LPS Ltd - PCN - Private Access Road - Delivering On Site & Vehicle Breakdown

[b789]

@tincombe I take your point, and you’re absolutely right that @TheParkingmeister is operating within constraints set by their employer rather than having full control of the strategy.

From what’s been outlined, the difficulty here isn’t the strength of the case but the company’s approach to risk once debt collection letters start arriving. That effectively short-circuits otherwise defensible positions.

That said, I wouldn’t necessarily agree that paying at the discounted rate is automatically the “least financial harm” option in a case like this. Where liability is genuinely in dispute — as it is here — early payment simply avoids scrutiny rather than resolving the issue. It converts a defensible claim into a paid one without testing whether the operator is actually entitled to the sum.

If the driver were prepared to see it through properly, the realistic downside risk at court is in the region of £200–£220. That’s obviously higher than the discounted sum, but it comes with the opportunity to defeat the claim entirely. Whether that risk is acceptable is ultimately a matter for the individual driver.

If it would assist, I’m more than happy to help the driver directly in understanding the position and what defending a small claim actually involves, so they can make an informed decision, although @TheParkingmeister does appear to have a good understanding of the process.

On the point about naming the driver, yes — that remains available to the registered keeper at this stage. The practical question is less about whether it can be done, and more about whether it should be done, given it shifts control (and risk) from the company to the individual.

Ultimately this comes down to appetite for challenge versus certainty of cost.

[TheParkingmeister]

Yes, so I am an employee of the registered keeper, a limited company. I have the task of dealing with Parking Charge Notices, Penalty Charge Notices, Notices of Intended Prosecution etc. I can generally deal with them how I see fit, and have the support of the company to appeal them where liability is genuinely contested.

It is Company policy to (and in the driver contracts) that drivers pay penalty charges and parking charges incurred whilst in control of the vehicle. Whilst I am employed by the company, I'm more interested in ensuring the driver isn't charged for something they are not actually liable for. Considering the company has previously paid charges that I successfully appealed at POPLA, they are more than willing to throw money away needlessly, so why should I care.

If the company do decide to pay this, if (but probably when) it is rejected at IAS I will ensure they pay it and don't pass it onto the driver.

Ultimately, I would much rather avoid giving the parking operators anything if I can help it because they are a constant nuisance and are overreaching with these alleged charges. 

We can't even deliver to B&Q without getting a charge from Euro Car Parks for allegedly being in the car park for two hours, even though we never entered the car park and used the access road to the loading area. And we were there two hours because B&Q hadn't made space in their warehouse for the delivery (a frequent issue at many B&Q's) I appealed that with POD and it was rejected. It's actually ridiculous. I got another spot, Selco at Tottenham, that is a constant problem too, our drivers delivering there have to wait on the access road out side their yard for them to open the gate. There's now a QR code the drivers can scan inside the yard but they have to do it right away and not wait until they get the vehicle on site, or we get a charge from UKPC. So far the ones where the QR hasn't been scanned and we have received a PCN, they have been issued outside of the relevant 14 day period for POFA compliance. They'll still ask for the drivers details and reject my appeal though, and only withdraw after I submit a POPLA appeal.

[TheParkingmeister]

As expected, IAS rejected the appeal.

Their reasoning is so bad, you can either laugh or cry about it.

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 his 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 they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also 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 satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible from the position of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the driver did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. The Appellant may suggest that the vehicle was stopped rather than parked and therefore the PCN is incorrect. I do not agree with this point, as if they were correct this would entitle a driver to ‘stop' indefinitely so long as they did not leave their vehicle unattended. I am satisfied that the images provided prove that the vehicle was parked as alleged. I note that a helpline number is provided by the Operator which the Appellant appears to accept that they did not use at the time of the parking event.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, 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."

