Parking Charge Advice - Independent adjudicator gave different outcomes

SpacemanPaul

Recently myself and a friend each received a parking ticket in a car par at the same time. the had changed the parking times but it was not well sign posted for someone regularly using the car park to notice. We both appealed the tickets to the IAS stating the reason below and providing evidence of tickets bought on the day and on numerous previous days before. 


I am a regular user of this car park, typically parking most Friday mornings for the past few years. I have consistently paid for two hours of parking via the Ringo app (and previously the machine) and can provide receipts to confirm this (some of which I have attached) . Historically, parking charges have applied from 9:00 AM, and although I pay for two hours, we usually depart by 9:45 AM. I have attached receipts to show this.It appears that the enforcement period has recently been amended to start at 8:00 AM. However, I was not made aware of this change, and I have not seen any appropriate notice at the entrance to the site. Though searching at a notice board in the site it is present on one but on another no time is indicated and has been blanked out (photo attached). As a regular and long-term user, I believe this change has not been properly communicated.This lack of notification of this type contravenes Section 3.4 of the Code of Practice National Parking Control follows which requires temporary signage to be clearly displayed for a minimum of four months to alert users of such changes.Given this oversight, I respectfully request that this PCN, along with the two others issued to my friends at the same time, be cancelled.


The adjudicator found in my friends favour and upheld his appeal so nothing to pay. However, The adjudicator dismissed mine so i have to pay the full amount as the grace period has passed.

Seem strange two different results.

Also the Parking Operator in one of statement has said "Whilst we understand the appellant states the issuing time is 9am - 6pm, this is not correct. The charges apply 24 hours a day, payment is required on site within the 10 minute grace period after arriving on site" - this is factually incorrect - parking charges are only due from 8am now - previously it was 9am. They are not due 24 hours a day liek they are saying here. 

Thoughts? i can seek further legal advice but that comes at a cost and no guarantee. Seems strange for two different results, but probably different adjudicators. Make the whole IAS a farce as they now state they can do nothing further. 

thank you for your time

LoneStarState

Could you please provide the text of your adjudication dismissal?  I'm curious to see if it is the standard generic template.

You don't need to seek independent legal advice.  Stick with this forum instead.

The I in the Independent Appeals Service name carries as much weight as the D in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Your friend was lucky but you received what will likely be a generic push button dismissal by the "highly trained truly independent and impartial solicitor/barrister adjudicators" that makes up roughly 95% of IAS adjudications.

I would recommend for now that you have your friend give you all evidence of their appeal and acceptance to show the double standard and for a potential future court claim from the parking operator.

Additionally, it might be worth in this instance making a complaint to the IPC.

There is also currently a government consultation going on the conduct of the private parking industry before the introduction of formal legislation to adequately regulate this parasitic industry.  It would be worth you engaging in this given your experience which is neither unique nor rare and happens far too often to normal well meaning motorists.

SpacemanPaul

@LoneStarState here it is:

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.

A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O 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. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

It can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract entered into when parking on private land. If they fail to do so they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.

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

LoneStarState

Do you have a photo of the signs as well?

Also what does the car park serve?  If you can identify the landowner then there is a complaint angle there given NPC failings with signage highlighting the change of terms, particularly as you are a regular user who can choose to park somewhere else and deprive them of further income.

As mentioned a complaint to the IPC might be worth a shot but you have to complain to NPC first beforehand.  I would recommend you download and store all the evidence and info the operator gave in their prima facie case on the IAS portal.

kryten3000

SpacemanPaul said:

The adjudicator found in my friends favour and upheld his appeal so nothing to pay. However, The adjudicator dismissed mine so i have to pay the full amount as the grace period has passed.

No you don't. You'll have to go through the usual process of waiting for a Letter of Claim and defending a claim in court.  This inconsistency shows that the IAS (and we've seen similar at POPLA too) is unfit for purpose and not  the genuine Alternate Dispute Resolution service it claims to be.

Coupon-mad

You certainly don't pay!

Typical example of the IAS.

SpacemanPaul

@lonestarfan - parking signs here. the main one (which isnt at the entrance has  hours of operation on) as we were regular users we never looked at it - just would go on Ringo and pay. The little ones had the hours of operations blanked out for some reason... so the adjustor and the operator seems to think it is 24 hours. . 

my point is that as part of their policy they should; have made it clearer that there was a change. Which they did not. 
 

SpacemanPaul

oh - what i have just noticed is that the main sign I've put up with the time on was supplied to the IAS by NPC and it has the old times on - 9am start - which i was covered for!!! Hilarious. 

ChirpyChicken

why on earth would you think you had to pay

SpacemanPaul

the tariff sign in the carpark does say 8am start, but what the parking operator has submitted to IAS says 9am. the questions is - do i just pay to avoid going to court for this now and incurring potentially more costs and my time. IAA have washed their hand of this. 

ChirpyChicken

no you have already advised on that.