PCN from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd Options

[Snowynight]

Hi,

Please see the photos of the PCN from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd (for Parked without clearly displaying a valid PCM UK Ltd permit) and the location (see the attached image from Google map). The sign is sort of hidden as it's small, behind the trees and on the wall of a building (circled in red in the Google map image). There's also grass between the building and road. One has to walk very close to the notice and read it. The car was parked where the one circled in yellow (as in the Google map image) is.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4141996,-0....6384!8i8192

We haven't dealt with a private parking charge for a long time. How should we appeal and what's the process?

Thanks very much in advance!

[Advertisement]

[hcandersen]

Someone's fighting a crusade..!

I have noted how few times the IAS find in favour of the motorist. As PCM have breached the IPC Code of Practice twice should my appeal be rejected I will be strongly complaining to the SRA, the ICO, Trading Standards, my MP, the Press and the Court at the complete bias in favour of the IPC shown by the IAS. My hope will be that at least one of those organisations will look at the disgracefully low successes for motorists that an inquiry will be launched to investigate whether the IAS is fit for its purpose.

Hardly the way to start an appeal by slagging-off and casting aspersions upon the integrity of the assessor. The creditor is the bully, not the motorist, so don't act like one with such threats.

If anyone feels that there is 'complete bias in favour of the IPC shown by the IAS.' and that there is are 'disgracefully low successes for motorists' coupled with a pre-determined position 'that an inquiry will be launched to investigate whether the IAS is fit for its purpose.' then I suggest that this complaint is pursued now independent of this case. After all, if there is such a body of evidence in support, then the result of one more is a drop in the ocean.

OP, you have enough IMO if you approach the issue step-by-step, literally.

Walk the route, take a video, talk them through it, cross-refer to the Schedule and IPC's CoP and once you've dealt with the non-existent entrance signs switch to the detailed terms and conditions, the nearest being ** metres away and unreadable from the car park without any way of the motorist reading without leaving the car park, then walk up to it and show that it's still unreadable from the nearest piece of hardstanding and then go closer to read and even if it's possible show that the motorist has to be standing on grass which is private property totally unrelated to the issue of car parking to make the sign readable.
And do it with a constant tone, you're taking the assessor on a journey. No anger, undue emphasis or emotion, just facts and an exercise in comparing and contrasting.

[DWMB2]

No anger, undue emphasis or emotion, just facts

That would be my suggested approach. Anything else at this stage risks serving as a distraction from what is a strong case.

[Snowynight]

Thanks again everyone! And interesting debate on the "threats" to the IAS!

I plan to still appeal to them by tomorrow (21 days). I think I'll state that PCM failed to respond to my points in my appeal and re-stress the points (mainly no entrance signs and the one and only sign practically hidden). I'll use the photos taken from the day of PCN when the leaves were still there plus some GSV images, as you may see in my previous reply that the trees without leaves did make the sign a bit easier to spot...

[Snowynight]

Submitted the appeal to IAS yesterday. One thing I found outrageous about the IAS portal is that I couldn't copy and paste to the Appeal box. And I drafted the appeal in a word document! Instead of retyping 1000 words, I just uploaded the appeal letter as a supporting doc and referenced it in the Appeal box.

Let's hear what IAS say...

[Snowynight]

Hi,

I received the Prima Facie Case from PCM (via IAS) today:

"
Case Summary
Site background:
Parking Control Management UK Ltd has been contracted by the Housing Association to manage the parking in this area by enforcing the parking restrictions. This has been in operation since the 22nd September 2009. This site is private land and is managed and operated by Parking Control Management. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued in accordance with this parking management scheme.

In April 2017, the decision was been made by the Housing Association to change the format of the parking restrictions throughout the estate. The following now applies:
All vehicles must park within a marked bay.
Parking enforcement will now be on a 24/7 basis 7 days per week (previously 7am-7pm)
All resident vehicles must always clearly display a valid registration corresponding permit
Visitor parking is controlled by a scratch card process. A valid scratch card will allow for 24hrs parking in all restricted areas of the estate. The number of scratch cards available per year is restricted to 30 per property. (previously standard visitor permit issued – valid for 365 days)

The contravention:
The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land on which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon review, the operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was correctly issued, in line with these signs.

