Urgent Help Required: Being threatened with bailiffs for a PCN when ticket states Not a PCN!!

Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?

Dear Teena,

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

Parking Charge Number Withheld
Vehicle Registration: B]Withheld[/B]
Date Issued: 21/06/2018

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. The Operator’s signage, which was on display at the site and visible from the position of parking, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. I note that the Appellant obtained a pay & display ticket suggesting that they were made reasonably aware of the contractual signage. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as a Blue Badge was not properly displayed when the vehicle was parked in a disabled bay. The contractual signage states that 'A valid blue badge must be displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle with the details clearly visible at all times' - the contravention images show that a pay & display ticket was placed on the Blue Badge obscuring details on it and meaning that the details were not clearly visible. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

The Appellant also raises the issue of the level of the charge. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

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 14 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


Independent Appeals Service
The IPC, PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR

The Independent Appeals Service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith. We do not accept service of documents by email.

The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531), 41 Greek Street, Stockport, Cheshire, England, SK3 8AX


:mad::mad:::mad::mad::mad:e