IAS APPEAL....feedback appreciated

Hi

I'm about to do my IAS appeal having been rejected by the PPC (no surprise), and would value some feedback before I go ahead. I'm aware there is some debate as to whether an appeal with IAS is of value or not and that it is highly likely to be rejected, however it seems the right thing to me to do.

Background....my car was parked on a private estate in a designated parking bay, with no visitor permit displayed hence the ticket from U.K. CPM. It was sent through the post.

The 'private estate' starts upon taking an exit off a roundabout which is public highway so it is not apparent that you have entered private land.

There is a sign, which does contain the words private land and sets out the requirement of a permit for all users etc etc however it is at least 7 foot high and the writing is tiny. I can barely read it when standing underneath it, not to mention a few feet away from it in a moving vehicle having just turned off the roundabout.

There is also a sign a few meters away from where the car was parked but it is also extremely high with small text and nance not legible from the car.

There is a repeated sign on the property that is snapped in half. The entrance sign I took photos of a few weeks ago has now deteriorated further in as much as large parts of it are missing, so it isn't of robust quality either.

Hopefully the following will now make sense. I've taken the angle of poor signage=no contract exists

Thanks for your input......

(Don't be too harsh, this was knocked together with a baby and toddler at my feet and I did my research before asking for help, including reading the newbie thread)

Appeal.......

As an Accredited IPC Operator UKCPM are required to adhere to the IPC Code of Conduct.

UKCPM have failed to adhere to Section 2.1 of The Code, with regards their signage meeting minimum standards. The IPC Code states that its members 'must conform to the requiremnets as set out in Schedule 1' (Section 2.2)

Schedule 1 states that 'Entrance signs should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land'

The Code requires IPC members to 'adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the creditor and the driver'.

Signage should 'be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site'.

It should 'contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relevant position of the person who it is aimed at'.

The photograph evidence shows the entrance sign positioned on a pole, perpendicular to the road at a height of about 7 feet high. The sign is not of a large enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. The lettering is too small to be visible to a driver when considering the height of the sign and the likely position of a motorist (in their car) upon entering the site. This contravenes the IPC Code, Schedule 1.

This entrance sign is on a 30mph road which is an exit off a roundabout - drivers will be passing this sign at a speed which renders it unnoticeable given its position and size.

The sign near where the vehicle was parked is positioned in the same manner and of the same size as the entrance sign. It is not evident from this sign that private land has been entered because it is not clearly visible from the parking space. Letters look smaller when positioned up high and the angle of sight renders words less readable due to their perspective.

The signage is in clear breach of the aforementioned points detailed in the IPC Code which UKCPM should adhere to.

Furthermore, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states a 'requirement for transparency' in establishing a contract and 'a trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent'.

I also refer to 'Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' which found in favour of the driver, that they could not be deemed bound by the terms of the contract, where they were not clearly visible.


In this instance a contract cannot be said to have been established between the UKCPM and the driver as the driver was not made aware of the terms or that the land was private property. In the absence of a contract, terms cannot be said to have been 'breached' and as such the £100 parking charge is unenforceable because it was not agreed to.