DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39978--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The letter you've drafted provides a thorough argument for
disputing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). It clearly outlines
the deficiencies in signage at the location, referencing legal
standards and case law that support your claim that the parking
terms and conditions were not adequately communicated. To
further strengthen the letter, you might consider the following
adjustments:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Organize the Letter for Clarity:
>
> [indent]• Divide the letter into sections with headings, such
as:
>
> [indent]• Introduction: State the PCN details and the reason
for your appeal.
>
> • Signage Inadequacy: Describe the insufficient size, content,
and positioning of the signs.
>
> • Legal Grounds: Reference the Protection of Freedoms Act
(POFA) 2012, the BPA Code of Practice, the Consumer Rights Act
2015, and relevant case law.
>
> • Comparison to Case Law (Beavis): Explain why the current
case differs significantly from the Beavis case.
>
> • Request for Evidence: Challenge the operator to provide
proof of adequate signage.
>
> • Conclusion: Reiterate your request for the appeal to be
upheld and the charge dismissed.[/indent][/indent]
>
> 2. Add More Specific Details Where Possible:
>
> [indent]• Mention the exact location where the vehicle was
parked.
>
> • If you have photographs of the signage, describe them or
attach them as evidence.
>
> • Specify any other signs in the area that may have been
misleading or larger than the parking terms sign.[/indent]
>
> 3. Remove Any Redundant Content:
>
> [indent]• The points about the letter visibility and sign
design considerations, while relevant, could be streamlined to
emphasise how the font size and placement did not meet the
necessary standards.[/indent]
>
> Close with a Strong Statement:
>
> [indent]• Emphasise that due to these issues, the PCN is not
enforceable, and you respectfully request the cancellation of
the charge.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
A revised letter would be more concise but still cover all the
key points effectively.
#Post#: 39979--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: October 9, 2024, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A suggestion:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) – [PCN Number], Received
23/09/2024
>
> I write to dispute the above-referenced PCN on the grounds
that the signage at the location was inadequate to properly
inform the driver of the alleged terms and conditions. The signs
were neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all parking
spaces. There were no defined parking boundaries, nor sufficient
signage to indicate that the area was private land, as evidenced
by the photographs you provided.
>
> 1. Signage Inadequacy
>
> The signage at the site fails to meet the necessary standards
of visibility and clarity. The signs are sporadically placed and
often obscured, with the wording crowded and difficult to read.
The size of the lettering is insufficient to be legible from a
driver's seat, especially considering the £100 charge, which is
not prominently displayed. The signs are positioned high up on
poles or walls, making the terms less readable due to the angle
and distance.
>
> 2. Legal Grounds
>
> Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, 'adequate
notice' of the parking charge must be given. This requires
displaying notices that clearly specify the charge and are
visible enough to bring the terms to the attention of drivers.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice similarly
demands that signage be clear and legible, with the parking
charge displayed prominently.
>
> Furthermore, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms
in consumer contracts are expressed in plain and intelligible
language and are legible. The signs at this site do not meet
these standards.
>
> 3. Comparison to the Beavis Case
>
> The Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)
turned on the fact that the signage in that case was unusually
clear, with the £85 charge in large, legible font against a
contrasting background. The present case, by contrast, involves
signs that are neither of similar size nor clarity, with the
terms hidden in small print. Thus, the Beavis case is not
applicable here.
>
> 4. Request for Evidence
>
> I put the operator to strict proof regarding the following:
>
> [indent]• The font size and style of the signage wording,
particularly the most onerous term (the parking charge).
>
> • The exact locations and number of signs required for a
driver to fully comprehend the parking terms.
>
> • Evidence demonstrating that the parking charge and terms
were clearly displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of
Practice.[/indent]
>
> 5. Relevant Case Law
>
> In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], it was
established that if signage is not visible, a driver cannot be
deemed to have entered into a contract. The lack of clear and
adequate signage at this site mirrors the circumstances in Vine,
further supporting my claim that no contractual agreement was
established.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Considering the above points, I respectfully request that my
appeal is upheld, and the PCN is cancelled. The signage was
insufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention
of the driver, and thus, the charge is unenforceable.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 39988--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 9, 2024, 8:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A suggestion:
>
> [quote]Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) – [PCN Number], Received
23/09/2024
>
> I write to dispute the above-referenced PCN on the grounds
that the signage at the location was inadequate to properly
inform the driver of the alleged terms and conditions. The signs
were neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all parking
spaces. There were no defined parking boundaries, nor sufficient
signage to indicate that the area was private land, as evidenced
by the photographs you provided.
>
> 1. Signage Inadequacy
>
> The signage at the site fails to meet the necessary standards
of visibility and clarity. The signs are sporadically placed and
often obscured, with the wording crowded and difficult to read.
The size of the lettering is insufficient to be legible from a
driver's seat, especially considering the £100 charge, which is
not prominently displayed. The signs are positioned high up on
poles or walls, making the terms less readable due to the angle
and distance.
>
> 2. Legal Grounds
>
> Under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, 'adequate
notice' of the parking charge must be given. This requires
displaying notices that clearly specify the charge and are
visible enough to bring the terms to the attention of drivers.
