Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Issued with PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
owens_2k
Hi,

I was referred to this site by a friend of mine who gave it rave reviews.

Basically I received the attached PCN having parked my car in a so-called permitted zone. The car park where I parked my vehicle has no signs at the entrance to it and also no signs where I parked my car. I have since been back to the location to confirm that there are signs but not near to where I parked. The only way I could have seen the signs in question would have been to drive PAST where I parked, seen the signs, turned around and parked.

I took pictures and submitted them to the PCN issuer as evidence and they rejected my appeal. I am now appealing to the IAS and submitting any evidence to them however they state

"(The adjudicator will only consider the appeal based on the legality of the charge and is not able to consider mitigating circumstances). "

So I am looking for some help with regards as to what I can use as the basis of my appeal

Any help greatly appreciated.


ManxRed
OK, to be brutally honest, although your case is particularly strong, the IAS appeals service is actually a sham, and they will reject pretty much regardless of what you submit.

However, in the very unlikely event that VCS would choose to bring a court claim against you then you could use the IAS's rejection of your appeal (and they WILL reject it!) as evidence of their unreasonable behaviour. YOu could even make life sticky for them should you make demands of them to release details of the assessor's identity, something they blankly refuse to do, but which wouldn't impress a court.

Your grounds of appeal - regarding the lack of signs between the entrance and where you parked, and any journey on foot from your car, back to the pedestrian exit/destination means that no contract was formed between the driver and VCS, and as such no contract was in place to be agreed to or breached. The signs have to be prominently displayed so that any reasonable person would be able to see them and read the terms, which should be stated clearly, before deciding whether to accept the terms, or reject them (and leave).

Another point is that - despite the fact that they will try and claim you have agreed to paying a contractual charge - the ticket states that the contravention is failing to display a valid ticket/permit. You cannot contractually agree to do something which is forbidden, and hence this 'contravention' is actually a breach of contracted terms, rather than a service charge. Therefore, the sum demanded - as per Contract Law - must represent a sum for remedy of the breach, such that the breached party is returned to the state they were in prior to the breach.

What this means is that the charge must compensate them for their financial loss, AND NO MORE.

In this case, if you didn't buy a ticket, and the ticket was (say) £3, then you owe them £3 plus a reasonable amount for admin for them pursuing this. If the car park was free then you owe them nothing, not even the admin (which they would have generated as a result of chasing an initial loss of zero).

You need to put them to proof that - using the argument above that this is a breach, and not an agreed contractual service - their charge of £100 represents a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. It doesn't, of course, but I'm sure they'll use some weasel words to reject this assertion. They will most likely simply state that the sum is in relation to an agreed contractual charge, which - as I've pointed out - it isn't.

All useful stuff to show to a judge later, although they may be reluctant to try knowing you have their nonsense in writing and are willing to show it. They'll just hope you accept their rejection of your appeal and simply pay up.
nosferatu1001
The IAS are no such thing - they are demonstrably NOT independent.

The lack of signage is a legal point, as signs are the only elements that could convey a contract. However, even if you prove, beyond doubt, that the signage is totally inadequate than the IAS are still likely to reject you. Because it's s scam.

Opinion differs on the merits of appealing to the IAS on here. Personally I wouldn't, as it is proven to be a waste of everyone's time.
owens_2k
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 25 Mar 2015 - 14:58) *
OK, to be brutally honest, although your case is particularly strong, the IAS appeals service is actually a sham, and they will reject pretty much regardless of what you submit.

However, in the very unlikely event that VCS would choose to bring a court claim against you then you could use the IAS's rejection of your appeal (and they WILL reject it!) as evidence of their unreasonable behaviour. YOu could even make life sticky for them should you make demands of them to release details of the assessor's identity, something they blankly refuse to do, but which wouldn't impress a court.

