PCN G24 IAS Appeal dismissed

[hackster]

Hello all

 

I recently received a parking charge notice from G24. I had recently had one from parking eye where by browsing these forums I was not the driver on either occasion and was able to understand how to appeal to them at the stage I was at and was successful overturned within days.

 

I made the mistake of thinking the same process would work this time and my appeal was rejected. I was invited to appeal to the IAS and conducted my appeal based on their code of practice. They seemed reputable and that the charge was groundless as there own code of practice was in my opinion not adhered to.

 

I have received an email today that this appeal has been dismissed with the below response:

 

Dear xxxxxxx,

 

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details.

 

Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxxx

Date Issued: 19/08/2015

 

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

 

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

 

"It is important that the appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give 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 the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.

 

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am also only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.

 

On considering images provided it is clear that sufficient amounts of signage existed on the site at the time of issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The Operator shows evidence that the maximum amount of time allowed is 120 minutes and that the Appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of 152 minutes. As it appears to be accepted that the Appellant was on site in excess of the maximum parking period I am satisfied that the PCN has a basis in law.

 

Various documents have been provided by both the Operator and the Appellant, all of which I have considered. I am satisfied to the required standard that the signage on site complies with currently regulations. I am satisfied that the Appellant has been made reasonably aware of the terms contained within these signs. The Operator is able to show their signage at the entrance and throughout the site. By staying on the site for longer than the 120 minute maximum period the Appellant agreed to pay a charge.

 

The Appellant queries the level of the charge. The Operator does not pursue the Parking Charge following a breach of contract. The Parking Charge has been issued pursuant to a specific contractual term and therefore the question of loss is not a relevant consideration for this appeal.

 

In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards.

 

For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

 

I note the Appellant’s comments regarding the driver of the vehicle at the time of issue however it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the te rms of parking are complied with and whilst sympathizing with the Appellant, 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.

 

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

 

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

 

IMPORTANT:

The following information relates to appeals which were submitted on or after the 1st April 2015:

 

If you wish to view the evidence that was relied upon by the operator then you may log back into the IAS system and view it, but by doing so you agree to the following terms:

 

You agree that the operator’s evidence, including any comments, documents or photo’s are made available to you in strict confidence. YOU MUST NOT DUPLICATE, PUBLISH, SHARE OR REPRODUCE THE INFORMATION IN ANY WAY without the prior written permission of the parking operator. Without prejudice to any other right arising from breach of this agreement, you agree to indemnify the parking operator and the Independent Parking Committee Limited in respect of any costs or other expenses howsoever caused for any breach, by you or any others with whom you provide this information, of this confidentiality agreement. You can log in at http://www.theIAS.org by entering your email address and the password that you created when you first registered the appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

The Independent Appeals Service

 

 

Independent Appeals Service

4 The Stables

Red Cow Yard

Knutsford

Cheshire

WA16 6DG

 

w: http://www.theias.org

e: [email protected]

 

The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of the Independent Parking Committee Limited, Registered address: 4 The Stables Red Cow Yard, Knutsford Cheshire, WA16 6DG. Registered in England and Wales (08248531).

 

The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this email transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith.

 

The Independent Appeals Service does not accept service of documents by email.

 

 

Any advice anybody can provide about how to proceed with this would be appreciated. I have attached my initial appeal to G24 and the one I sent to IAS I also have good photos of the car park etc.

 

Can anyone advise whether or not credit reports etc can be affected by these fines?

[hackster]

photos of the car park if required

[hackster]

two more

[armadillo71]

I can't see who G24 say they are pursuing for this charge?

 

The IAS adjudicator normally/sometimes(?) States who the PPC is chasing...

[honeybee13]

Can anyone advise whether or not credit reports etc can be affected by these fines?

 

Highly unlikely. It's not a fine, only a court can levy that. G24 would have to go to court and win, which I don't think the guys here would think is a possibility. Even then, a court would have to find that you owed something and then if you didn't pay it, then it might be a problem for you.

 

HB

[hackster]

I can't see who G24 say they are pursuing for this charge?

 

The IAS adjudicator normally/sometimes(?) States who the PPC is chasing...

 

The original letter from g24 states they are pursuing me the registered keeper. I missed the details of to protect my identity.

[armadillo71]

The original letter from g24 states they are pursuing me the registered keeper. I missed the details of to protect my identity.

 

 

 

Where in the IAS adjudicators decision does it say that the RK is liable for the charge?

 

 

Post up redacted copies of further correspondence received, but I suspect you will now be in the debt collector chain....

[ericsbrother]

Well for starters the IAS have got the burden of proof arse about face, it is for the parking co to prove their case so that wont go down well if this is used as evidence of proper procedure. secondly, the signage says that the charge is for a breach of the conditions so it is not a contractual charge but a claim for damages due to a breach of contract. They are an utter shower and have completelt destroyed the chances of the parking co now getting a penny legally. As you can imagine, \i am gutted for them.

What to do next? Absolutely nothing. Make them waste their money chasing you. Do not contact either organisation again. I suspect that you will get a reminder letter followed by demands from eithe Gladstones or Miah solicitors that you pay up or they will be taking action on behalf of their clients. In this circumstance they are acting as debt collectors and have no brief as yet to go any further. Gladstones are the IAS so there is a massive conflict of interest and whilst they do take peopel to court they lose big time. this generates fortunes for them in fees but loses the parking co the said same money and more and so you will find a lot of disgruntled parking co's now avoiding Gladstones when it comes to pressing their claim.

If you do start to get demands from Gladstones or any other solicitor then you must write back and deny that any money is owed becuse of the error in law they have adopted as their position and thus they are doomed to fail in any action and will incur your defence costs for their client. Copy this to the parking co and it will be the last you hear.

[ericsbrother]

No, it cannot affect your credit report as you didnt sign a credit agreement when you entered the land.

[Sidewinder]

In the photo you have posted of the signage, there is no indication as to how many minutes 'free parking'?

 

How does the IAS believe that is sufficient to bind any party to a contract?

[Conniff]

The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract

 

Which means they can only claim damages and must show in detail how they have suffered loss. If they can do that, they can only claim the amount of the losses and anything extra is a penalty added on so not legal.

[ericsbrother]

Are you bound by the law of contract? As a concept yes but there is no contractual obligation in this case. There can be no claim for damages for breaching a contract that doesnt exist as the signage makes it clear that their claim is for a breach, not a contractual obligation.

That is why we love the IPC they are so stupid they hurt their own members with their "independent" appeals service and help the motorist with their twaddle.