London Parking Solutions PCN

[goshu]

Hi there!
I've red a lot from your forum, but i didnt see nothing similar...
So... This week i've got this letter from London Parking Solutions:

http://prntscr.com/b4h9ao

My idea was to ignore it, but today i had little bit of time to read some advices from fellow motorists.
The situation is like that...
Few times I give a ride to a colleague near their house. And I've stopped behind a tesco shop for up to 1 min every single time. I didnt see any signs at that point, but today i've went to the location and take a picture of one of it (there are loads, and i didnt noticed them).

http://prntscr.com/b4he93

So by the material i red so far i think i should appeal with something like:

--------
Dear Sir,

Re: Ticket No. abcd1234

I wish to appeal the above ticket because I did not see the signs.

Please cancel the ticket. Should you decide not to uphold my appeal, please supply me with a POPLA code in order that I can appeal to them.

Yours faithfully,
-------

Am I going in the right direction? Any advice?

I would be grateful for your help!

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

:okay:

Once rejected file an intent to appeal with theias.org and see what the case against you is.

M1

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

Great! Thank you very much for the help! I'll keep you updated.

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

So there is an late update.
I've contacted LPS and the last email i've got from them was
"dear ...
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.


This appeal is still currently under review at present but hopefully a decision should be reached by tomorrow at the latest. The account remains on hold while this takes place.


Kind Regards
B Sullivan
PCN ParkingSolutions"
Dated 02.06.2016

After which i havent heared from them.
On 8th august i've recieved a letter (while i was on holiday) from ULTIMATE COSTOMER SOLUTIONS stating that i have 14 days to pay them in full 160£.
They say "Our client has advised that they have not recieved payment or any valid dispute and therefore it is now too late to pay the discounted amount or challenge this notice"

I didnt recieved any rejection for my appeal from London Parking Solutions, so i was unable to appeal to POPLA.
Any suggestions?

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

Contact LPS and ask wtf is going on. Contact UCS and tell them to piss off as you are awaiting the result of an appeal.

When LPS reject an appeal it's theias.org for appeals, not popla.

M1

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

Thanks!
I've contacted LPS. The other w*nkers (UCS) doesnt state an email address attached to the letter and they are working only from 8:30 - 17:00 Mon-Fri.
I'll try tomorrow

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

So i've got feedback from LPS:

"Thank you for your recent email.


I have reviewed the account and there looks like to be an error.


I have pulled this back to the previous stage and made the balance £60.00 this is available to you for 14 days.


I have also attached your appeal rejection letter. Since this i the first notice of the outcome that's why i have reset the time frame on the £60.00.


Kind Regards
Toby Stone
PCN Parking Solutions "

with the following letter (see attachments)

So now i have to appeal to theias.org. Right?
What should the content of my appeal to them? Same as for the LPS?

Actually can LPS still fine me after an error from their side after 3+ months ?

Cheers!

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

So i appealed to IAS.
The response following my appeal is:

Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 16/09/2016 10:33:50.

The Operator Reported That...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 05/05/2016.
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/04/2016.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...
THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PRIVATE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING.

BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT PARKING IS ONLY PERMITTED FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLOADING AT THE SITE.

IN THE EVENT THAT A VEHICLE DOES CHOOSE TO STOP OR WAIT AND IS NOT A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH IS UNLOADING, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM.

SHOULD THE MOTORIST NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING, THEN THEY ARE FREE TO REMOVE THEIR VEHICLE FROM THE SITE AND TO PARK AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION.

AS PER THE OPERATORS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PARKED AT THIS LOCATION AT THE TIME OF THIS PARKING EVENT.

IT IS FURTHER APPARENT FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANTS VEHICLE WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH WAS UNLOADING AND WAS PARKED WITHIN A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT OF AT LEAST ONE LARGE CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGN.

FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.

I have 5 days to respond.
I have not agreed to pay any fixed sum of money. And i have removed the vehichle from the site.

I have not seen yet the photo evidence.

What should i do?
Thanks!

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

Leave it with me.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

The operators prima facie case states that :-

"The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA"

The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 states

(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved. In the case of an ANPR situation compliance with section 9 are required.




Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle








4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met ....