On this occasion, the vehicle was parked without fully displaying a valid PCM resident permit or visitor scratch card within the windscreen.

The advertised contractual terms require a valid permit/scratch card be displayed at all times and that this permit is appropriate for the bay/area in which the vehicle was parked. This is clearly outlined by signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. If a driver is unsure they should seek further advice or refrain from parking. Signage additionaly advises that retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted; therefore claims or copies of permits provided at a later date cannot be considered.

Response to the appellant’s representation:
At the time of the contravention, the vehicle displayed a permit that was not issued by the operator. Signage makes it clear that Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd manage and operate on this site and that a valid permit is required. A permit issued by another company or local authority would not be accepted as valid.

The Appellant avers that the signage was not sufficient in bringing the terms to their attention. I have reviewed the signage on site and am confident that it is adequate and compliant throughout the parking area. Photographic evidence shows the vehicle to be parked in close proximity to an enforcement sign and the Signage Map provided below demonstrates ample additional signage. All signage and signage locations must be audited by the IPC; therefore, I am confident that signage is fully compliant with IPC guidelines and industry standards. The operator maintains that signage is clear and adequate throughout the parking area. If the driver parked in the evening, they entered the area & parked with headlights on. The signage is white which reflects any ambient light.

It is the motorist’s responsibility to first check for signage and park according to the advertised terms and conditions. If one chooses not to read the terms, they are deemed to have accepted them, as long as sufficient notice has been given. Otherwise, all drivers could simply refuse to read the signs and be exempt from the terms they entail. Further, it should be noted that it has not, nor has it ever been, a defence in contract law to say that one did not read the terms.

As can be seen in the date and time stamped enforcement photographs a grace period of 20 minutes was applied in this case. The operator would maintain that it is judicious to assume that a vehicle is parked without displaying a valid PCM permit after a reasonable grace period has elapsed.

"


I have until 14/12/22 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. How should I respond to the operator further? Or should I refer it straight to an Adjudicator instead?

I noticed the following -
"Photographic evidence shows the vehicle to be parked in close proximity to an enforcement sign and the Signage Map provided below demonstrates ample additional signage."

I believe their photo evidence is this one taken in winter 2019 below when tree leaves already fell off though.. The tree with leaves on does make a big difference. There are other images but all for other sites.



Signage Map:
They said "ample additional signage", but for the small car park on Hayward Close there's clearly only 1 sign.



They claimed:
"All signage and signage locations must be audited by the IPC; therefore, I am confident that signage is fully compliant with IPC guidelines and industry standards."
Is it true?

"If the driver parked in the evening, they entered the area & parked with headlights on. The signage is white which reflects any ambient light."
Weak statement to me. And the vehicle was reversed into the car park and no white reflective sign was noticed at all.

[aquestion]

I appear to have ruffled a few feathers when advising to go in hard against the IAS

No anger, undue emphasis or emotion, just facts

That would be my suggested approach. Anything else at this stage risks serving as a distraction from what is a strong case.

"No anger, undue emotion .......". And how has that worked when appealing to the IAS?

"Integrity of the Assessor". No sniggering at the back! Have you read some of their decisions?

"Someone is on a crusade". No I am not. I am suggesting a different approach to point out to the IAS that the Appellant knows what a scummy bunch they are and put them on a warning. Now it still may fail but at least Snowy night has gone down fighting.

If you are looking at crusades how about this one from Coupon Mad. "Everyone should be complaining to the DVLA about this ATA and their not transparent, unfair IAS." That was back in December 2014.
"
And the Parking Prankster has had a few goes at the inequity with IAS rulings. "Is the IAS a kangaroo court"?
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...e-kangaroo.html

It's a pity you didn't post up your appeal before sending it off since PCM has done their usual trick of stretching the truth of the situation by not mentioning the number of signs but suggesting that the" signs are clear and adequate".

