. But I'll never give in to them on this over what they did, so the fight continues!!