Good IAS Appeal Rejected

[Sh17]

Hi,

I have dealt with PCN's in the past and have won due to the help of this forum.

Regarding this post - an IAS appeal was lodged and rejected and am now looking to proceed further.

When looking online everywhere it says, the next step is now to just wait and go to court, there is nothing else you can do; I find this hard to believe.

Of course this post all depends on how good the appeal was - attached are 2 documents; the appeal sent to the IAS and the rejection decision.

The main points i would like to point out is:

1 - They private parking company sent a letter requiring payment during my appeals process (this point was completely ignored by the IAS).
2 - The enforcement officer who gave the ticket upon entering the road dismissed all cars parked the same way my vehicle was parked (all without permits) and only gave my vehicle a ticket.


I am looking for advice on what proactive steps I can take.

mystery1 Kati ostell you have all helped me out before to which i appreciate very much.

Thanks in advance.

[paulajayne]

Of course they will reject - they are controlled by the parking companies.

What does your lease say about (Or not say about) parking.

Do parking bays exist?

[charitynjw]

Hi SH17

IAS knocking you back?
What a surprise........not!

Did you ID who was driving/parking? (Just a Y or N please.)

[Sh17]

paulajayne yeah I am aware of the whole situation regarding William Hurley in how he owns IPC IAS and Gladstone solicitors resulting in a massive conflict of interest.

Not too sure about the lease but parking bays do exist.

[Sh17]

charitynjw

Nope the driver was not ID .

[charitynjw]

Take some pics of the site signs.
PPCs sometimes use nice shiny stock pics of signs as evidence....don't rely on their evidence.

Do you have copies of the first postal notice to keeper? (& windscreen notice to drver if applicable.)

If so, redact (leaving all times/dates visible) & post them on here.

[Sh17]

charitynjw Attached is the appeal i lodged, within there i inserted images of the sign and how the wording and images used is very misleading.

Find attached:

- Windscreen Notice FRONT & BACK
- NTK FRONT & BACK
- Letter from PCM during appeal process

[charitynjw]

Ok

Imho, the site sign isn't adequate.

See https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...g-charge/page2 post #29

The windscreen notice to driver is defective for the purposes of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 s7(2)(a)
(No period of parking shown on NtD.)

7 (2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

This renders subsequent postal NtKs ineffective.

So they can't action it via PoFA 2012

Their only other recourse is to action this via common law contract breach.
& for that, they must be able to ID the driver (There's no transfer of liability in these cases of alleged contract breach.)

[Sh17]

charitynjw

The inadequate signage is exactly what i wrote within my IAS appeal.

Thank you for this new defense point!

This is what I am thinking to do as next steps please advise on your thoughts:

1) Notify PCM of the following:

I rejecting the result of the IAS appeal, as they have failed to comply with the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 , as I have become aware that the IPC (trade association) the IAS ( so called appeals service) and Gladstones Solicitors, who pursue unpaid parking charges from IPC members all share the same directors, Namely Will Hurley and John Davies.

As Will Hurley and John Davies have an interest in the Trade association, the so called independent Appeals service, and Gladstones Solicitors, any so called appeal using the IAS can not be independant by any stretch of the imagination.

Under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 I have a right to an independent and transparent appeals service for upto 12 months after the event.

2) Send a formal complaint to the IAS via recorded delivery on the grounds of:

Negligence from the IAS adjudicator with this specific case since they have completely ignored and disregarded the important point raised regarding PCM sending a letter requiring payment during my appeal processes which; as outlined in my appeal, is non compliant to the IPC code of conduct.

3) Contact the land owner explaining the situation and urge to cancel if they refuse then lodge a formal complaint against them.

What do you think?



Thanks for your time much appreciated.

[charitynjw]

Imho it will fall on deaf ears.

[Sh17]

charitynjw

Ah so from this point on the only real thing to do is just now wait until the 6 years is up and/or (if) they file a CCJ, and go from there?

[charitynjw]

Well, it's their move next. really.
Value judgment....do you go on the offensive & risk 'kicking the hornet's nest', or do you hold fire & hope that 'sleeping dogs will lie'?
I'd do the latter, but would quietly prepare for the former.
Their only recourse now is to action their alleged claim through court.
Breach of alleged contract.....there is no way they would try trespass (no real damage caused, so £nothing£ in it for them.)

They have 2 possible other avenues.

Via PoFA 2012.
Epic falure for them!
The Notice to Driver (windscreen ticket) is defective.....no period of time stated on it. (Schedule 4 s7)
As any subsequent 'chasing' relies on a kosher NtD, they are bollixed (technical legal term, that! )

Common law breach of contract
Firstly, they can only pursue the driver ...no transference of liability to the poor, innocent RK . (I won't tell them the driver's ID if you don't )
They usually try Elliot v Loake [1982].....I take it you know your rebuttal argument?

I also like Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule'....the more onerous the contract term in a unilateral contract, the more important that it is made obvious.
(ie a 'BIG RED HAND' pointing to it.}

See Thornton v Shoe Lane...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornt...ne_Parking_Ltd

This is now embodied in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s64, I think)


So you could write to the PPC, state the above, & invite them to refer to the response in Arkell v Pressdram.

Maybe not....but tempting!

[Sh17]

Hi All,

An update. As a result of the IAS appeal rejection I have received the first letter from the debt recovery company (attached). Attached is also the IAS appeal i lodged.

Its important to note i remembered I did provide the drivers name since it is a requirement when doing an IAS appeal.

I would be grateful on advice as what to do since i am willing to go all the way to court. Do you think i have a legitimate case?

MY CURRENT ACTIONS

1) Currently I am in talks with the land owner (ParadigmHousing), relevant housing officer. I am making a formal complaint to them regarding PCM who operate on their land to which they must address. On the grounds of abuse of power for financial gain. If not resolved then will go to the housing ombudsmun.

NEXT STEPS I WILL TAKE (please let me know any feedback on this)

1) Make a formal complaint to the IAS for negligence within the adjudication since they completely disregarded the point of:
- PCM sending a letter 'requiring payment' (attached within IAS appeal) during my appeals process which is against the IPC code of conduct. (more detail in the attached IAS appeal).


Thanks in advance!



charitynjw

[charitynjw]

Trace is safe to ignore.....toothless 3rd party debt collector.

[charitynjw]

Trace is safe to ignore.....toothless 3rd party debt collector.

Looking again at the adjudicator's reasons for not allowing your appeal, you'd almost think that he/she had visited the car park in order to inspect the signs in situ.
Or was he/she looking at nice clear stock images provided by the PPC?
If so, how can he/she possibly comment on whether in fact those supplied images are the same as the site signs?

No worries.
The adjudicator's decision is not binding on you, & you have the non-compliant notice to driver/postal notice to keeper should they try to enforce via county court.