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice similarly
demands that signage be clear and legible, with the parking
charge displayed prominently.
>
> Furthermore, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms
in consumer contracts are expressed in plain and intelligible
language and are legible. The signs at this site do not meet
these standards.
>
> 3. Comparison to the Beavis Case
>
> The Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015)
turned on the fact that the signage in that case was unusually
clear, with the £85 charge in large, legible font against a
contrasting background. The present case, by contrast, involves
signs that are neither of similar size nor clarity, with the
terms hidden in small print. Thus, the Beavis case is not
applicable here.
>
> 4. Request for Evidence
>
> I put the operator to strict proof regarding the following:
>
> [indent]• The font size and style of the signage wording,
particularly the most onerous term (the parking charge).
>
> • The exact locations and number of signs required for a
driver to fully comprehend the parking terms.
>
> • Evidence demonstrating that the parking charge and terms
were clearly displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of
Practice.[/indent]
>
> 5. Relevant Case Law
>
> In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000], it was
established that if signage is not visible, a driver cannot be
deemed to have entered into a contract. The lack of clear and
adequate signage at this site mirrors the circumstances in Vine,
further supporting my claim that no contractual agreement was
established.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Considering the above points, I respectfully request that my
appeal is upheld, and the PCN is cancelled. The signage was
insufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention
of the driver, and thus, the charge is unenforceable.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
This is great - I will see what they say after appealing
#Post#: 41758--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 21, 2024, 1:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have received the below reply from CPM. Should i appeal to the
IAS using the same appeal points?
--- Quote ---
> PCN REFERENCE NUMBER:
>
> DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 18th August 2024
>
>
>
>
>
> PAYMENT DUE DATE: 4th November 2024
>
> TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £100.00
>
> Dear,
>
> Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge
Notice.
>
> At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We
take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any
evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your
circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone
would like to find themselves in; however, these parking
conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all
motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful
consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today
to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been
unsuccessful.
>
> The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been
made on the following basis.
>
> Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, as per our
photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked in contravention
of the advertised terms and conditions. As the vehicle was
parked without a valid permit on display, we can confirm that
this PCN has been issued correctly.
>
> You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure
and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to
the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
>
> To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please
use one of the following payment options;
>
> Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
> Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
> Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
> Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal
outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have
complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we
will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you
lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of this rejection.
>
> The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an
Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type.
If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their
website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle
registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by
the end of this working day.
>
> If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the
ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event
that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the
PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS
and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being
determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not
be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.
>
> If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment
is not received within 28 days of the date of this
correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for
which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain
outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in
the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment
being made against you; this may impact on your ability to
obtain credit in the future.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41799--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: October 21, 2024, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I repeat what I said on 8th October:
--- Quote ---
> If you want to appeal, for what it's worth, then throw
something together and see if you have any luck. When it is
rejected, I wouldn't bother with an IAS appeal. That doesn't
mean you should pay.
>
> If you really want to appeal it, I would suggest it is done in
the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court.
Assuming it ever went that far of course. That is very unlikely.
>
> The most likely successful outcome is any claim eventually
issued is discontinued early next year.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 41807--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 22, 2024, 12:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we have
decided to ignore it entirely in this response" ;D
#Post#: 41936--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: October 22, 2024, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I repeat what I said on 8th October:
>
> [quote]If you want to appeal, for what it's worth, then throw
something together and see if you have any luck. When it is
rejected, I wouldn't bother with an IAS appeal. That doesn't
mean you should pay.
>
> If you really want to appeal it, I would suggest it is done in
the ultimate dispute resolution service, the county court.
Assuming it ever went that far
>
> of course. That is very unlikely.
>
> The most likely successful outcome is any claim eventually
issued is discontinued early next year.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I`ll give it a try. thanks
#Post#: 45414--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: S.M
Date: November 13, 2024, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision
from the Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below
PCN.
>
> Parking Charge Number (PCN):
> Vehicle Registration:
> Issued On: 18/08/2024
> Issued By: UK Car Park Management Ltd
>
> Appeal Outcome: Accepted
>
> The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
>
> "While noting the Operator's prima facie case, the signage
visible from the position of the vehicle appears to relate to an
area separate to the location in which the Appellant's vehicle
was observed.
>
> On the evidence presented to this appeal I cannot be satisfied
that the Operator has been able to show that the charge was
properly issued in all the circumstances and accordingly I must
allow this appeal."
>
> As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been
cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any
further action.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> The Independent Appeals Service
--- End Quote ---
Is it my lucky day :)
#Post#: 45416--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 13, 2024, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A rare species indeed, an accepted IAS appeal. I'd go and buy a
lottery ticket if I were you (and tell us what numbers you pick
;) )
#Post#: 45420--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Broadstairs Botany Bay - CPM
DIR By: b789
Date: November 13, 2024, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: S.M link ---
>
> [quote]"While noting the Operator's prima facie case, the
signage visible from the position of the vehicle appears to
relate to an area separate to the location in which the
Appellant's vehicle was observed."
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Interesting to note that they have totally ignored the fact that
the Hirer cannot be liable anyway!
A rare win with the IAS.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page