Please Help! Letter before claim following failed IAS appeal

[g66ner]

Hello

I would be grateful for help regarding the below parking charge. In retrospect following reading these forums I realise I should not have appealed to IAS, but I unfortunatley did, lost the appeal and have been given a letter before claim from the VCS.

I recieved a privacy notice on my windscreen when parked in the parking space that I have a valid permit for (at 5am in the morning). Stupidly I did not take photos at this time with this on the windscreen with my valid permit in shot. I emailed VCS prior to receiving the PCN saying 'I hope I don't get a ticket due to the presence of a valid permit' I got no reply.

I initially appealed through VCS and sent through copies of my valid permit. They rejected this appeal stating it wasn't clearly on display, at this point I recieved all their photos of evidence. The images given were poor quality and you can see on 2 of the photos a glimpse of my permit. On stating this too them and editing pictures to highlight the permit they have rejected this. I therefore went to IAS thinking it was an easy appeal (prior to reading about IAS) and this was rejected.

I have now been sent a letter before claim. I am wishing to tick box D as I do not feel I owe this money as I have a valid permit to where I was parked, I know the permit was in the car window and believe their photos shows this as well (they have missed it in close up images). I would like to know if ticking box D is the right action? Or if I should be doing something else.

I have read about seperate letters to the company about getting more details, but feel this is not needed as I already know the issue that their signs say a permit should be displayed and that mine wasn't (even though it was).

I would be very greatful for any help.

Many Thanks

[ostell]

Have you got photos of the signs?

if the signs say permits only then:

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To claim that a contract to park without a permit was crared when it is specifically forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[g66ner]

Thank you for your speedy reply. I have attached a picture of the sign. If this is the case I should state this on my Box D?

Thanks again

[ostell]

What is box D ?

Can you post up the redacted initial PCN received?

[g66ner]

What is box D ?

Can you post up the redacted initial PCN received?

I have attached the initial PCN. Thank you again for your help, it is really appreciated. I am happy to send through all correspondance (following anonymising) if needed. I am referring to the reply form provided in the 'letter before claim' correspondance in which it's stated a response must be had within 30 days.

Thanks again

[g66ner]

Sorry to keep pestering. Based on the above sign, do you feel the argument regarding the 'forbidding nature' of the signs still stands? If so I shall reply to them with this. Thanks again for all your help. If any further information would be useful in regards to this dispute I am more than happy to provide.

Many thanks

[ostell]

Yes, the forbidding signs argument still stands.

Also failing to give the notice of keeper liability in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (f) of POFA. it should be 28 days after the day after the date given. And failure to give the period of parking required by 9 (2) (a) of POFA. Therefore there can be no keeper liability

Hope you haven't identified the driver

[g66ner]

Thanks so much. As mentioned previously I was late to looking at these very useful forums as I stupidly thought the parking company would reverse the fine very quickly after seeing my permit and me showing that their pictures did show evidence of my permit.

I fear that due to going through the IAS and initial appeals they have my name as the keeper of the vehicle.

I hope that doesn't narrow the options too significantly.

I have attached all correspondance with firstly VCS and then the transcript of the IAS back and forth and decision. Also some photographs that have been edited by both parties to try and prove points.

I do understand if you do not have time to look through these. It is very frustrating how I seem to have played into their hands with my initial actions.

I appreciate all of your help

[ostell]

They would have got your name and address anyway from the DVLA but as you appear to have identified the driver then they didn't need to.

Respond to the LBC stating the forbidding signs argument and even if they weren't forbidding the permit was displayed and is present in the photos.

This will go to court but you should have a reasonable chance of success. Nothing is 100%

I agree that failing you for not having the holographic portion on display is a ridiculous statement by them.

[g66ner]

Thankyou for all of your help. You have been extremley helpful and your advice is really appreciated