-
All,
Thank you for your detailed insight into the IAS and explanation, does look like a shambles and is a shame that no one can do anything and that they have backing from a partner law firm which basically make it even harder for your average joe who decides to appeal
and I shall not refer to it as a fine again (promise)
1. I received the following on 7th October, I assume the parking agency have sent this onto the IAS now.
'We can confirm that we have received notification of your appeal lodged with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). As a result, we are unable to address the points raised in your recent contact.
Please note that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Any further correspondence regarding your appeal will come directly from the IAS upon completion of their review. '
2. I received the following a Debt recovery letter! dated 29th September, but received it in the post a day or two ago on the 7th/8th October. This has been sent out while I am still in the appeal process ie my reply to the IAS below was sent on 3rd October - I thought this stage wouldn't be till well after the IAS has made their judgement?
- It also says that 'This is your 4th October', not sure what this implied?
- That I have until the 13th October to pay?
https://ibb.co/HL53fkhS
https://ibb.co/wND9VPsW
I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was sent out? Also I'll have to wait for teh IAS to reply with their judgment.
@b789 just seen your signature and that you're away for the bulk of this month *I've gone into panic mode* needed your guidance as I can see them responding and letters like the above appearing. Appreciate you have limited access but hopefully you'll be able to review alongside others on this forum.
-
-
I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was sent out?
You DO NOT make any contact whatsoever with a useless debt recovery company, EVER!!!! The debt collector is not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are powerless and their only function is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of ignorance and fear. -
-
I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was sent out?
You DO NOT make any contact whatsoever with a useless debt recovery company, EVER!!!! The debt collector is not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are powerless and their only function is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of ignorance and fear.
Great to hear from you
- There will be two things going on at the same time, the IAS appeal and the debt company following up with letters and raising their 'invoice' unware there is a appeal ongoing?
If the IAS come back stating they go against my appeal, what do I do next? I assume at this stage the debt recovery letters were supposed to arrive?
-
-
Just to be clear - The debt company can be totally ignored. Do nothing. Do not answer calls from them. Do not write letters to them. Do not even go to their website.
-
-
If the IAS appeal is unsuccessful, so what? The IAS is nothing but a kangaroo court. Their decision is not binding on you.
You continue to ignore all debt recovery letters and wait and see if they ever issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). If they do, you come back here and we will advise further. -
-
Okay so heres the IAS final decision - Which I am sure you expected no difference.
"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.
I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Appellant has provided no documentary evidence in support of her claim that the school is subject to statutory control and therefore does not fall within the definition of relevant land within PoFA. The onus is on the Appellant who is making this argument to do so. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established that this site is not relevant land.
Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that either vehicles must be registered with a valid e-permit or have a valid exemption which is obtained by drivers entering their full, correct VRN into the kiosks located in reception or being registered via Sippi. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant remained on the site for 37 minutes and in the data provided I can see that the Appellant's VRN was not registered for a valid e-permit or exemption, which the Appellant does not dispute. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant has misunderstood the application of the 10 minute grace period. This only applies to a permitted period of parking, which this was not. It cannot simply be added to the 30 minute consideration period that the Operator affords drivers on this site, in the way that the Appellant has done. The signage clearly sets out the terms and conditions that apply on this site and the Appellant has provided no adequate justification for remaining for 37 minutes without complying with those terms and conditions. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."
Any point in assessing their response to see if any points are incorrect and flawed?
Also what happens now, do i await the parking company to contact me again and I ignore? -
-
You were warned that the IAS is a corrupt arm of the same company that owns the IPC.
Yes, the supposed assessors response is riddled with errors you can bank for complaints and any later pre-action/court stage. Key faults:
1. Burden of proof inverted on “relevant land”
They say you had to prove the site is under statutory control. Wrong way round. The operator is asserting PoFA keeper liability; therefore the operator must prove the land is “relevant” (not excluded). The adjudicator accepted bare assertions (“not under statutory control/no TRO”) with zero primary evidence (title, delegation, byelaws/policy position). That’s a material error of law/principle.
2. Keeper liability accepted without strict PoFA proof
They don’t cite or analyse the NtK line-by-line against Schedule 4 para 9. No findings on: period of parking (vs entry/exit), creditor identity, mandatory invitation/warning wording, service within the relevant period with proof of posting (not generation). They simply declare compliance. That’s inadequate reasoning and contrary to the “strict compliance” test.
3. 30-minute allowance mischaracterised as “consideration” to dodge the 10-minute grace
They state the 10-minute grace only applies to a “permitted period of parking” and claim your 30 minutes is just “consideration”. That’s a factual/legal misstep. The site’s own regime describes a 30-minute drop-off/collection allowance—a permitted stay, not pre-contract browsing. If it’s permitted time, the PPSCoP 5.2 grace applies (unless the site is a true ≤30-minute “short stay area,” which this isn’t). Their entire dismissal hinges on that relabelling.
4. “Short stay area” carve-out never established
They rely on “no grace because not a permitted period,” but don’t find (with evidence) that this location is a Note-2 short-stay site (global max ≤30 minutes). The operator’s own model allows much longer Sippi/e-permit stays. Without a finding that this is universally capped at ≤30 minutes, the carve-out can’t apply.
5. Landowner authority waved through on assertions
They make a conclusory finding that the operator has authority, while the operator refused to exhibit the agreement (or PPSCoP s14 minimums). Accepting “secret” or non-exhibited authority is procedurally weak and contrary to the Code’s requirement to evidence landowner authority (albeit redactions allowed for sensitivities).
6. Signage: no analysis of entrance prominence/onerous term
They state signage is “sufficient” without addressing whether the onerous requirement to go inside to kiosks or use a beacon/app was clearly and prominently communicated at the point of entry (and whether the charge was prominent). “Sufficient” is conclusory; it doesn’t grapple with the Beavis prominence test for unusual/onerous terms.
7. ANPR ≠ parking period; no continuity finding
They equate perimeter timestamps to a proved contravention, ignoring that ANPR does not record a period of parking (PoFA language) and that the alleged 37 minutes is within 30-plus-grace if the 30 minutes is a concession (as above). The decision sidesteps that logic error by re-labelling the concession.
8. Debt-recovery escalation during ADR ignored
You evidenced a DRA letter dated 29/09 while IAS was live. The decision takes no account of prejudicial escalation during ADR—useful for IPC complaint / later conduct arguments (unreasonable behaviour).
The decision. It’s not binding on you. In the meantime,e ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
If they later send a Letter of Claim (LoC), we will deal with that. Still waiting for a response to the FoI and the councils view on the status of the land. -
-
Stick with it as regards fighting this one, the advice on here is spot on and if followed will be successful in this case. It’s important to hold your nerve, it can seem scary and it certainly isn’t a quick process but it will be successful in the end.
We all have to fight back against the parking scum and their pet debt collectors and legal wannabes- you’re in the right place to do so.
Put them through all the hoops until they finally give up and with the help of this forum, look for and exploit any opportunity to complain, maybe even seek compensation for any illegal actions, the support will be there if you have the will to see it through.
I’ve helped a couple of people using advice on here and have a couple ongoing currently, steel yourself and join the fight back.
-
Agree x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List