This post has been edited by aquestion: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 - 00:40

[aquestion]

you could point out that while there are many signs around to estate there is just one at the car park you parked which is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice Schedule 1 .

"Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise
the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist. "

There is no sign at the entrance and the one that does relate to the car park is placed too far away to be obvious. So motorists cannot be expected to read a sign that they did not see because of its distance from the car park and because it is obscured by a tree which had more leaves on it when you parked compared to the picture they showed as evidence. In any case the car was reversed into the spot and even if it had been driven into the parking place it is unlikely that the headlights would have picked out the sign being so far off centre of where your car was parked.

The sign has not been placed in close proximity to the car park and the font size is too small to be able to signify it is relates to the car park.

there are three different coloured crosses on the map and I cannot see what the are supposed to depict. If the blue ones represent where their signs are placed then the one at your car park is in the wrong place.

Did you stay there for twenty minutes? That's a failure on the NTD then since it does not show a parking period on the PCN which is a PoFA requirement. You as keeper cannot be held as owing them anything only the driver is liable.

You cannot read a sign when there is nothing within the car park or the entrance to indicate that there is a sign which says it is private land.

[Snowynight]

Thanks again @aquestion!

If I'm not mistaken, the 3 coloured crosses are for 3 different formats of signs. Yes, good spot, the blue cross within that car park seems to be in the wrong place as it should be on the building to the left of the car park rather than at the centre. I'll point out their error!

Yes, the vehicle was there for over 20 minutes.

So I suppose I should respond to the operator further before referring it to an Adjudicator?

I'll share my appeal to the IAS in the next post. I think I can still edit it by 14 Dec.

There is no sign at the entrance and the one that does relate to the car park is placed too far away to be obvious. So motorists cannot be expected to read a sign that they did not see because of its distance from the car park and because it is obscured by a tree which had more leaves on it when you parked compared to the picture they showed as evidence. In any case the car was reversed into the spot and even if it had been driven into the parking place it is unlikely that the headlights would have picked out the sign being so far off centre of where your car was parked.

The sign has not been placed in close proximity to the car park and the font size is too small to be able to signify it is relates to the car park.

there are three different coloured crosses on the map and I cannot see what the are supposed to depict. If the blue ones represent where their signs are placed then the one at your car park is in the wrong place.

Did you stay there for twenty minutes? That's a failure on the NTD then since it does not show a parking period on the PCN which is a PoFA requirement. You as keeper cannot be held as owing them anything only the driver is liable.

You cannot read a sign when there is nothing within the car park or the entrance to indicate that there is a sign which says it is private land.

This post has been edited by Snowynight: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 - 01:30

[Snowynight]

Here's my submitted appeal to the IAS. Note I think I can still edit it by 14 Dec. Please could you review and any suggestions are welcome.

"
Dear IAS,

In response to the PCN dated 20/10/2022 and the rejection by PCM dated 16/11/2022, I would like to formally appeal again. I read the rejection carefully and unfortunately PCM completely failed to respond to my points about the PCN being vague as regards the 'relevant land', no entrance signs displayed at the small car park and no prominent signage (the one and only sign being practically hidden). In fact, PCM have breached the IPC Code of Practice multiple times. Also, I am appealing not on grounds of mitigation but facts and evidence. The grounds of appeal with evidence are as follows:

1) PCM's first breach of the IPC Code of Practice is the complete lack of any Entrance sign to the car park. I have quoted below the Code of Practice statement on entrance signs-
"Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display prescribed entrance signs...." (see enclosed for the required form of sign).
https://theipc.info/brandings/2/resources/d...Practice_v8.pdf

"Entrance Signs should:
a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land;
b) refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and conditions.
Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a Car Park. Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist. "

Note that the majority of Hayward Close is public (adopted by Merton Council) and the car park (see HaywardClCarParkLocation.png for its approximate location circled in red) may be private but the boundary between it and the public land is not clear (see the enclosed Google Street View (GSV) image GSVCarParkWithoutClearBoundary.jpeg). I have also independently verified that no such entrance signs exist at the site at all, please see enclosed photo (CarParkNoEntranceSign1.jpeg) and GSV image (GSVCarParkNoEntranceSign2.jpeg).

