Private PCN Appeal

[MIKE770]

who is going to turn up??? anybody knocked the door would be some local hopeful trying to get the commissions for any collection without any authority for you to have to pay :- fact:- as we say tell them to close the gate on the way out and shut the door. ostell pay them at your peril at this stage

[ostell]

There will not be anyone knocking on doors, they just write nasty letters

[Nealg2019]

Ok so you think I should just ignore them and don’t appeal to IAS? ostell do you think I will get a court order? I don’t want to get a County Court Judgment. In light of my situation have I got no good grounds to appeal to the IAS and win? Also if I did get a court order, do I have a leg to stand on and win my battle with them?
thanks

[ostell]

If there are no signs then there can be no contract and therefore no breach and no charge.

Forget IAS, you will most likely lose. It is run by the same solicitors that run the IPC and who would take a case to court.

In order to get a CCJ then they have to take you to court, you have to lose and then you don't pay within a month.

As I have said their signage, when it is there, can't create a contract with non permit holders.

Edit:

Here's a bit about forbidding signs:

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. 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.

[charitynjw]

Hi this letter has arrived saying that if I don’t pay the £100 fine then a debt recovery service will be sent to recover the money. If there is no point appalling to the IAS then maybe I should just pay the fine as I wouldn’t want them turning up at my parents house.

They will not turn up at your parent's house.
Their debt recovery people (probably DRP) might send letters, but they (DRP & others) are not legally capable of enforcing any demands, as they would be 3rd parties & so are not parties to the alleged contract.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract

[Nealg2019]

Hello @ostell , @CHARITYNJW

Just to let you know I have made an appeal to the AIS on 10/06/2019 to try my luck, and have just received their response. My appeal was as follows:

Further to my previous appeal, the parking invoice issued to the driver is a matter of contract law. Unfortunately, there was no contract made with the driver.

This is due to the following;

1. The signage was unclear. At the time of issue 01.19am, the signage on the site was poorly lit and was not visible to the driver therefore;
2. The driver did not see or understand the signage.
3. Even in daylight visible hours there were no signs or road markings on the area the driver had parked.
4. It is believed the area of land is not owned by the relevant parties.
5. The signage 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.
I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF17X2 [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.

This confirms there was never a contractual relationship with the driver.

I have attached images as evidence showing poor/no signage and road markings.

I would also like to point out and make clear that 3rd parties cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to a contract. This is a common law principle.

I ask kindly the IAS to use competent unbiased assessors and comply with standards of law and justice.

Therefore, I hope you would accept my appeal and no further demands on the invoice to be made as I am finding it quite stressful and feel harassed.

Regards

[Nealg2019]

This was their response: The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 28/04/2019.
The charge is based in Contract.
The Operator Made The Following Comments...

The defendant states the appellants original appeal letter states 'i parked' and therefore, the defendant claims the appellant is the driver of the vehicle.

The appellants vehicle was observed at the time the parking charge notice was issued, when the operative could not see a valid permit displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle. The photographic evidence supports the issue of the parking charge. Please refer to the photographic evidence which can be viewed on www.payppm.co.uk which clearly shows no valid parking permit on display.

The signage throughout the site, and visible from the position of parking, makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable.

Having viewed the photographic evidence, the appellants vehicle can be seen close to a sign stating the parking regulations. Signage clearly states that parking is permitted for vehicles fully displaying a valid permit within the front windscreen and parked fully within the confines of a marked bay.

Please find attached 2 photos - 1 showing the entrance to the area in which the appellant parked and the 2nd showing 4 signs showing the parking regulations in the area in which the appellant is parked. The signage at the entrance alerts drivers to restrictions in place on this site and the other 4 signs would have been visible when the appellant parked the vehicle.

As the area is private land, there are no requirements for road markings.

According to the defendants records, this area does form part of the contract with the freeholder.

The operator cannot know why a valid permit is not displayed. They are contracted to monitor ALL vehicles on site and ensure a correctly displayed valid permit is on show in every vehicle to ascertain authority to park on site.

The offer to park is made on the signs displayed throughout the parking area. It reads (summarised) that parking is permitted for those displaying a permit, otherwise consideration in the form of a charge of £100 is payable. Consideration is what is given (or promised) by one party to a contract in exchange for something from the other party to the contract. In this case, if a motorist does not belong to the class of ‘motorist displaying a permit', they may still park but in exchange for the promise to pay (consideration) £100. In the defendants opinion, this is different to a loss arising from a breach. It is a specified amount promised by the person choosing to park for parking without a permit. The parking charge was clearly advertised and the appellant was in possession of all the information needed to make a decision. The appellant chose to park. In the defendants view, this act, by the appellant, constituted acceptance of the offer to pay the charge and formed a binding contract between the parties. It would follow that there was no inherent unfairness in the way this agreement was reached. The appellant could have rejected the charge by parking somewhere else. The charge is also in line with industry standards.

Whilst the defendant empathises with the appellants situation, the defendant cannot allow parking without displaying a valid permit, what-ever the circumstances. By not enforcing the said issue the same situation will likely happen more often.

The defendant believes the appellant is fully liable for the charge.

[Nealg2019]

In their response they have supplied a map of what area they cover. I have just edited this to show you where I was parked, it shows I was parked out of that area. (Please see attached)

I'm just wondering what to do next as they have given me these two options.

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 24/06/2019 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

I've heard that arbitration makes things legally binding in court, do you know if this is correct? Also do you know if it gets sent to arbitration they could give me a higher penalty than £100?

Thanks for your help

[ostell]

Told you you would lose. They now have an "independent decision" to wave in front of the judge when it gets to court.

So you keep that definition of their area that they kindly supplied as evidence when it gets to court.

Ignore everything but a letter before claim or actual court claim

[charitynjw]

[SIZE=11px]

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 24/06/2019 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

Imho, as you've already appealed to the *cough* independent *cough* IAS, you may as well make further representation just to clarify that, in your opinion, but with the benefit of other county court decisions based on similar signage, the signs are not capable of forming a contract, plus on the parking co's own submitted evidence they are not lawfully operating in the location where the alleged contravention occurred, & you put them to strict proof of any contrary assertion of same.

I've heard that arbitration makes things legally binding in court, do you know if this is correct?

Forget arbitration.
Should it go to court it will likely be Small Claims where you can get free mediation.

Also do you know if it gets sent to arbitration they could give me a higher penalty than £100?

See above.
As the parking co are stating that you have ID'd the driver, they can 'abandon' PoFA in favour of common law breach of contract, so it may be possible for them to claim for extras over the original £100.
But they have to justify it, & you can rebut.

####