Your grounds of appeal - regarding the lack of signs between the entrance and where you parked, and any journey on foot from your car, back to the pedestrian exit/destination means that no contract was formed between the driver and VCS, and as such no contract was in place to be agreed to or breached. The signs have to be prominently displayed so that any reasonable person would be able to see them and read the terms, which should be stated clearly, before deciding whether to accept the terms, or reject them (and leave).

Another point is that - despite the fact that they will try and claim you have agreed to paying a contractual charge - the ticket states that the contravention is failing to display a valid ticket/permit. You cannot contractually agree to do something which is forbidden, and hence this 'contravention' is actually a breach of contracted terms, rather than a service charge. Therefore, the sum demanded - as per Contract Law - must represent a sum for remedy of the breach, such that the breached party is returned to the state they were in prior to the breach.

What this means is that the charge must compensate them for their financial loss, AND NO MORE.

In this case, if you didn't buy a ticket, and the ticket was (say) £3, then you owe them £3 plus a reasonable amount for admin for them pursuing this. If the car park was free then you owe them nothing, not even the admin (which they would have generated as a result of chasing an initial loss of zero).

You need to put them to proof that - using the argument above that this is a breach, and not an agreed contractual service - their charge of £100 represents a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. It doesn't, of course, but I'm sure they'll use some weasel words to reject this assertion. They will most likely simply state that the sum is in relation to an agreed contractual charge, which - as I've pointed out - it isn't.

All useful stuff to show to a judge later, although they may be reluctant to try knowing you have their nonsense in writing and are willing to show it. They'll just hope you accept their rejection of your appeal and simply pay up.

Wow. Thank you so much for that breakdown and prompt reply! I will use everything I can in my appeal to the IAS!

A few questions though. What is the VCS? And following a rejection from the IAS what is my next port of call?
nosferatu1001
Vehicle Control Services are VCS

There is none, for you. They have to take you to court in order to enforce this, which VCS aren't known for doing.
ManxRed
The IAS decision should be binding on VCS, but not you. So you can still choose to ignore them even if (when) your appeal is rejected.

VCS aren't known for court, and would be reluctant to bring a claim, backed up by a sham appeal decision in which they refuse to name the person who did the appeal, and in which they refute basic contract law by trying to dress this up as something it clearly isn't. They'd look silly, basically.
owens_2k
So following a rejection from IAS I should just ignore any other letter I receive?
nosferatu1001
No, you ignore anything Except something claiming to be a letter before action (or similar wording) which states legal action WILL commence , OR real, stamped court papers.
owens_2k
Put this as my cover letter, any amendments greatly appreciated or any errors I have included! I got bits from here there and everywhere.

QUOTE
I am contesting this parking charge as there were no signs in the area where I parked to indicate that this is a permitted parking zone. Lack of signs between the entrance and where I parked, and the journey on foot from my car, back to the pedestrian exit/destination means that no contract was formed between myself and VCS, and as such no contract was in place to be agreed to or breached. I have provided photographs of my vehicle when it was issued with the PCN and as you can see there are no signs in the surrounding area, or entrance to the area stating that a permit was necessary. I am a law abiding citizen and if informed correctly that this was a permit only zone, I would not have parked there.
My vehicle was parked in the car park for Chelford House. I received a parking ticket for leaving my vehicle in a parking space without displaying a permit. The vehicle was parked inside the markings of the bay and was not causing any obstruction or inconvenience to any other vehicle or to the owners of the private land.

The PCN issued to me states that the contravention is failing to display a valid ticket/permit. As it is unlawful to contractually agree to do something which is forbidden, this 'contravention' is actually a breach of contracted terms, rather than a service charge. Therefore, the sum demanded - as per Contract Law - must represent a sum for remedy of the breach, such that the breached party is returned to the state they were in prior to the breach. It is completely free for anyone to park on that premises as long as they have a valid permit, therefore there is absolutely no obligation or liability for anyone (including myself) to pay parking charges, and subsequently there has been absolutely no loss suffered by the parking ticketing company.