HaywardClCarParkLocation.png –


GSVCarParkWithoutClearBoundary.jpeg -


CarParkNoEntranceSign1.jpeg –


GSVCarParkNoEntranceSign2.jpeg -



From my photos of the entrance to the car park there appears no reason why there should not be any signage advising that motorists are entering private land at the very least. Without that knowledge how are motorists to even look for signs within the car park if there are any restrictions on parking there. After all, there are far more car parks that don't have parking restrictions than do, particularly in small car parks such as this one.

2)
Another breach of the Code of Practice is that there is no prominent signage in the car park that would be obvious to the motorist.

Once in this car park there are no apparent signs anywhere in it that this is private land. It was not until I received the PCN that they showed a picture of the one sign, yes just the one sign in the whole car park and that was mostly obscured by trees. It is tiny and practically hidden, set some distance (about 25 feet) away from the parking spaces (i.e., the tiny one on the building behind the trees and green space). Please see the enclosed photos (CarParkNoObviousSign_SameNight1.jpeg and CarParkNoObviousSign_SameNight2.jpeg) taken shortly after the PCN was issued in the same night. The first photo showed that the sign was completely blocked by the tree, while the second one was taken from the left of the car parked in the left and it was still very difficult to spot there is a sign even with flash on. Also, at night there is no chance to read the text on the sign from distance. A motorist has to be standing right in front of the sign on grass which is private property totally unrelated to the issue of car parking to make the sign readable. There are not any other signs in or near the car park, as you can see nothing on the building front from the left (see GSV image GSVNoOtherSignOnBuildingLeft.jpeg). Even in the daylight, the sign is not obvious at all (see GSVCarParkNoObviousSign_daylight1.jpeg and GSVCarParkNoObviousSign_daylight2.jpeg)

CarParkNoObviousSign_SameNight1.jpeg –


CarParkNoObviousSign_SameNight2.jpeg -


GSVNoOtherSignOnBuildingLeft.jpeg –


GSVCarParkNoObviousSign_daylight1.jpeg –


GSVCarParkNoObviousSign_daylight2.jpeg –


Clearly this falls far short of the requirement stated above "Otherwise the signage within the Car Park must be such as to be obvious to the Motorist".
and
"The Operator must adequately display any signs intended to form the basis of contract between the Creditor and the Motorist.
Such signs must (in addition to the requirements above):
a. be in sufficient number so that they are clearly visible to Motorists on the Controlled Land;"

One and only sign about 25 feet from the car park, high up on a building which is obscured by trees is NOT adequate to comply with the IPC code of conduct nor as the basis of a contract. There are insufficient signs, and they are not clearly visible at all.

3)
The PCN Notice to Driver (NTD) is vague as regards the 'relevant land on which the vehicle was parked' in that it states 'High Path Estate' when in fact this encompasses both public (non-relevant) and private (potentially relevant) land, contrary to the requirements of paras. 6(1)(a) and 7(2) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted). The NTD is therefore void.

4)
The IPC make great play that Operators must comply with the Code since should they fail, the DVLA can refuse to provide keeper data. Indeed, they devote time to it as well as threatening sanctions for non-compliance. See below

"26 Compliance with the Code
26.1 Operators must comply with The Code e and with any requests from the IPC.
Failure to do so may result in the allocation of sanction points.
26.2 Serious breaches of The Code may result in suspension/expulsion from the
IPC."

