Napier FCN parking in a disabled bay - claim form received

[southcoastguy]

I wonder if anyone can help?

 

I received a PCN for parking in a disable bay at a private residential underground car park.

 

I challenged this through both the appeal routes (parking operator and The IAS)

based mainly on lack of clear signage at the bay.

 

The ground markings are small and painted in red which were not visible while reversing in to the space

and not visible once parked.

 

There was a sign on a pillar however this was high up and to the side of the space and again not visible when reversing.

 

My argument is that signage should have been directly behind the space in keeping with signs at other disabled bays in the car park.

There was a perfectly pillar immediately behind the bay that a sign could have been attached to.

 

I believe the current signage is unsatisfactory and amounts to "predatory tactics". What are people's thoughts?

 

I also wonder what thoughts people have on on terms and conditions signage at the car park

stating that the parking operator is a member of the BPA and appeals are heard by POPLAR

when it transpires that they are not as they a new members of the IPC who use the IAS to hear appeals

 

Does this incorrect signage have any baring on the arguments I can make at Court?

[dx100uk]

can you fill this out please

 

 

oh and there no such thing as a disabled bay etc

on private land

purely tarmac graffiti..

[southcoastguy]

Fill what out?

[ericsbrother]

there is no legally accepted signage for disabled parking on private land in England

so it isnt surprising that you couldnt see something that doesnt actually exist.

 

Membership of the IPC is reserved for those who fail to reach the pretty low standards

expected for membership of the BPA so many of the dodgy companies have migrated to the IPC

but couldnt be bothered to obey the law and change their signage.

 

 

Nmae the company and we will see if there is any mileage in complaining (probably not)

or just waqting for them to demand their cash and then tell them where to go (most likely option)

 

Court is a very long way away and most parking co's want to avoid that as it shines a light

on their practices and usually they have no cause to make a claim in a legal sense.

Because of this you usually get a load of threatening letters

and then silence as they realise you arent going to believe them and pay up.

 

Give us the details of this event and the correspondence received and sent if you want more help in the meanwhile.

[Bazooka Boo]

As eric says, there won't be any court, they wouldn't want to risk being exposed for the dick turpins they are.

[dx100uk]

hello autolink not working..

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[armadillo71]

As already stated, name the PPC please.

 

I've never seen a BPA members sign that mentioned POPLA... So can you also post up the picture of that too as well?

 

While your at it,we may as well see your IAS appeal and their rejection.

 

All as a PDF please.

 

What you do now is ignore toothless debt collector letters and wait to see if you get an LBA, which must NOT be ignored.

[southcoastguy]

Many thanks for the encouraging words.

 

The parking company was Napier and I was issued the FCN on 1st March 2016.

I've attached the T@Cs () and Reminder Signs () that mention BPA and POPLA.

 

I've also attached a floor plan and some photos (my own and some used by the Napier during the appeal)

I've censored vehicle number plates for privacy.

The images can be seen in this attachment .

I believe the FCN is unfair but I do welcome thoughts/comments.

 

It transpires that Napier no longer fall under BPA/POPLA as of 29th February 2016

yet these signs are still on display which I believe is misleading.

 

 

The only people forthcoming with this information was the BPA

who advised that a 6 month period exists to make permanent changes to the signs

but that they had requested temporary covering be placed over reference to BPA and POPLA so as to not mislead the public.

 

 

The BPA recommended I contact Trading Standards which I have done and will follow up on the case reference with them in due course.

The IAS refused to comment during the appeal when I asked them why I was making an appeal to them

and not to POPLA as per the signs (not very transparent if you ask me).

 

 

The IAS have also refused to give me the name(s) of the ADR officials when I requested these.

I believe I am entitled to this information as stated in both

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/schedule/3/made

and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0063:0079:EN:PDF .

 

 

The IAS have also refused to answer why they will not consider mitigating circumstance

when government guidelines seems to suggest that they should

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf.

I plan to raise this with my local MP, The DVLA, Department for Transport and Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

 

Also it's probably worth mentioning that Napier submitted inaccurate evidence to The IAS in their initial submission

which I challenged in my appeal.

 

 

The attachment () was submitted by Napier as evidence of the entrance to the car park

(and I assume to show the blue signs etc so contract was made) but this is not the entrance to the parking facility,

this document () shows the actual entrance.

 

 

My submission was accompanied by a witness statement from the estate office staff

confirming the initial submission of evidence by Napier was false.

 

 

How can The IAS accept submission of false/inaccurate information?

I was specifically told by The IAS in their ruling that

"In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the law of contract and is only able to consider legal challenges

and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances."

 

I'm like a dog with a bone on this.

I hate injustice and unfair treatment.

I welcome any advice received.

Many thanks.

Napier T&Cs.pdf

Napier Reminder Notice.pdf

Entrance.pdf

Napier Entrance - 1st Submission.pdf

Parking Space.pdf

[armadillo71]

It's late now, and as I'm reading post #8 it is being edited...

 

What does the lease state about parking?

 

The last sentence of post #7 still applies. Unless it has been edited.

[dx100uk]

attachments are now sorted properly.

 

 

dx

[armadillo71]

It's late now, and as I'm reading post #8 it is being edited...

 

What does the lease state about parking?

 

The last sentence of post #7 still applies. Unless it has been edited.

 

And you haven't included your appeal or the IAS rejection text?

 

Also, has the driver been identified?

[silverfox1961]

Hi

Can you confirm that the signs at the car park in question have BPA on them. If so then they are stuffed. Ensure that you photograph as many signs as possible because the signs are non compliant.

