Free Traffic Legal Advice

Afternoon.

Situation:
I am neither the driver nor the keeper of the vehicle. I imagine this isn't an issue at this stage - but if this does proceed to a court hearing, would i be allowed to attend on the keeper's behalf?

Regardless.

As on this PCN, the driver allegedly parked as an unauthorized vehicle.
 This is not a car park, but in front of a building. 

PCN:

Front:


Back:


This is the area in question:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WTBghD6WHbdw2hg66
Google street view image from a year ago for reference:


"left" side as it is now


wider angle view of "left" side as it is now


"right" side as it is now: 


View from far right angle


and opposite:


View of the notice sign from driver perspective as in PCN titled "photographic evidence"


This is roughly speaking where the view from the green car would be. Orientation of vehicles is near enough the same as well.

Actual sign:


Intended defence
I intend to pursue one of poor signage.

I intend to use the template appeal to begin with:

"
Re PCN number:

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
"


For starters, there is no photographic evidence of the sign in the PCN letter. I am unsure whether this is relevant. Going through PoFa, particularly section 7, the PCN seems to be compliant.

This is where i become a bit unstuck and what actual grounds i have to go on if for whatever reason they reject the appeal and from lurking here and MSE, i note IAS is anything but.

Regardless, In the photos, there are exactly two "notices" - one over an electric parking "bay", and one hidden behind a fenced off waste-disposal area.

I am assuming that the IPC code of practice latest version is from 2018, which i have located here:
https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/Code_of_Practice_v8-821f63d6.pdf

for whatever reason, when i browse their main website https://www.theipc.info/publications-1
i get a 404.

I need to also take a photo when it is dark to further prove the point.
Text size: One cannot actually read the sign from where the vehicle is pictured to have parked
Contrast and illumination: The notice seems to imply it is in force 24/7. Unclear whether this is relevant as the time listed as contravention is 13:05.

The issue is that it could be argued I live nearby, and theoretically it could be argued I am aware of the two notices.

I am therefore unsure what grounds i have when in essence the argument is "There are no signs indicating this bay is a controlled one"

your guidance would be most appreciated.
Many thanks.

As the PCN has been issued as a postal NtK, the keeper should be referring to PoFA paragraph 9, not 7 unless the driver received a windscreen NtD. As this is from an IPC AOS member company, any appeal and subsequent secondary appeal is unlikely to succeed. It is up to you if you feel you want to put much effort into it at this stage. You already know that appeals to the IAS are highly likely to be rejected.

If this ever got as far as a court hearing, you could act on behalf of the defendant as a lay representative. However, the defendant would have to attend and could still be questioned by the judge.

I say "if this ever got as far as a court hearing" because there is every chance that this operator will not actually bother to go "all the way" Most of these operators are hoping that the keeper is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay them once a bit of so called "legal threat" is tried against them. They could even go as far as filing a claim in the hope that an actual N1SDT claim form triggers the flight reflex.

If it ever got as far as a hearing and was not discontinued before a hearing fee had to be paid by the claimant, it is not difficult to defend. As you already know, there is a very useful template defence that is used with minimal input required by the defendant.

For now, what was the purpose of the driver parking at the location on that date? Was it just to visit or was it to load or unload something or to simply pick up or drop off someone?

There is a technical flaw in the NtK in that it mentions a "period of parking" but provides no evidence of this "period", only a fixed point in time. This should invalidate the NtK as being fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA and therefore only the driver can be liable. For now, the known keeper should not identify the unknown driver.

Many thanks for your reply.
no windscreen NTD was issued. At least, none that i am aware of. Would they declare this on the PCN if they did? (I've had a windscreen NTD in the past)
When reviewing section 9, i understand that technically they haven't specified the period of parking - although if the sign says "in force 24/7", does a "period" matter vs a single incident?

I will admit to not knowing what template defence this is. I have lurked enough to be aware of certain landmark cases with regards to signage but not the exact situations in which they apply.

Edit -
I do not remember what the purpose of the vehicle being parked there at this time was. The pictured time is in the afternoon on a Friday. It may have been to park overnight or to facilitate transfer of goods before finding a better parking spot, but the former scenario is more likely

- end edit

I understand not to identify the unknown driver of the vehicle.

On the MSE board i believe they recommend to lodge an appeal to show due process. Hence, i don't intend to put much effort into it - just the template as provided.
I also intend to attempt to get the landowner to cancel the charge, but am not counting upon it.
I then envision that this will get many debt collecting letters of various flavours
and aware that The next real step will be if they decide to pursue this in the courts.
Worst case scenario they don't feel the defence is adequate, and order costs to be paid.

