Messed up! Need Help with PCN, appeal rejected

desperate_confused87

Hello, sadly I am coming to this forum a little late and wish I had read all the advice beforehand! I thought that the PCN I received was based on such rubbish I didnt think they would even bother pursuing it - but how wrong I was!

I received a PCN - notice to registered keeper in the post due to ANPR picking up my car on private land belonging to "XX". Its a small alleyway with a leisure centre at the end so I am not sure if they are the owners of the land. In the attached photographic evidence you can see that my car stops at the end of the road, a T junction that leads on to the main road. In the timestamped photos you can see the car is stationary for less than 60 seconds from start to finish and I am seen approaching the car, opening the door and putting my toddler in. Adjusting their seat, walking to the other side of car and getting in and driving off. All within 60 seconds. I appealed the charge on the basis that the car was never parked, my husband was at the wheel, he stopped we jumped in and then he drove off. I said this all in my appeal but it was rejected by "XX". I then sent it to the IAS for an independent review, thinking the same thing. How can I get a parking ticket when we were never even parked?? However I have now received the operator's Prima Facie case and they arent disputing the fact that the charge was issued in breach of contract of a "strictly no parking" sign. This is their wording:

"The Appellant's own account confirms that the vehicle was deliberately brought to a halt and remained stationary while she approached it and placed her daughter inside. The photographic evidence records the vehicle stationary within the restricted area during that process.

This was not a circumstance in which the vehicle was compelled to stop by traffic conditions or another external necessity. It was intentionally stopped at the location for the purpose of collecting passengers. The reason for stopping may explain the driver's actions, but it does not create permission to use an area subject to an express prohibition on parking."

Is this correct? That despite clearly loading the car they are correct in issuing us a parking fine??

Thank you so much for your help!

Gr1pr

Definitely wasn't a fine, just a pcn invoice from a private parking company, for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property

The parking company Definitely won't own the land, just a mere contractor

Ignore them for now

Come back to this thread if you receive a Letter of Claim giving you 30 days notice, or a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL

fatbelly

As above. I am afraid that this is typical of the scammers, and IAS is part of the scam

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82156391#Comment_82156391

Yep, IMHO.

But to be clear: literally nobody has to pay these invoices and London Parking Solutions are tiny. Never sue anyone.

@desperate_confused87 - four things:

• please show here on this thread, both sides of the PCN, data and refs redacted but showing ALL dates & timings;
• please show all the photos they provided of the car and surface markings (redact faces & numberplate from the pictures);
• please show the sign images from their evidence pack;
• please post the IAS decision in my 'IAS Decisions until we hope they are banned' thread.

The IPC and IAS continue to let their members deliberately conflate areas where parking is not allowed, with no-stopping red routes.

No-stopping zones will need special dispensation from the trade bodies under the new government regulated regime.

So the IPC invented a loophole … set up a poorly signed 'prohibited parking' site on the exact same basis (complete with covert surveillance but no red lines) and just don't call it a no-stopping zone!

They persuaded the BPA to join them in a cartel-style self-serving 'Joint Code of Practice' farce which (on the face of it) mimicked the DLUHC's 2022 CoP but made OVER THIRTY disingenuous changes.

Those changes included:

• removing the DLUHC's note that boarding and alighting passengers is exempt and not part of a 'parking period' and
• creating an unlawful right to impose instant ticketing with an astonishing zero consideration period to even see (let alone read and agree to) terms on a distant sign!

You realise the IAS isn't what it says it is?

Not fully independent, despite the recent rearranging of the deckchairs to ostensibly 'remove' the IPC's top banana Will Hurley's control and (plenty here would say) create a veil of legitimacy by appointing David Finney and his new company which calls itself an ADR (in name) but doesn't itself have CTSI accreditation.

But Will Hurley is still the sole director and person with significant control of this - always flagged as 'dormant' - overarching company waiting in the wings, that he set up in 2023 when IMHO, the industry must have thought they could get all this past the government, due to their success in blocking the 2022 Code:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14994806/officers

Oh wait… look it's no longer dormant!

It is for the first time now shown as 'active'; updated in August. Why is his IAS Ltd company suddenly active after all these years?

Coincidentally, around the same time as creating the appearance of not being connected and telling the CTSI that there's "nothing to see here".

desperate_confused87

This is really useful! Thank you! I asked someone to go back this weekend and take photos of the signs.

IMG-20261004-WA0009.jpg

IMG-20261004-WA0010.jpg

IMG-20261004-WA0011.jpg

I am going to reply to the very strongly legally worded Prima Facie case as I cant just leave it. I understand they have no juristiction but I also named my husband as the driver (before I had read anything on this forum!)

I am thinking I might be able to argue that he was just waiting at the T junction to turn left. Their argument that parking is anything not in the standard flow of traffic wont stand and I can say we never entered the contract with them on those terms??This was their wording:

"

the vehicle was (not) compelled to stop by traffic conditions or another external necessity. It was intentionally stopped at the location for the purpose of collecting passengers

"

I also have an example of a previous case that went to court and they proved that loading furniture in a car was in fact not parking. Madness!

Coupon-mad

There are no t&cs on that sign!

But what about the other 3 things:

• please show here on this thread, both sides of the PCN, data and refs redacted but showing ALL dates & timings;
• please show all the photos they provided of the car and surface markings (redact faces & numberplate from the pictures);
• please post the IAS decision in my 'IAS Decisions until we hope they are banned' thread.