Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 5th Sep 17, 11:01 AM
    • 17Posts
    • 16Thanks
    TwoPence
    IPC Appeal Dilemma
    • #1
    • 5th Sep 17, 11:01 AM
    IPC Appeal Dilemma 5th Sep 17 at 11:01 AM
    Hi,

    I received a PCN from a private parking company (IPC member) a number of months ago. At present, I believe there are two potential reasons for appeal available, hence I decided to create this thread in the hope to gain some advice as to which option provides the strongest appeal, if any at all.

    Unfortunatly, as suggested by the ‘Newbies! Need help with a private parking ticket? Read this before posting!!’ thread, I have already eliminated the option to appeal as the ‘Registered Keeper’ as my wording in the initial appeal suggests I am in fact the driver. Regrettably, I had not discovered the thread at the time of my initial appeal.

    PCN Details
    The reason that the PPC issued the PCN is the following:
    ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’
    In an attempt to keep this thread relatively short, the circumstances of my case are virtually identical to the following case:
    ht tp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5629259

    It is worth mentioning that I submitted my appeal within 21 days following the PCN as requested (via Royal Mail Signed For), although the PCN rejected my appeal 148 days later. This is significant as the IPC Code of Practice Section 6.1 (d) states that the PPC must:
    Consider such representations and should respond appropriately within 28 days.
    Proposed Action
    1. Continue to uphold my initial argument regarding ambiguous signage and inconsistent ‘no parking zone’ markings.
    2. Argue that the PPC did not comply with the KADOE contract as it did not seek recovery in accordance with the ATA’s Code of Practice (to reply within 28 days).

    Information regarding the KADOE was extracted from:
    ht tp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

    If there is any important information in relation to the case not included in this post, please don’t hesitate to request further information.

    I would be grateful of any advice.

    Thanks in advance!
Page 2
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 28th Sep 17, 10:39 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Thank you both for the information, I shall forward the matter directly to David Dunford using the email featured in the linked thread.
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 6th Nov 17, 9:04 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Hi all!

    Regretfully this matter is still ongoing and seems to yield little progress over a long period of time.

    An email was sent to David Dunford as recommended, who did respond asking for some additional information and whether I would like the DVLA to refer the case to the IPC on my behalf.

    More recently, I have received some correspondence from the PPC's in-house legal department. I was told that 'all proceedings have been put on hold as we try to resolve this matter'. They also requested to forward the case to an 'independent adjudicator'.

    At present, I have responded and explained that I would like to await a response from the DVLA. I understand that the PPC's don't wait around forever, so would appreciate any suggestions on what actions to take next and what to do in the meantime.

    Grateful as always of any response,
    Thanks in advance!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Nov 17, 9:25 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    They also requested to forward the case to an 'independent adjudicator'.
    Ask David Dunford why the PPC appear to have tried to steer a complaint to him about an AOS firm going straight to LBCCC, in the direction of the (well-reported as kangaroo court) IAS. Say you were waiting for the IPC to look into the complaint, not to be patronised with the useless IAS where it is in the public domain that most consumer 'appeals' go there to die.

    Attach a copy of this Blog and say you know he is familiar with the well-supported view that the IAS is not fit for purpose:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/ipc-kangaroo-court-strikes-again.html

    Ans ask for a copy of the response to the complaint from the IPC itself, and confirmation that of course the LBCCC is void because it was premature and is now outdated by the change in pre-action protocol for debt claims, anyway.

    Ask him for the DVLA's view on the Directors shared between the IPC and Gladstones Solicitors and why the DVLA continues to allow this farce to be played out, to the detriment of registered keepers who entrust their data to the DVLA.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-11-2017 at 7:14 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 6th Nov 17, 10:38 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Your response is much appreciated Coupon-mad.

    I'm afraid I may have caused some confusion in relation to the complaint. I assume by 'steer a complaint', you are inferring that their poor conduct resulted in me making a complaint to the DVLA regarding the non-compliance of the AOS member?

