Tweet
We received a notice through the post from London Parking Solutions or PCN Parking Solutions for London Parking Solutions! Which when I looked into turned out to be a charge for improper parking on a private industrial estate. I checked and found that we were there to deliver a damaged vehicle to a repairer on the site and our Truck was parked directly outside their premises. So we appealed directly to PCN / London Parking Solutions, which of course they rejected. So following their appeals procedure I filed a case with IAS, which again they refuted. I have now asked for arbitration but wanted to check if I had done the right thing:
You completed the appeal on 12/12/2016 13:17:32
Our vehicle was on the Business Park to Deliver a disabled vehicle to Spectrum Vehicle Repairs, Unit 10 Fitzroy Business Park. Upon arrival we found there were no spaces outside the unit big enough to take our vehicle and allow the safe unloading of the broken down vehicle we had been asked to deliver to them. The vehicle was parked outside Spectrum when the picture was taken. Our driver had left the vehicle with emergency beacons and hazards illuminated. The driver left the vehicle to ask Spectrum where we could position the vehicle to allow safe unloading, as to unload the recovery truck we need a space longer than an articulated lorry. I have attached a copy of the vehicle tracker showing our vehicle arrived at Fitzroy Business park at 11:38, and the PCN was issued at 11:39! I have also included a copy of the digital job card showing why we were there.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on13/12/2016 17:35:11
The Operator Reported That...
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 28/11/2016
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 24/11/2016
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 ON THE ROADWAY OR FOOTPATH IS NOT PERMITTED.
IN THE EVENT THAT A VEHICLE DOES CHOOSE TO PARK ON THE ROADWAY OR FOOTPATH, 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 APPELLANT WAS PARKED WITHIN A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT OF AT LEAST ONE LARGE CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGN.
WHILST THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE HAD STOPPED APPROXIMATELY 1 MINUTE PRIOR TO BEING RECORDED, THIS IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT AS THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE PASSED 2 LARGE SIGNS ON THE WAY INTO THIS SITE WHICH CLEARLY STATE - NO PARKING.
THE OPERATOR SUBMITS THAT BASED ON THIS, THERE WOULD BE NO REAL NEED FOR A GRACE PERIOD IN THIS SCENARIO.
FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.
You completed the appeal on 12/12/2016 13:17:32
Our vehicle was on the Business Park to Deliver a disabled vehicle to Spectrum Vehicle Repairs, Unit 10 Fitzroy Business Park. Upon arrival we found there were no spaces outside the unit big enough to take our vehicle and allow the safe unloading of the broken down vehicle we had been asked to deliver to them. The vehicle was parked outside Spectrum when the picture was taken. Our driver had left the vehicle with emergency beacons and hazards illuminated. The driver left the vehicle to ask Spectrum where we could position the vehicle to allow safe unloading, as to unload the recovery truck we need a space longer than an articulated lorry. I have attached a copy of the vehicle tracker showing our vehicle arrived at Fitzroy Business park at 11:38, and the PCN was issued at 11:39! I have also included a copy of the digital job card showing why we were there.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on13/12/2016 17:35:11
The Operator Reported That...
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 28/11/2016
A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 24/11/2016
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 ON THE ROADWAY OR FOOTPATH IS NOT PERMITTED.
IN THE EVENT THAT A VEHICLE DOES CHOOSE TO PARK ON THE ROADWAY OR FOOTPATH, 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 APPELLANT WAS PARKED WITHIN A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT OF AT LEAST ONE LARGE CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGN.
WHILST THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE VEHICLE HAD STOPPED APPROXIMATELY 1 MINUTE PRIOR TO BEING RECORDED, THIS IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT AS THE VEHICLE WOULD HAVE PASSED 2 LARGE SIGNS ON THE WAY INTO THIS SITE WHICH CLEARLY STATE - NO PARKING.
THE OPERATOR SUBMITS THAT BASED ON THIS, THERE WOULD BE NO REAL NEED FOR A GRACE PERIOD IN THIS SCENARIO.
FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.
Comment