IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Urgent Help Required: Being threatened with bailiffs for a PCN when ticket states Not a PCN!!
Options
Comments
-
If you read your letter very carefully I will wager its full of weasel words and phrases. I bet it is full of phrases that say you "may" have a judgement made against you.
It's deliberately worded vaguely so as to make you think it's an easy matter for them to send the heavies round. It isn't. They have to jump through a few legal hoops before they can even begin proceedings.
A genuine warning will contain little in the way of weasel words.0 -
If you read your letter very carefully I will wager its full of weasel words and phrases. I bet it is full of phrases that say you "may" have a judgement made against you.
It's deliberately worded vaguely so as to make you think it's an easy matter for them to send the heavies round. It isn't. They have to jump through a few legal hoops before they can even begin proceedings.
A genuine warning will contain little in the way of weasel words.
And they love to quote "Beavis vs Butthead" or whatever it was called0 -
Hi i have the same issue, im going down the route of none compliance to the freedom of information act 2012 for recovery of car parking tickets.
"When a parking contravention is detected, a landholder may place a ticket on a vehicle or give it to the driver at the time of the contravention. In these circumstances the landholder must wait 28 days after which, if there is no response, he/she may submit a request to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for details of the vehicle's registered keeper. He/she may then write to the registered keeper to seek details of the driver or payment of the parking charge "0 -
And, as pointed out in your other thread
1) you got the name of the Act wrong
2) youve managed to miss an entire para of the Act you didnt name correctly.0 -
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:e0 -
In case you haven't have a look at the directors of United Trade and Industry Ltd.
Then look who Gladstones solicitors are. You will be getting letters from Gladstones soon.0 -
Mystic-lady wrote: »Dear Teena,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
This is TOTAL CR*P
"(IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator"
They are supposed to be the adjudicator and boast some
out of work judge/solicitor is that person ????
Government made a huge error employing the IPC/IAS
as an ATA ..... the whole charade was set up by Gladstones
solicitors to make money ..... IPC/IAS is a SCAM
Treat the IPC/IAS as a SCAM and this will be confirmed to
you if you receive a letter from Gladstones Solicitors
As there is a new parking bill going through, suggest you
send a copy of the reply to Sir Greg Knight and show him
this scam and ask how many people suffer from the
Gladstones setup scam
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200
No harm telling Sir Greg that this is a scam, he probably
knows this already
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200
IPC/IAS IS A COMPLETE SCAM
SETUP BY GLADSTONES SOLICITORS0 -
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
:e0 -
Why have you posted that a second time?0
-
Mystic-lady wrote: »Having no already appealed prior to getting to this point.....do I still ignore or begrudgingly pay?
LISTEN, you have been told that this is a scam
YOU DO NOT PAY ANYTHING
THE IPC/IAS ARE ONLY SCAMMING YOU
THE IPC/IAS HAS NO CREDIBILITY
So, you ignore this scam outfit
No doubt you will receive stupid letters from even
more stupid debt collectors WHICH YOU IGNORE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5859454&highlight=debt+collectors+drp
If you then receive letters from Gladstones, the scam
is complete ... come back here then
AND, if it is a Gladstones letter, you report their scam
to Sir Greg Knight0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards