Evidence photos only show registration number for 15 seconds.

kryten3000

That last sentence is also a lie. IAS decisions are only binding on the PPC, not the appellant (just one of many reasons why only 4% favour the motorist).

Le_Kirk

It is (Laura) Jopson v Homeguard.

scamdodger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150944#Comment_82150944

Well spotted. A typo on my behalf is repeated without question. This makes me feel that the appeal response is largely conducted using artificial intelligence.

scamdodger

Here are some more images.

From the vehicle position, which was loading/unloading directly opposite the stairwell, there is no signage visible. The nearest sign is around and in the corner of the car park.

Shame I didn't present this as evidence of insufficient signage at the initial appeal stage. But I guess IAS is not the way to go.

Coupon-mad

I'd try the IAS with those photos, if you are still in time to use the standard IAS which costs nothing. It is a kangaroo court but worth a whirl, even if just for the laughs when the non-impartial anonymous Assessor presses 'computer says no'!

That is damning evidence in the real world (non IAS cloud cuckoo land).

The driver COULD NOT have seen any contractual sign and loading is allowed on double yellow lines. And there is no Code compliant large 'P' entrance sign I assume?

scamdodger

Thanks again C-M for your valued advice.

I'm just confirming with the PCN recipient that there are no entrance signs. None of the photos I've seen so far seem to show any. There may be a reason that Euro Parking (EPS) couldn't erect signs, hence the road markings?

I gather IAS are notoriously biased in favour of the parking companies and note previous mentions of a 4% appeal success rate. Has there ever been an FOI request made?

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152054#Comment_82152054

FOI request to who? Private companies are not obliged to conform to FOI requests.

"There may be a reason that Euro Parking (EPS) couldn't erect signs"

In which case they should reject the landowner's request for their free parking management service as they cannot conform to their ATAs COP or contract law or provide a fair and honest outcome for the motorist. But of course we know the real answer to that, this is a honeytrap with covert surveillance.

I would be interested in their evidence to the IAS on signage for this one, I bet they send master office copies they can't supply dated photographic images.

scamdodger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152127#Comment_82152127

You are quite right. Silly me. I just wondered where the 4% came from, but I do agree the IAS is commonly regarded as being biased in favour of the PPC's.

Work will now begin on preparing the IAS appeal.

I will keep the Forum updated.

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152200#Comment_82152200

Not "silly" at all, but here is where the pre-disclosed rejection rate comes from:

Admittedly dated 2016 you might like a gander at this IPC presentation where one of the benefits offered to prospective members amongst other things was a 95% appeals failure rate, but just note how they term this a "success rate":

https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx

scamdodger

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152339#Comment_82152339

Thanks for that. The link to the IPC document works but the screenshot seems to be unreachable. But I get the idea!