Sussex Security Solutions T/A Parking Enforcement **WON AT IAS**

[Sidewinder]

Received an email from a friend earlier detailing another success against a PPC at appeal - this time with the IAS rather than POPLA

 

The young lady in question parked in a residential car park managed by Sussex Security Solutions trading as Parking Enforcement. Received a ticket for £100 (reduced to £60 blah blah blah) for a 'breach of terms and conditions meaning that a contractual fee was now due' (parked in a contractor bay due to building work temporarily removing all of the legitimate spaces).

 

Appealed to the PPC at an early stage and (unsurprisingly) this was rejected - rejection letter was mumbo jumbo and insisted that the contractual amount was payable, no GPEOL was required as the PPC was managing the car park in line with their contract with the landowner, which was a service at no cost to the landowner and that the contractual payment contributed to the costs of managing the business and running the parking service.

 

Two types of signs in the car park - one by where the vehicle was parked stated 'Contractors Only' but had no warning of any payment being claimed in the event of a breach, and others elsewhere did notify of a contractual payment being due in the event of a breach. Incredibly the signs also claimed AOS as a BPA Approved Operator despite them having ditched the BPA in favour of IPC several months ago!

 

The driver received the IAS code for independent appeal along with the initial rejection so put forward a case based on

 

1. Inadequate signage - PPC had claimed a contractual payment but stated a breach on the ticket. Insufficient detail on teh contractor bay sign to form a contract and even the ones elsewhere (which had not been seen due to the font size and height) were insufficiently detailed to form a binding contract.

2. PPC had claimed that no GPEOL was required, but the appellant held that GPEOL was crucial in this case as a payment on a breach must be deemed a penalty in the absence of GPEOL as this was the basis of the ticket wording and the signage.

3. The PPC had not provided more than vague details of the contract with the landowner and the appellant was unable to adequately assess whether the PPC had lawful authority to issue tickets in their own name or to enforce those tickets.

4. The PPC was falsely and misleadingly claiming membership of a trade body (the BPA)

 

IAS considered the case and responded within just three days that the appeal was upheld and the ticket would be cancelled.

 

The grounds were that on the first point - the inadequate signage was insufficient to bind the appellant to a contractual obligation - as the signs stating a 'contractual payment' would become due only said that a payment 'MAY' be payable, this was insufficient and therefore the appeal must succeed.

 

Annoyingly for the appellant the adjudicator stated that there was no need to rule on the other grounds as the first was successful in itself, but nevertheless the win was sufficient.

 

No doubt Parking Enforcement will be replacing the signs as quickly as possible, however the appellant has already notified Trading Standards of the misleading claim of BPA membership on the signs and is asking questions of the local authority as to whether the property is subject to business rates - after all, by their own admission, the PPC is given a free hand to run their business independently of the landowner and is charging amounts in excess of any GPEOL and is therefore presumably generating some amount of profit in the process!

[armadillo71]

'breach of terms and conditions meaning that a contractual fee was now due'

 

 

It can't be both..

The appeal was from the driver to a windscreen ticket then?

[Old Snowy]

Dare I say it? I am impressed by the response time from the IAS although that probably proves how little they have to do. Do we have the name of the assessor?

[Sidewinder]

'breach of terms and conditions meaning that a contractual fee was now due'

 

 

It can't be both..

The appeal was from the driver to a windscreen ticket then?

 

Precisely - the appellant argued that the PPC could not have it both ways and if issued for a breach then GPEOL was required no matter how loudly the PPC stated that it was not!

 

Unfortunately this point was not tested as the adjudicator ruled on the primary ground in that the signage was insufficient to form a binding contract in any case.

 

Yes it was a driver (and also she was the RK) appeal at an early stage so that the PPC could not even claim to have incurred costs associated with a DVLA enquiry hence no loss whatsoever.

[Sidewinder]

Dare I say it? I am impressed by the response time from the IAS although that probably proves how little they have to do. Do we have the name of the assessor?

 

I was surprised too. Apparently the IAS appeal was sent Thursday 20th and the decision was dated Sunday 23rd

 

No adjudicator name, just a summary of the decision

 

It does seem that they are far less bogged down than POPLA!

[Old Snowy]

Thanks SW

 

The IPC/IAS trumpet the fact that they use "independent" solicitors and/or barristers but how is the public to be assured that that is the case if the assessor remains anonymous? This appeal also highlights the fact that despite the IPC making much noise about how it views "GPEOL" as not being the model to follow, its members clearly think otherwise.