The IPC also expect their members to exhibit professional standards such as
"27.3 Operators must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure Drivers into
incurring Parking Charges."

This Operator has no entrance signs and just one sign hidden inside the car park giving any first-time motorist to the carpark virtually no chance of knowing there were any signs there at all let alone being given a chance to read it. This is an excellent example of predatory tactics.


With all above grounds, therefore, I fully expect that such serious breaches of the Code must lead to the PCN being cancelled. Failure to do so will lead to a strong complaint to the DVLA as to why they are providing PCM with data when they are totally ignoring the Code of Practice which is a necessary factor in obtaining motorists data.

Yours sincerely,
xyz

"

[nosferatu1001]

A should is not a must. Failing to do a should is not a breach, as I, sure has been said.

[aquestion]

As Nosferatu1001 said "a should is not a must" and therefore not a breach. However where there is no Entrance sign under the Code then the IPC states that the signs

"a. be in sufficient number so that they are clearly visible to Motorists on the Controlled Land;" So signs-not just one. You have made no mention of the fact that PCM are claiming there is a sign down near the shed or garage and don't even bother to mention the one on the wall!. Perhaps they think it is too embarrassing to show. It would help if you provided a photo of where their missing sign is or if not possible saying that there is just one sign 25 feet away obscured by trees and there is definitely not a second one near the garage as all the relevant photos of the car park confirm.

Then mention that the NTD is not compliant as there is not a parking period mentioned. There should be a start and finish time to comply with PoFA Sch 4 S8 [2][a]. Stating that the period of parking is that which immediately precedes the time of issue. That means nothing since it could be anywhere between 10 seconds and three hours. And if 10 seconds it would come within the Consideration period so no breach occurred at that time which is the reason a specific time should be included to comply with the Act. Put them to strict proof that the car did stay longer than a minimum of 5 minutes. [If they can provide proof then it should have been included on the NTD so failed PoFA. If they cannot provide proof that the car stayed longer than 5 minutes the ticket should be cancelled. Why? Because the PCN states immediately preceding which infers a minute or two. IE within 5 minutes.] ]

Just above "Yours Sincerely" you could add "I understand that without exception all the Parking Forums refer to the IAS as a kangaroo court. As I believe I have a strong case for the PCN to be cancelled should that not happen, I will make a complaint to the ICO and inform the Press about the situation. And should this case go to Court I will reveal the reasons why you have failed to cancel the PCN as an example of how the Code of Practice as interpreted by the IAS differs from the Law of the land.

You should state at the beginning that it was your first visit to the car park and you had no idea that it was on private land and required a Permit. You did look inside the perimeter of the car park to check for signs but didn't see any. So you considered it safe to park since not only were there no signs around the car park but there was nothing at the entrance either to indicate this was private land. Had there been signs visible you would not have parked there.

This post has been edited by aquestion: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 - 15:26

[Snowynight]

Unfortunately my appeal was dismissed/ rejected by IAS, probably as expected given the 21% success rate. They have basically ignored all my points. Could you advise what is the process next and what I should do? Thanks!

From IAS:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site 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. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"
"
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 14 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
"

[Redx]

The next stages are

a) worthless debt collector letters, hamster bedding

B) a formal letter of claim from the claimant or their lawyers, within 6 years, giving 30 days notice, this needs to be dealt with at the time, promptly

c) a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton, MCOL, this also needs dealing with promptly

You are now awaiting the above, so like firemen waiting for a call out, meanwhile study this mse thread, to understand the process

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...-first-thankyou

[DWMB2]

This is the end of the appeals process... It is now a case of waiting to see if PCM take you to court. Ignore any letters from debt collectors, but come back here if you receive a Letter Before Claim.

[Snowynight]

Thanks guys!

An update: received the first debt collector letter - demanding to pay £170 in 14 days, which I will ignore for now.

[nosferatu1001]

Alwsys ignore debt collector garbage. It's pointless rubbish.

If you move you MUST inform the ppcs DPO.