DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 34882--------------------------------------------------
I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee Road,
Wadebridge
DIR By: Tybalt215
Date: August 28, 2024, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I, the registered keeper, was puzzled when this arrived on the
doorstep this morning as I thought it was a scam but it is
unfortunately not ☹
The driver drove into the car park, with four passengers with
the intention of finding a car parking space. The adults in the
vehicle scanned around but the only space that could be seen was
deemed unsuitable i.e., too tight a space. Two of the passengers
left the car on foot whilst the other three set off to find
alternative free parking. The driver never left the vehicle and
the engine was always running.
I am sorry but the story is as mundane as that – the vehicle
entered, explored for a space, passengers thought about an
alternative car park and left! I am angered that people are
being exploited for this.
Some thoughts of my own:
The vehicle was never parked at any stage or impeded others.
The car park (see image) does have clear signage but it is real
mixed layout hence it is not straightforward to see where all
spaces are.
How on earth is 133 seconds enough time to reasonably consider
your options or find a space? Is it even enough time to locate
and read the terms and conditions?
Any support appreciated.
Link to copy of notice and car park pic -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/O7r1OUM
#Post#: 34888--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 28, 2024, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tybalt215 link ---
>
> How on earth is 133 seconds enough time to reasonably consider
your options or find a space? Is it even enough time to locate
and read the terms and conditions?
>
--- End Quote ---
The short answers to those questions are:
- It isn't
- No
My view would be to appeal on the lines of the below:
[indent]Dear Sirs
I have received your Notice to Keeper (Ref #: ________) for
vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you alleged the
driver has incurred a parking charge. I am appealing as the
registered keeper on the following grounds:
1. The vehicle was not parked.
The driver entered the site, sought a space, but was unable to
find one, at which point they promptly left. As the vehicle was
not at any point parked, no tariff was due, and no contract was
formed that could give rise to a liability to pay a parking
charge.
2. No consideration period was offered.
Section 5.1 of the private parking sector single Code of
Practice, which the IPC states must be followed, states that
"Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on
time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate
duration". Annex B of the Code of Practice specifies that in a
car park for which a tariff is due (pay and display), this
consideration period must be a minimum of 5 minutes. As per your
own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on site for 2 minutes 13
seconds, far less than the minimum consideration period. As
such, the charge must be cancelled.
I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been
cancelled and that my personal data has been removed from your
records.
Yours,[/indent]
Don't expect them to accept your appeal, these companies
routinely reject appeals regardless of merit. However, it is
wise to set out your case and demonstrate you're up for a fight.
#Post#: 34889--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: Tybalt215
Date: August 28, 2024, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your speedy response. I notice that they insist
that my appeal must be in writing. Is recorded delivery the
expected method? I feel like invoicing them for my time (and
yours!)and postage, with such a bizarre case. Are these things
perhaps automated?
#Post#: 34892--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 28, 2024, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tybalt215 link ---
>
> I notice that they insist that my appeal must be in writing.
Is recorded delivery the expected method?
>
--- End Quote ---
The back of the notice suggests you can appeal online -
HTML https://www.iparkservices.co.uk/manage-my-pcn
HTML https://www.iparkservices.co.uk/manage-my-pcn.
Not relevant for this case but as a general bit of advice if you
ever do need to appeal anything by post, recorded delivery is
generally not advised. If you send something by regular first
class post, and get a free certificate of posting from a post
office, this is better, as you enjoy a presumption in law that
your letter was delivered 2 working days later. If you send
something recorded and it isn't delivered (lost in the post,
refused by the recipient) then all you have is proof they didn't
receive your letter.
--- Quote from: Tybalt215 link ---
>
> Are these things perhaps automated?
--- End Quote ---
Probably to a certain extent, their business model is to issue
as many charges as possible, whilst incurring the least expenses
possible.
#Post#: 36230--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: Tybalt215
Date: September 9, 2024, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
Frustratingly IPS Ltd rejected my appeal
(
HTML https://imgur.com/a/7uPVOjo).
I used the template in this
thread as the basis for the appeal but it fell on deaf ears. Is
it a case of resubmitting the same argument/appeal to
theias.org?
Thank you.
#Post#: 36231--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 9, 2024, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected. Like I noted in my first reply, parking companies
are not generally in the business of accepting appeals. It's
your call whether or not you bother with the IAS - they are
often regarded as a kangaroo court, and seldom accept appeals
either. If you do decide to bother with an IAS appeal, I'd
expand on point #2 a bit further. Refer also to Schedule 7 of
the IPC's Code of Practice
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf,<br
/>in case they argue that the Single Code of Practice is not yet
in force.
