**DISCONTINUED** PCM - IAS - Help needed please

[Jaggs]

Hello,

I have read a few posts in this forum and it has given me some hope.

I have made an IAS appeal, but I need your help to point me in the right direction, please.

I might have been a stupid cowboy and have said a few things in my first mail to them. Please forgive my attitude in the first contact I made with them, I had a long day at work that day...

Attached all that I have so far.

I know I have admitted to being the driver. Do you think I have any hope?

My PCN was given at this same spot: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...urys-HELP!-won
and this http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...adstones-court

Thank you

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

The copy of notice to keeper is in the Operator's Prima Facie

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

My Location is at this same spot: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...urys-HELP!-won

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

I need to add more stuff before 13/03

[mystery1]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

The strongest argument is the unclear and confusing signs.

As such http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/69/enacted

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.


You have very little chance of winning this appeal but worth a go. At court this argument has a better chance although we'd hope not to go that far, obviously.

As always, it's a pity you let them know who the driver was.

M1

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Thanks M1

So can I reply by saying

My strongest argument is the unclear and confusing signs.


According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015


69
Contract terms that may have different meanings(1)
If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.(2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to the construction of a term or a notice in proceedings on an application for an injunction or interdict under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.


Hence it is the responsibility of PCM to make sure there are no conflicting signs attached to their main sign, which in this case is clearly present, no contract was breached.

There is also a few more things.
The copy of the Notice to keeper attached in the Prima by the provider is not the same copy as the one I received.
I have attached mine here.
The copy they sent me did not have the evidence attached which forced me to go to their website to see the evidence, hence giving them a click bait. You think there is anything I can mention about that?

Also, the time of the incident mentioned in the two letters they have sent me do not match. one says 18:57 and the other 18:56.n

Do you think there is any value in them writing 18: 00pm instead of 18: 00? as they did not reply to that point I made in their Prima Facia.

Also, they haven't provided the contract between them and the leaseholder or landowner saying that they are permitted to enforce no parking at any time for other cars.

Don't you think this would be a case of trespass and not contract breach, in which case the landowner should be fighting for damages and not PCM.

Thank you for your time, really appreciate it.

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

What do you think [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]?

[mystery1]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Further to point number 3 of my appeal i would add that section 69 of the Consumer rights act 2015 states

"(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the construction of a term or a notice in proceedings on an application for an injunction or interdict under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3."

The photographs provided by the operator show that there are other terms affixed to the signs at the bottom which they have not evidenced. These are the terms i mentioned in point 3 of my appeal. These can be seen in the photographs i supplied.

As the signs added to the bottom do not make it clear that you cannot park outwith the times they should be taken to mean that parking is free outwith the times stated.





Something like that, but take the red bit out if you didn't supply photographs.

The time things are, to be polite, meaningless.

M1

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

All sent. Thank you.

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Got a reply from IAS. Appeal Dismissed

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without fully displaying a valid permit in the windscreen, or parking outside of the advertised time, agrees to pay the parking charge. The Operator has also provided photographic evidence to show the Appellant’s vehicle parked on the land they manage, in close proximity to a sign advertising the terms, and outside of the permitted times. I am therefore satisfied there is a prima facie case the charge is lawful.


The Appellant has raised a number of challenges to the charge, and I have responded to each below using the Appellant’s numerical reference.


1. The Code of Practice specifically allows for the Operator to issue a notice by post initially.


2. I agree this is an error, but it is a tautology. It in no way creates confusion. By using 1800pm, the only thing that the Operator can be accused of is poor use of language and over explaining the times that apply.


3. The second sign does not contradict the sing relied on by the Operator, and in its wording defers to the Operator’s sign.


4. The driver is not expected to read it whilst sat in the vehicle. They are entitled to a grace period to read the sign, and only if they remain parked, having had notice, are they bound by the terms.


5. There is no evidence for this claim and it would not alter the driver’s ability to enter into a contract with the Operator.


The Appellant has provided no evidence the additional red sign of the nursery was displayed at the time of parking. The appeal is dismissed.

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Do you think I still have any chance of winning if they proceed to court? I posted the photo of the red signs without my car in the background as last evidence. I guess If I take a photo of my car in the frame along with the red sign, I might still have a chance? They still keep the signs there every day and pick them up before 7 pm. This is what had happened on that day when the red sign was picked up the agent managed to take my photo without it. They do use strong words like penalty/fine in this sign.

[mystery1]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Yes you have a great chance. Whilst not everyone has, most have at this location.

M1

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

@mystery1

Hello M1,

I got the County Court letter today

Attached the photo of the form
Letter dated 19th May 2017

I have collected some more evidence of the second sign with my car next to it.
Also have a video recorded of them picking up the sign in the evening on one occasion (photo of the sign from my flat) (I could try to gather more days evidence if that helps)

they have not shown the contract documents yet

Please advice

Thank you

[Jaggs]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

I have attached the response from the operator during the IAS appeal

My strongest argument is the unclear and confusing signs.

According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015

69
Contract terms that may have different meanings(1)
If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.(2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to the construction of a term or a notice in proceedings on an application for an injunction or interdict under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.

Hence it is the responsibility of PCM to make sure there are no conflicting signs attached to their main sign, which in this case is clearly present, no contract was breached.

I would also like to point out the inconsistent times mentioned in the letters sent to me.
- Letter 1 says 18:54 (operator provided in their prima facia)
- Letter 2 says 18:57 (attached)
- Letter 3 says 18:56 (attached)
Due to the nature of administration inconsistencies, in this case, I do not accept the fact that charge was issued accurately.

The fact that operator is not sharing the contract between the operator and the landowner further proves/strengthens my point that the contract restriction that the operator raising of no parking at any time was never agreed or defined and is just made up by the operator to cause as much disruption as possible and make as much money as they can by invoicing innocent drivers who fall in their trap of conflicting signs.

their response is attached

then my response

Another piece of evidence I would like to bring to the attention of the is this sign which was placed on the day of parking, this sign is usually placed during the hours of restriction and it clearly does not mention that any additional terms are applied, neither does it mention no parking outside of the restricted hours.

PCM signs and the additional sign can clearly be seen here as well.

This sign was present on the day of parking and must have been removed by the leaseholder - Cybertots, as part of their closing down process, for the day where they wouldn't have wanted to get it stolen, or the attendant might have moved it to make this case stronger before taking the photos. This sign also mentions that a penalty fine will be issued. The operator has no authority to issue penalties. They can only issue invoices for any loss occurred, which in this case none as there is still an empty space on the extreme left of the original photo.

This sign is more visible and readable than the PCM sign which mentions the restriction in tiny print.

With regards to the second sign attached to the primary sign, as the operator has taken responsibility for this sign, the terms mentioned at the bottom in red are not readable in contrast with the background white hence making it very hard to read in the dark when the area is not lit properly.

The operator has still not given any proof that they have the authority or the permission from the leaseholder or landowner to restrict parking outside of the hours mentioned. If they cannot provide this, then this case should be dismissed immediately.

then their final response

As previously stated, the operator will not be providing a copy of our contract with the client as this is a commercially sensitive document. I would like to reiterate - the contract between the operator and the landowner has no legal bearing on the contract between the operator and the motorist. The charge arises out of a contractual relationship as stipulated by the signage.

The operator maintains their position and points raised in previous responses.

after that i have already posted the result of the appeal above.

Thank you

[mystery1]

Re: PCM - IAS - Help needed please

Ok. File acknowledgement of service which then gives us 33 days from the date on the claim form to file a defence.

I'll try to get something on Saturday if i can and no one else has sorted you out.

M1