6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—








(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.








9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(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;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.








The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. A driver can not know at which point a random camera captures their entry as the cameras may not be in plain sight needing a high vantage point and in any event the focal point is not known or pointed out to the motorist. That is clearly as unfair a term in a contract as you can get. This is why the legislators have have made the decision to require a specific period of parking. As per Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) when the legislators require something to be specified it must be accurate. The notice to keeper merely indicates whenthe vehicle entered the car park but not when the period of parking began as clearly a vehicle on the move is not parked. The same is true of the exit.


The statutory warning in 2 (f) is incorrect as although it states 28 days it does not allow the requisite time for the notice to be given.


The notice keeper does not meet keeper liability statutory requirements and keeper liability cannot apply. There is no evidence as to the drivers identity and the keeper was not the driver so the appeal must be upheld.






Further the operators prima facie case also states :-

BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT PARKING IS ONLY PERMITTED FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLOADING AT THE SITE.


IN THE EVENT THAT A VEHICLE DOES CHOOSE TO STOP OR WAIT AND IS NOT A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHICH IS UNLOADING, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM.



As the signs state for commercial vehicles only then there is no offer for non commercial vehicle drivers and as such there is no liability as per DISTRICT JUDGE GLEN at HIGH WYCOMBE COUNTY COURT Claim No. B4GF26K6.
High Wycombe Three Approved Judgment.pdf






You must attach the pcn and the court judgement to this as IAS will use any excuse to tell you to feck off. Make the appeal in to a file if needed.

M1

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

Thank you very much!
I really appreciate the time that you've spend to help me! Thank you again!
I made a word file, as for their requirements doesnt allow more than 1000 words, and it seems that i can't paste in the required box.
The operator has 5 working days to respond. When i get the response i'll post it here straight away.

Bless you!

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

So this happend...

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give 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 the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

From the evidence presented I am satisfied that the Appellant was indeed on private property, as alleged by the Operator and are therefore bound by the terms of entry to this private property.

The terms and conditions applicable at the position of parking are that ‘No Stopping, No Waiting’ for Non-Commercial Vehicles is allowed at any time. The Operator provides evidence to show that there are signs on site in the immediate vicinity of the Appellant’s vehicle stating the aforementioned terms and I am satisfied that such signage was visible from the Appellant’s position of parking. If a driver does not comply with these terms they agree to pay a charge of £100. The signs make it clear that the terms apply to all visitors to the site.

The Operator has provided images of the Appellant’s vehicle at all relevant times and the signage that exists on the site. These images are timed between 19.36 and 19.37, during which time the Appellant’s vehicle remains stationary. From the evidence provided I am content that the Appellant was indeed on private property, as demonstrated by the photographic images showing both the Appellant’s stationary vehicle and signage that exists adjacent to the vehicle. Having seen examples of the signs I am satisfied that they comply with current regulations and due to signage visible in the vicinity of the Appellant’s vehicle I find it impossible to comprehend how the Appellant could have missed these signs. I am shown evidence that the driver parked their vehicle with the Operator’s signage in clear view in a restricted area as alleged. I am satisfied that this signage is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the Appellant’s attention and that the signage is neither misleading nor unclear. Once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. I am content that the Parking Charge Notice has a lawful basis and that by stopping in contravention of the displayed terms the Appellant agreed to pay a charge.

Accordingly the 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.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service"

Unfortunatly the outcome isnt in my favor... What would be the wisest move from now on?

Cheers!

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

So they never commented on keeper liability at all ? Not even to say they don't give a feck? That's nice of them.

Still nice of them to confirm that the principle reasons in High Wycombe Three Approved Judgment.pdf apply.

I'd ignore and kick their arse if they are stupid enough to do court.

Possibly write to IPC & IAS asking why keeper liability did not form any part of the reasoning since we brought it up.

M1

[goshu]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

I am pretty sure that they will use their "collecting agancy" again... So i should just ignore?
What if they are stupid enough to go to court? I'm not familiar with any solicitor.

Again, thank you for your time!

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions PCN

I would.

A solicitor is not worth it for such small amounts. Do it yourself with help from here or where ever. Sure people get frightened but it's character building.

M1