Good evening. I have just been notified that the IAS have rejected my appeal. It reads as per below:
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their stay will be issued with the parking charge notice.
The Appellant has adopted a number of popular and well rehearsed arguments that are readily available. I have responded to each below:
1. The Appellant claims they were not parked as they did not leave the vehicle. Some definitions of ‘parking' refer to leaving the vehicle. Leave in this sense does not mean to walk away from the vehicle. It means to allow or cause to remain, as in ‘leave your food.' I do not agree with the Appellant's definition of parking. By their use they could remain there all day and not be parked.
Clearly parking is a question of fact not degree. One cannot become parked after the passage of an indeterminate period of time. The code of practice defines parking as “a single period of a vehicle being stationary otherwise than in the normal course of driving.” This incorporates the position of the Appellant's vehicle, which was to use a pay and display car park as a free drop off point.
2. The Appellant is correct about the minimum period of consideration. However, this assumes a driver genuinely attempting to park and pay. In this case the driver pulled in, dropped off passengers, turned around, and left. There was no attempt to read signs or attempt to pay. Consequently, the consideration period does not apply.
3. This is a complaint and should be raised as such with the appropriate forum. It is outside the scope of this appeal, as it has no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.
4. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator. In any event the landowner authority is provided to me.
5. The consumer contract regulations are not breached because the amount being sought by the parking operator was clearly communicated by the signage on site. If the Appellant considered the charges to be excessive they had the option to reject it by parking elsewhere or by parking on this site in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. The Appellant chose not to park in accordance with those terms and therefore is deemed to have agreed to pay a charge if any breach occurred.
The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, two minutes after it arrived, and without a payment for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed.
Should I prepare anything new or await further correspondence from I Park Services Ltd? There are so many holes in this decision but I don't want to waste energy on a clearly rigged process.