Bear in mind that if you do appeal to the IAS, they are also
likely to reject your appeal - this does not mean it is without
merit, and does not mean you have to pay. If they reject, or if
you don't bother appealing to them, it is a case of waiting to
see if I Park Services decide to take the matter to court. I'm
not sure how litigious they are - they're not one of the bigger
parking companies as far as I know.
#Post#: 36232--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2024, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you want to waste time on an IAS appeal, that is your choice.
With a less than 5% chance of success, who knows, it may be your
lucky day.
The most likely scenario will be this...
1. Appeal or not, IAS futile.
2. Ignore all debt collector letters that follow.
3. Eventually, DCB Legal are contracted to send you a Letter of
Claim (LoC)
4. Respond to LoC and report DCB Legal to HMRC for suspected VAT
fraud.
5. DCB Legal issue an N1SDT claim on behalf of Ipark Services
through the CNBC.
6. Acknowledge the claim and submit a defence.
7. DCB Legal either continue with the case or forget about it
and it is stayed.
8. N180 DQs are exchanged.
9. Just before the trial fee has to be paid, DCB Legal issue an
N279 Notice of Discontinuance (NoD).
10. go out and celebrate knowing it has cost you nothing but a
bit of your time and around £50 for the morons at Ipark and DCB
Legal.
This will all likely come to pass some time early next year. I'm
taking odds of 100:1 that this will be the outcome if all the
advice is followed.
No one but a fool and their money pay Ipark Services.
#Post#: 37710--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: Tybalt215
Date: September 21, 2024, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the responses received thus far. I have decided to
have a punt at the IAS process. If it fails, which I accept is a
limited possibility, I will track the journey alongside
[member=26]b789[/member] suggestions.
In the mean time. Any feedback/enhancements to the appeal would
be appreciated:
I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice (Ref #: )
issued for vehicle registration mark **** ***. As the registered
keeper, I believe there are compelling grounds for cancellation,
which I outline below:
1. The vehicle was not parked.
The driver entered the site, sought a space, but was unable to
find one, consequently two passengers alighted to explore
alternative options. The driver paused for a minimal period of
time in anticipation of a suitable space becoming available but
this did not materialise. The driver departed Jubilee Road. As
the vehicle was not at any point parked, no tariff was due, and
no contract was formed that could give rise to a liability to
pay a parking charge.
The whole episode took place over 133 seconds. The vehicle was
unable to locate a suitable car parking space. The driver never
parked the vehicle. No passenger(s) departed and returned to the
vehicle. Is there an allegation that not being able to find a
parking space is an alleged contravention? If so, this is a very
dangerous and worrying precedent, which will be pursued. It is
astonishing that this regular and routine procedure for finding
a parking space can be deemed a contravention.
2. No consideration period was offered.
Section 5.1 of the private parking sector single Code of
Practice, which the IPC states must be followed, states that
"Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on
time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate
duration". Annex B of the Code of Practice specifies that in a
car park for which a tariff is due (pay and display), this
consideration period must be a minimum of 5 minutes. As per your
own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was on site for 2 minutes 13
seconds, less than half of the minimum consideration period. As
such, the charge must be cancelled.
Schedule 7 of the IPC's Code of Practice 13.1 states, “The
parking operator must allow a consideration period of
appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in
Schedule 7.” The code of practice has clearly been disregarded
in this case.
Schedule 7, 13.1.3 “The consideration period ends at the point
where there is evidence that the driver has, by parking,
accepted the terms, conditions and restrictions applying
(whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may be
evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the
premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or turning off
the ignition of the vehicle and remaining stationary for more
than 5 minute.”
This protocol has also been unashamedly overlooked, which is a
worrying development.
I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been
cancelled.
#Post#: 37727--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: b789
Date: September 21, 2024, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you're going to bother with the IAS then at least go in with
all guns blazing.
--- Quote ---
> IAS Appeal: Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]
>
> To the IAS Assessor,
>
> I am writing to appeal the parking charge notice issued by I
Park Services Ltd, relating to vehicle registration [VRM]. This
notice is entirely baseless due to the following reasons:
>
> [indent]1. The vehicle was never parked, and no contract was
formed.
>
> According to the operator’s own ANPR evidence, the vehicle was
on-site for a total of 2 minutes and 13 seconds. At no point was
the vehicle parked, and no pay-and-display ticket was required,
as no parking occurred. The driver briefly entered the site,
sought a parking space, and then exited upon realising that none
were available. The lack of parking means that no contract was
formed, and therefore no parking charge can arise.[/indent]
>
> [indent]2. Breach of the required consideration period.
>
> Section 13.1 of the IPC's Code of Practice mandates that a
parking operator must allow a consideration period of
appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in
Schedule 7. This consideration period allows drivers a
reasonable time to decide whether to accept the terms and
conditions by parking or to leave the site. Schedule 7, Table
B.1 which lists the minimum consideration and grace periods for
a Pay and Display (up-front tariff) car park on controlled land
where public parking is invited as a minimum of 5 minutes.
