DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12219--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 11, 2023, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The operator's signs are incorrect as they display the wrong
Accredited Trade Association. Is the hospital aware that their
contractor is so blatantly failing to comply with CoP
requirements and therefore bringing significant reputational
risk to the Trust?
#Post#: 12719--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Driver86
Date: December 20, 2023, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Now I know what you mean by rigged against the appellant. The
IAS basically tell you that if you go to arbitration, then only
the operators information will be considered - LOL.
Anyway I have submitted an appeal as keeper last night, I've
attached the appeal document to this message.
They responded this morning, they appear to state that they are
seeking keeper liability under POFA? They say see attached
evidence but there is nothing there. Here is a
screenshot...
HTML https://ibb.co/6rSRbR6
Let me know your thoughts and how I should respond.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 12737--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: December 20, 2023, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Driver86 link ---
>
> Now I know what you mean by rigged against the appellant. The
IAS basically tell you that if you go to arbitration, then only
the operators information will be considered - LOL.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm no fan of the IAS, but your screenshot in no way supports
your conclusion. It does not say or imply that only the
operator's information will be considered. It says the opposite
It tells you that the operator has made a number of assertions
but failed to upload any documents in support of those
assertions. It then invites you to respond to the operator's
assertions and (if you wish) to upload further documents
yourself. IAS has given you a golden opportunity to nail the
operator. Here's a rough outline for your response, I'm sure
you and others will be able to improve it - just be sure not to
miss the deadline for responding.
The operator's "prima facie case" fails to address the points
raised in the appeal and is unsupported by any evidence. This
alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.
The operator claims that it "is seeking keeper liability in
accordance with PoFA". However, the operator has provided no
evidence that it has complied with any of the conditions for
keeper liability under PoFA, merely claiming that a "manual
ticket was placed on the vehicle on 25/09/2023". This does not
come close to satisfying the PoFA conditions for keeper
liability which include (among other things) the delivery of a
PoFA-compliant "notice to keeper" within the "relevant period"
as defined in PoFA. The operator does not claim to have
delivered a notice to keeper at all, let alone a PoFA-compliant
one and, indeed it did not do so. Even assuming that the "manual
ticket" referred to by the operator was itself a PoFA-compliant
notice to driver (as to which the operator has provided no
evidence) the 'relevant period' for delivery of a PoFA-compliant
notice to keeper has expired without the delivery of any notice
to keeper, let alone a PoFA-compliant one. This alone is
sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.
The operator asserts that "the charge is based in Contract".
However, the operator has provided no evidence of any contract,
let alone a contract to pay the parking charge. As proved by
the evidence supplied in my appeal, there was no signage at the
time of parking that complied with the requirements of the IPC
Code and which was capable of giving rise to a contractual
obligation to pay the parking charge. So even if (which is not
the case) the operator had availed itself of the opportunity to
use PoFA to transfer the driver's contractual liability to the
keeper, there is no contractual liability to transfer. This
alone is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.
The operator has offered no response to the evidence in the
appeal proving that its signage was seriously misleading in that
it claimed falsely that the operator is affiliated to the BPA
and conceals the operator's affiliation to the IPC. This alone
is sufficient to require the appeal to succeed.
The operator has neither asserted nor proved that it owns the
car park or has a current authorisation from the landowner to
issue and enforce parking charges. This alone is sufficient to
require the appeal to succeed.
#Post#: 12758--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 21, 2023, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Nosy Parker link ---
>
> I'm sure you and others will be able to improve it
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think there's much improvement needed - it's a concise
breakdown of why each of their points is incorrect and why the
appeal should therefore succeed.
I'm not sure if IAS impose a character limit for their
responses, and if so, what that is, but the only thing I think
it could benefit from if space allows is a quick sentence at the
end summing up. Perhaps something along the lines of:
[indent]Each of the points above taken in isolation is
sufficient to require the appeal to succeed. Taken in
combination, it is clear that the operator has no case and the
appeal must therefore succeed.[/indent]
#Post#: 12761--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: December 21, 2023, 8:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve never bothered to find out if there’s a character limit.
You can type your comments in a document and upload it, in which
case all you need to type in the box is “Please see uploaded
document.”
#Post#: 12762--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 21, 2023, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Useful to know, thanks. I've thankfully not had reason to engage
with the IAS in a very long time.
#Post#: 13271--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Driver86
Date: January 3, 2024, 3:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks! I've submitted my response so fingers cross that
nails it. Next step will be arbitration if they still waffle on.
#Post#: 13302--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 4, 2024, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a win-win for you. If you win at IAS (most motorists
don't), the PCN will be cancelled. If you lose at IAS, the
result isn't binding on you and you can beat them in court, if
they're stupid enough to sue
#Post#: 13318--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: January 5, 2024, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And the hospital?
#Post#: 13320--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Parked in a disabled bay
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 5, 2024, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A formal complaint can be made to the hospital’s complaints
handler about PALS’ failure to respond properly to a complaint
about the hospital’s parking contractor for whom the hospital is
responsible. But OP might want to wait for the outcome of the
IAS appeal
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page