    Regarding the IAS, it does not seem this is the 'independent adjudicator' that they are referring to. I had assumed such, but I was corrected:

    We would in no way act on your behalf and would not be the ones to forward your matter to the Independent Appeals Service, if you were to take this option.
    Unfortunatly, much of the email from the PPC representitive is ambiguous and fails to identify who the 'independent adjudicator' is, or how the process works. I have responded with an email requesting that any information regarding the 'independent adjudicator' or process is made available.

    Would the PPC's non-compliance with the AOS code of practice result in their claim being void?

    Ask him for the DVLA's view on the Directors shared between the IPC and Gladstones Solicitors and why the DVLA continues to allow this farce to be played out, to the detriment of registered keepers who entrust their data to the DVLA.
    Very interesting points you raise. I would certainly wish to raise this with him once I have received further information regarding my complaint.
    Last edited by TwoPence; 07-11-2017 at 5:50 PM.
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 7th Nov 17, 6:48 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    I have received an update from David Dunford. On the topic of reviewing a breach of the KADOE contract, here is the response:

    DVLA would be unable to comment on whether there has been a breach of the code of practice as this is a matter for the IPC to investigate. If the company were proven to have breached the code of practice, the agency could then consider whether there is any action needed to be taken.
    I assume at this point, I respond with the points raised by Coupon-mad in relation to the directors shared between the IPC and Gladstones Solicitors, explaining that it is in the interests of the IPC to reject any allegations in respect of its members breaching the code of conduct?

    If it was concluded that the PPC did breach the code of conduct, and consequently obtained the registered keeper data without 'reasonable cause', am I correct in thinking that this would leave them with no option but to terminate legal proceedings for my parking charge?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Nov 17, 7:17 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Would the PPC's non-compliance with the AOS code of practice result in their claim being void?
    No.

    And they do mean the IAS, all they mean is THEY wouldn't appeal ''on your behalf''; they are trying to persuade you there is an independent option. There is NOT. I guess it is the non-standard ADR they've offered, that the NEWBIES thread tells you NEVER EVER to touch.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 7th Nov 17, 9:13 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Thanks for the information. It would seem then that I am barking up the wrong tree. I had hoped that a non-compliance with the AOS would form a fundamental part of my case.

    It would seem then, that the next step would be to confirm with the PPC that the LBCCC is void due to it being premature and outdated by the change in pre-action protocol for debt claims as you have mentioned in both this thread and the newbies thread.

    Following the advice of the newbies thread, I should refuse the IAS on the basis that it is not fit for purpose, and explain that there will be no further correspondence until a genuine LBCCC or offer of Alternative Dispute Resolution is received?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Nov 17, 9:17 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yup, sounds like a plan. Non-compliance with the AOS is worth a mention in defence but isn't pivotal.

    But these cases are won at claims defence/hearing stage, and we help posters win 99% of cases. A life experience:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5676834

    Jordan enjoyed his case today! One of HUNDREDS of winners here, and he got his costs/wages and parking fee (ironic!) back from the PPC as the Judge ordered it when chucking the case out this morning. Only two lost in 2017 that I can recall.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-11-2017 at 9:20 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Nov 17, 9:17 PM
    • 17,323 Posts
    • 27,295 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I have received an update from David Dunford. On the topic of reviewing a breach of the KADOE contract, here is the response:
    The IPC Code of Practice has nothing to do with the KADOE contract. The KADOE contract is one exchanged between the DVLA and the PPC - precisely within DD!!!8217;s domain.

    Is this what he said in the context of KADOE?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 7th Nov 17, 10:20 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Excellent, I will proceed with this course of action.
    Jordan enjoyed his case today! One of HUNDREDS of winners here
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Always encouraging to read about the successful cases. I acknowledge the excellent work that yourself and other members of this forum do to help others with their cases. A fantastic result!

    The IPC Code of Practice has nothing to do with the KADOE contract. The KADOE contract is one exchanged between the DVLA and the PPC - precisely within DD!!!8217;s domain.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    This was in relation to a point I made considering whether or not the PPC accessed the registered keeper details with 'reasonable cause'. In order for the DVLA to provide data regarding the Keeper of a Vehicle, the KADOE contract states that:

    A6.1. The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (!!!8220;ATA!!!8221;) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA!!!8217;s Code of Practice or Conduct
    Due to non-compliance of the code of practice from the PPC, my complaint was that the PPC had requested such data from the DVLA without reasonable cause and had not allowed me to exercise my right to appeal.