>
> The vehicle in question was on-site for just 2 minutes and 13
seconds—far less than the mandated consideration period.
>
> By issuing this charge without observing the minimum
consideration period, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC’s
Code of Practice, and the parking charge is unenforceable as no
contract was established.[/indent]
>
> [indent]3. The operator unlawfully obtained DVLA data,
breaching the KADOE contract and GDPR.
>
> In order to access keeper data from the DVLA, parking
operators must strictly adhere to the terms of the KADOE (Keeper
of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) contract. One of the core
requirements of the KADOE contract is that operators must fully
comply with the relevant Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of
Practice, in this case, the IPC Code of Practice.
>
> By failing to provide the required consideration period of at
least 5 minutes, I Park Services Ltd has violated the IPC Code
of Practice. This breach of the Code invalidates the legitimacy
of the parking charge notice issued and, more crucially, also
invalidates the basis upon which I Park Services Ltd requested
and accessed my personal data from the DVLA.
>
> Why the KADOE contract was breached:
>
> Non-compliance with the Code of Practice: The KADOE contract
requires operators to comply with their AOS (Approved Operator
Scheme) Code of Practice, in this case, the IPC. By breaching
Section 13.1 of the IPC Code (consideration period
requirements), the operator was not entitled to request my data
from the DVLA.
>
> Improper justification for data access: The operator can only
lawfully access keeper data if it has a valid and enforceable
reason to pursue a parking charge. Since no parking occurred, no
contract was formed, and no charge is enforceable, the request
for my data was unjustified.
>
> Unlawful request and GDPR breach:
>
> As a result of breaching the KADOE contract, the operator’s
request for my personal data was unlawful under both the KADOE
contract and data protection laws, including the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR).
>
> Under GDPR, personal data must only be processed (in this
case, accessed and used) where there is a legitimate and lawful
basis. I Park Services Ltd accessed my data without a lawful
basis, as their justification (the parking charge) was invalid
from the outset. This constitutes a clear breach of GDPR,
particularly:
>
> Article 5(1)(a) – Lawfulness, fairness, and transparency: The
operator failed to process my data lawfully, as the reason for
accessing my data was based on a non-existent or unenforceable
contract.
>
> Article 6(1)(f) – Legitimate interests: The operator cannot
claim legitimate interest in processing my personal data when
they have breached the IPC Code of Practice and failed to comply
with the KADOE contract.
>
> By unlawfully obtaining and processing my data, the operator
has misused my personal information and violated my data
protection rights under GDPR. This misuse of data has caused
significant distress and anxiety, as the operator continues to
pursue an illegitimate parking charge based on data that was
unlawfully acquired.[/indent]
>
> [indent]4. No evidence of landowner authority to issue PCNs.
>
> In order for I Park Services Ltd to issue parking charge
notices (PCNs) in their own name and pursue alleged
contraventions, they are required to have proper legal authority
from the landowner to manage parking on the site.
>
> I Park Services Ltd has not provided any evidence of a valid
contract between themselves and the landowner, which would allow
them to operate on the site and issue PCNs. In accordance with
the IPC Code of Practice, this evidence must be provided to
demonstrate that they have the right to form contracts with
drivers and enforce parking charges in their own name.
>
> Without this landowner authority, I Park Services Ltd has no
standing to issue PCNs, and the charge must be cancelled. I
expect the operator to provide unredacted proof of their
landowner authority or to cancel this charge
immediately.[/indent]
>
> [indent]5. Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
>
> Imposing a charge for an alleged parking breach where no
parking occurred constitutes an unfair term under the Consumer
Rights Act 2015, Part 2, Section 62. The operator’s actions have
created a significant imbalance to my detriment as a consumer by
imposing an unreasonable charge for simply entering and leaving
a car park without parking. This clearly violates my statutory
rights under consumer protection law, and I expect the charge to
be cancelled accordingly.[/indent]
>
> [indent]Conclusion
>
> Given the facts that the driver never parked because there
were no spaces available and operator’s failure to comply with
the IPC Code of Practice, the unlawful request for DVLA data,
the absence of any landowner authority, and the breach of the
Consumer Rights Act 2015, this parking charge is wholly invalid
and unenforceable. I expect the charge to be cancelled.[/indent]
>
> [Your Full Name]
>
> Registered Keeper of Vehicle [VRM]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 37728--------------------------------------------------
Re: I Park Services Ltd – Parking Charge (2min:13s) – Jubilee
Road, Wadebridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 21, 2024, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think b789's suggested amendments cover the point I was about
to make, but I'd leave out the points around passengers
alighting. What they did is of little relevance to your points,
and might be jumped on by I Park to distract from the more
salient points.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 8
DIR Next Page