 

EDIT:

Napier moved from the BPA to the IPC on the same day you got the ticket so they should have changed the signs beforehand

[southcoastguy]

Hi, yes all the signs in the car park state BPA and have the BPA logo and no mention of the IPC.

 

 

I've taken a lot of photos of the signs etc and I was informed by the BPA that Napier have 6 months to change the signs

(we're almost at the 3 month mark and there are no changes as of yet).

 

 

I was told that Napier should have (with immediate effect on 1st March) covered over reference to BPA and POPLA while waiting for new signs with the IPC logo to be made

so as to not misinform the public... at the time of writing this post this hasn't occurred either.

 

Unfortunately the driver has been identified as this was a requirement of completing the initial appeal,

 

 

I now realize I didn't have to volunteer this information and it would have made it harder for the company to get my details but ultimately they could still have obtained them just in a more roundabout way.

 

Am I allowed to share details of my appeal and their response in this forum?

The IAS rules state that I am unable to have discussions with anyone regarding the details?

Can they enforce that?

[renegadeimp]

IAS are talking through their behinds. You can pretty much ignore them, as they do not follow rules or regulation. THey are basically the self governed appeals body for every PPC that cant and wont follow the law.

[Bazooka Boo]

AFAIK, having given them the driver details, which they would never have been able to obtain, not even in a roundabout sort of way, they can now ignore PofFA, as they can take you to court.

 

All is not lost, just a shame that by doing what you thought was the right thing to do, you have fallen right into their trap, eric will be able to advise your next best course of action.

 

You can ignore IAS and their biased demands, share what the heck you like, expose them for the cowboys they are.

[ericsbrother]

Ignore everything that has gone on before

consider that you have yet to receive a demand from Napier

(for they will send you one when you dont pay them)

 

Send us piccies of the signage actually at the site

as they have a habit of submitting images of stock computer generated sinage that they wish to use but havent.

They have 6 months to change their signs so they may not be in trouble for not doing so

 

Did you pay the IAS a £15 fee for the appeal or did you use the free system?

We need to know this as the former is binding on you

and whatever you can show to beat their parking co claim is undone

by agreeing with this buch of bandits another contract for a kangaroo court.

 

 

If the latter no damage done by their witterings and you cbn set about defending their claim for moneys not due.

[southcoastguy]

It may be of interest for people here to know that Napier Parking Ltd transferred their membership from The BPA to The IPC as of midnight on 29th February 2016. As such they are no longer an accredited member of The BPA and not entitled to say so on signage nor indicate that POPLA are part of their appeals route etc.

 

I was initially informed by the BPA that Napier had 6 months to amend all signage yet this has not occurred 7 months later. Both The BPA and The IAS appear to be working collaboratively on extending this deadline so I contacted the Advertising Standards Agency who informed me that Napier appear to be in breach of the codes (consumer protection) and action will be taken; I was also advised that Trading Standards should be notified too and that the Competitions and Markets Authority would be interested in the arrangements.

 

It may or may not stand as a defense that any tickets issued during this time (as mine was) that they were issued with contract inclusive of an error (providing the signs have not been updated at the site of issue) however it hopefully will put some external pressure on this parking operator.

[southcoastguy]

Hello,

I'd like advice on a scenario in relation to additional fees of debt agencies added to a court claim...

 

A fixed charge amount for a ticket is set at £95.00 (with a reduced rate of £50.00 if paid in 14 days etc)

A driver appeals the charge to the parking operator and the external body (POPLA/IAS) and loses so the £95.00 amount is due

A driver still refuses to pay so a debt agency is used taking the costs up to £150.00

A driver still refuses to pay so court action commences

 

Can the court action pursue the full £150.00 even if it is obvious from the debt agency website that they operate a no-win no-fee service for the claimant? It is clear that money exchanges hands only if the payment of the debt is secured by the agency. If the agency fail to secure payment of £150.00 there is no additional cost to the claimant? If the parking operator has spent no additional money surely they can not claim for this?

 

What would a court defence on this be?

[dx100uk]

well they'll try it on yes.

 

 

anyhow

for us to be able to effectively help you

please fill this out:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[dx100uk]

is this your napier parking ticket

underground disabled bay?

[dx100uk]

you were already told this in post 12 of your other thread months ago

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465105-Napier-FCN-on-1st-March-2016-for-parking-in-a-disabled-bay

[southcoastguy]

Ah sorry. Couldn't find where that post was as the site here is not the easiest to navigate.

 

What I have learnt since that post is that Advertising Standards Agency were interested in the signage as it breaches their codes and advised that Trading Standards would also have an interest in incorrect logo use (particularly on the car Napier drive around). The BPA are offering an extension for Napier to amend signage until the end of the year (this appears to be a special arrangement made by their head of operations) and The IPC claim incorrect signage isn't any of their issue as the IP for the logo is owned by The BPA so pretty much washed there hand of it.

 

My thoughts are that considering the Terms and Conditions signage states inaccurate information then there is an error in the contract (which could be challenged under contract law). There is a possibility that the parking operator can be defeated on this and therefore any ticket issued when the signage is wrong would not be enforceable. It may not help my case (that occurred the day after the swap) but surely tickets being issued months after the change in circumstances should be thrown out by the courts and the parking operators forced to amend signage. (operators expect drivers to adhere to the rules so i feel so too should they).

[southcoastguy]

dx100uk ... found prior thread now thank you.

[dx100uk]

So all can be merged then..

Just a mo I'll go do it

[dx100uk]

OK can you get that link filled in then please

All threads merged now