    Please correct me if I have interpreted this incorrectly.
    Last edited by TwoPence; 07-11-2017 at 10:27 PM.
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 10th Jan 18, 8:30 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    Update
    So, it would seem that this matter is finally over. Although I have not received explicit written confirmation, I am hopeful that I have been able to prove my point to the PPC regarding the unfair parking charge. After many months of being issued the PPC, and half a dozen automated letters later, the PPC finally assigned a human to contact me in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

    After a few emails back and forth, I have received no response to my last correspondence sent via email over 2 months ago. This is significant as prior to this, the recipient of the email responded within a few hours. The most recent point I made to them was related to the post above:

    Following the advice of the newbies thread, I should refuse the IAS on the basis that it is not fit for purpose, and explain that there will be no further correspondence until a genuine LBCCC or offer of Alternative Dispute Resolution is received?
    Originally posted by TwoPence
    Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence of the outcome of the matter as of yet. No news is good news, so they say.

    This is a great opportunity to express my thanks to the members of this community, notably Umkomaas and Coupon-mad, who dedicate their time and efforts to helping those receiving unfair parking charges. The input from the community has proved invaluable, and certainly provided me with the advice and confidence to fight back against the injustice.

    Hopefully this is in fact the end of the dispute. Many thanks once again to all those who contributed.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Jan 18, 8:55 PM
    • 17,323 Posts
    • 27,295 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hopefully this is in fact the end of the dispute.
    I hope so too.

    However .......... a predator is always unpredictable and it makes its greatest kills when the prey has its guard down.

    Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence of the outcome of the matter as of yet. No news is good news, so they say.
    From experience, I would work on the basis of no news is ......., well, ..... no news.

    Have you had any overt hint from the PPC that ‘it’s over’?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • TwoPence
    • By TwoPence 10th Jan 18, 9:31 PM
    • 17 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    TwoPence
    However .......... a predator is always unpredictable and it makes its greatest kills when the prey has its guard down.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I would agree, I intend to continue to monitor my emails and post in the event that they do decide to continue the dispute. It has been almost 10 months since the PPC was issued, although they do have 6 years to start legal proceedings.

    Have you had any overt hint from the PPC that ‘it’s over’?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Sadly nothing concrete. It was an assumption on the basis that there was no response to my last email, of which I also forwarded to the recipient again shortly after so to reduce the likelihood of the email not being received.

    The primary reason for the update was to avoid the thread appearing to have been abandoned. When reading other threads, I always found it useful knowing the outcome of the appeals process. Only time will tell, although I have every intention of updating the thread should the PPC decide to uphold their charge.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 9:52 PM
    • 56,275 Posts
    • 69,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thanks for coming back to update and I hope this is the last you hear of it.

    If you have not done so already, perhaps you might consider, while your anger is still simmering, writing to your MP to tell them about this intimidation.

    This is a copy of a post by Bargepole:

    "Some action at last:

    http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html

    This Private Member's Bill has Government and cross-party support, and stands a good chance of making it into statute.

    The full text of the clauses will be published nearer the date of the second reading, but my sources tell me it's something we should support.

    Now would be a good time to write to your MP urging them to support it."

    and

    - please read and join our 'Call for Action' if you haven't already - simply submit evidence of private parking rip-offs to Which? Magazine, as they asking again for consumer problems for them to tackle as a subject, in 2018:

    https://whichcouk.bsd.net/page/s/which-taking-on-2018

    Which? and the Consumers' Association are pretty good at hitting the government with consumer problems, and the Consumers' Association in fact supported Barry Beavis in his case v ParkingEye (sadly lost - seemed like money talks, to some of us). I believe they (the Consumers' Association) are able to make 'super complaints' on behalf of lots of consumers. So, please add to the weight of this call.

    No harm in them hearing from you, only takes a few minutes and can be the same thing you send your MP.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

382Posts Today

6,358Users online

Martin's Twitter