In addition to the last point I would like to point out that any charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass.

It is my view that as there are no unpaid charges then the notice of £100.00 is completely excessive and unreasonable and does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as clearly there has been absolutely no loss suffered from me parking. I find the offer of a reduced fine in breach of European legislation as this essentially constitutes a "price escalation clause".


Finally, I would like to point out that the private parking company has to establish that they have a sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the private paying company has a proprietary interest in the land they are not able to offer contracts for parking. This is a binding decision and therefore, given that the private parking company in this case has no interest in the land, I believe that I would be successful in arguing this appeal in court.
I would like to request from IAS the identity of the assessors involved in this case.

I trust all of the above demonstrates that the parking charge notice should not be allowed and I look forward to hearing from you in due course to that effect.
nosferatu1001
Requesting the identity is IF VCS take you to court. Not needed before.

Personally number your individual arguments, and summarise the argument in the opening paragraph
remember, you're not writing this for the benefit of the IAS, but for the courts.
owens_2k
Think I broke it down a bit better this time

QUOTE
I am contesting this parking charge as there were no signs upon entrance to the car park, or the immediate area of the car park where my car was parked to indicate that this is a permitted parking zone. Any signs should be displayed appropriately and made easily visible to motorists. My vehicle was parked in the car park for Chelford House and I received a parking ticket for leaving my vehicle in a parking space without displaying a permit. The vehicle was parked inside the markings of the bay and was not causing any obstruction or inconvenience to any other vehicle or to the owners of the private land.

1. Firstly I would like to detail that the lack of signs between the car park entrance, where I parked, and the journey on foot from my car, back to the pedestrian exit means that no contract was formed between myself and VCS, and as such no contract was in place to be agreed to or breached. I have provided photographs of my vehicle when it was issued with the PCN and as you can see there are no signs in the surrounding area, or entrance to the area. I am a law abiding citizen and if informed correctly that this was a permit only zone, I would not have parked there.

2. The PCN issued to me states that the contravention is failing to display a valid ticket/permit. As I cant contractually agree to do something which is forbidden, this 'contravention' is actually a breach of contracted terms, rather than a service charge. Therefore, the sum demanded - as per Contract Law - must represent a sum for remedy of the breach, such that the breached party is returned to the state they were in prior to the breach.

3. It is completely free for anyone to park on that premises as long as they have a valid permit, therefore there is absolutely no obligation or liability for anyone (including myself) to pay parking charges, and subsequently there has been absolutely no loss suffered by the parking ticketing company. I would like to point out that any charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass.

4. As there are no unpaid charges then the notice of £100.00 is completely excessive and unreasonable and does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as clearly there has been absolutely no loss suffered from me parking. I find the offer of a reduced fine in breach of European legislation as this essentially constitutes a "price escalation clause".

5. Finally, I would like to point out that the private parking company has to establish that they have a sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the private paying company has a proprietary interest in the land, they are not able to offer contracts for parking. This is a binding decision and therefore, given that the private parking company in this case has no interest in the land, I believe that I would be successful in arguing this appeal in court.

I trust all of the above demonstrates that the parking charge notice should not be allowed and I look forward to hearing from you in due course to that effect.


I'm not certain on point 5 as I obtained that info from somewhere else.
owens_2k
QUOTE
Thank you for your recent appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

We have received the outcome of your appeal and the IAS can inform you that your appeal has been successful. This means that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has cancelled the ticket with the details below:


Thank you to all that helped.
numanoids
Any chance you can post more of the details of their findings? Its vey rare that IAS actually find in favour so I'm curious to see the actual content of their 'findings'. Obviously redact any information thats personally identifiable.
The Rookie
I'm guessing in the case where you can prove inadequate signage to form a contract the IAS will accept as then they can say 'of course we are real, we do accept some appeals'!

I think that's all the response you get back from the IAS, they wouldn't want to encourage people to follow a successful formula!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.