What i would like to clarify, if possible would be:
I note there is often a threat of a "CCJ" being on record, but i read that if the order cost is paid then this does not apply. Is this correct?
In event of failure, what is the typical cost ordered?
on what grounds given the above scenario would I have to defend the case? Is it likely to win?

Many thanks again for your time.

There is no danger of a CCJ on your record. In the worst case scenario, if the claim was lost, as long as the amount in the judgment is paid within 30 days, there is no record of it in your credit history. It is completely expunged.

Again, worst case scenario and you lost in court, you would likely pay less than the original claim amount as most judges will not allow the fake add on "damages" or "debt recovery fees" that are added. The PPCs are relying on the majority of their victims being low-hanging fruit own the gullible tree who will capitulate a soon as a few legal threats are thrown their way.

These parasitic, unregulated private parking companies, issue over 35,000 PCNs a day! Of those that aren't paid immediately or after appeal, most will end up being chased by useless debt collectors. However, hundreds of thousands of them will end up as county court claims with over 95% of those going unchallenged and ending up as default CCJs. Of those that are properly defended by members of this ro the MSE forum under advisement, around 99% or more end up as either discontinuations or are won at hearing.

Understood.
I apologise again, but my sole remaining issue is that I remain unclear on what grounds i have to defend the claim. It appears PoFa compliant and assuming this went before a court and only law applies (throwing the IPC code of conduct out the window i presume) - which sections should i be looking at?

Thank you

What was there to indicate that were the driver parked was or was not a designated parking bay? The person who you were visiting… does their lease allow visitors? Does their lease state that vehicles of visitors must have a permit?

There are plenty of arguments that need exploring. These are just a few.

Thank you.

the vehicle was parked on this site in order to visit another property on the same street.

If the PCN number, VRM combination is not working, there is a possibility that it has been cancelled. Did it work previously?

The appeal rejection is not unexpected, as predicted. Personally, I don’t recommend wasting time with an IAS appeal. Others on here will disagree.

It is your time and effort. Successful IAS appeals are as rare as hens teeth.

You are already aware of the process whether you make an unsuccessful IAS appeal or not. The storm of debt collection letters are to be ignored. They serve no purpose except to try and scare the victim into paying. No debt collector can do anything about the alleged debt because they are not a party to the contract that the driver is alleged to have breached with GSX.

Whether GSX will decide to pursue it beyond debt collection letters depends on how likely they think they could win in court. They are not known to be particularly litigious. There is every possibility that they would go as far as issuing a claim. Whether they would then take it as far as a hearing in front of a judge, based the evidence in the NtK and your photos, they’d be pretty stupid as the lack of sufficient signage and of the one that we have seen, makes if almost impossible to have formed any contract with the driver.

Poor signage is probably the most likely point that wins on any claims that get as far as a hearing in front of a judge. Besides the technical/procedural failures made by the claimant there could not be a contract with GSX.

We are a long way off any court claim, if at all. I don’t believe that not appealing to the IAS will have any bearing on any future proceedings. I’ll let others argue otherwise.

For now, please clarify whether a windscreen NtD was affixed to the car. If it was, is there evidence of it in any of the photos? If it wasn’t and there is no evidence of one, they have used the wrong reference to PoFA in the NtK. They have not evidenced a “period” of parking, only a single point in time.

There is no evidence that the signs at the location can form a contract. The single sign that can be seen in the photos provided does not adequately bring to the attention of the motorist the charge for breaching any term.

It is up to you (or whoever you are acting for) to decide whether you want to fight this. In the worst case scenario, if a judge agreed that a debt was owed to GSX, there is no risk of a CCJ and it would likely be for less than the original claim. PCN amount £100, claimants court fee £35 and fixed legal costs of £50. All that is assuming they even went as far as filing a claim and following it up and the defendant lost.

No, this has been the first time i've tried to log onto the IAS.

You should be checking the GXS website!

There are essentially no requirements for them to provide evidence at the initial appeal stage.

At the IAS stage, both sides present their evidence and the assessor decides (although as noted you don't get much of a fair hearing with the IAS most of the time), they consider their IPC members almost beyond reproach.

If the matter were to get to court, the judge would consider the evidence from both sides and decide accordingly.

Quote from: BXENE_25 on July 04, 2024, 06:59:22 pm

This has now been "resolved" after asking about it.

What exactly does "this has been resolved after asking about it" mean?

Has the PCN been cancelled?

No.
I asked GXS to confirm the PCN had been correctly inputted with regards to IAS, as before when attempting to input the PCN number + number plate it claimed no such PCN exists so couldn't lodge an appeal.

An appeal can now be lodged should i wish to do so.