I'm a bit confused as to what arguments and evidents they can consider lol

• the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice
  
• allowed to consider the charge being appealed
  
• bound by the law of contract
  
• can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances
  

But doesn't apply the law or consider legal challenges hmm 

The assessor states "the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor)", a failed solicitor who sold out perhaps. Is it even legal to claim to be a solicitor if you're not?

[b789]

You know the situation. The IAS is a corrupt kangaroo court. The adjudicator is neither a solicitor or a barrister (a barrista, maybe). If they were honestly legally trained and certified, they would put their name and qualification to their decision. They don't because they know they would be exposed for the Walter Mitty's they are.

So, no surprises. You now have to decide whether to let this run its course to a county court hearing. As previously mentioned, the signage is fatal to their claim because no contract can be formed based on that sign.

Even if the vehicle is treated as “parked”, the contractual problem remains: the sign does not offer parking on terms. It says “NO PARKING”. That is a prohibition, not an invitation or licence.

For a breach of contract claim, the Claimant needs to show:

1. an offer;
   
2. acceptance;
   
3. consideration;
   
4. a contractual term;
   
5. breach of that term;
   
6. entitlement to the sum claimed.
   

The problem is at the first stage. “No Parking” is not an offer to park for £100. It is the opposite. It tells the motorist that parking is not permitted. A driver cannot accept a non-existent offer to park by doing the very thing the sign forbids.

The operator may try to argue that the contract is: “You may enter or remain on this land, but if you park, you agree to pay £100.” However, that is strained. The largest and most prominent term is not “parking permitted subject to payment of £100”; it is “NO PARKING”. The £100 wording is expressed as a consequence of “breach”, not as the price for an agreed service or licence.

So the better analysis is:

• If parking is permitted subject to terms, breach of those terms may potentially create contractual liability.
  
• If parking is forbidden altogether, there is no contractual permission to park. The issue, if anything, is trespass.
  
• If it is trespass, a parking contractor cannot usually recover a contractual parking charge unless it has sufficient landholder rights and has pleaded the case properly. Damages for trespass would ordinarily belong to the landholder, not a third-party parking agent, and would normally be limited to actual loss (nominally £0 in this case) unless some other proprietary basis is shown.
  

That also distinguishes it from a normal pay-and-display, permit, or maximum-stay car park. In those situations, the sign says, in substance: “You may park here if you comply with these terms.” This sign says: “No parking.” That is a materially different legal structure.

The vehicle technical fault makes the operator’s case even weaker. Even if a judge were prepared to treat the vehicle as “parked”, the driver’s continued presence was not a voluntary decision to accept contractual terms. A vehicle stopped because of a mechanical or technical problem is not the same as a driver choosing to park in defiance of a sign.

So, the sign is prohibitory. It does not confer a contractual licence to park. If the vehicle was genuinely immobilised or stopped by technical necessity, there is also no voluntary contractual acceptance of a £100 charge merely because the vehicle remained stationary.

Is this going to be challenged all the way to a hearing or is the company now likely to just pay up once the inevitable debt recovery letters start to arrive?

[TheParkingmeister]

Precisely. Without a contractual offer, the claim would have to be for trespass, which can only be pursued by the landowner.

In regards to the company paying, I haven't informed them yet, that's tomorrow's job. But we got another Parking Charge Notice for this site last week, the vehicle stopped for 4 minutes and 15 seconds, our dashcam still images show there was a vehicle ahead that our vehicle was queueing behind waiting to access this Oakleaf Recycling site. I appealed that last week. And as we deliver there fairly regularly these are likely to keep coming. 

The Company will likely want try and pass the charge onto the driver, but I wont let them, as the driver is literally just doing their job, driving to the site they are told to go to, and tipping. The Company won't be happy about that, but if they are making the decision to pay a bogus charge, then they are accepting liability themselves. When it starts hitting them in the pocket they may finally decide to stop being scammed.

But more likely, they will either add charges to the site we deliver to or stop delivering to the site entirely, because they can I guess.

Of course, by paying it the Company are letting LPS know we will back down and pay, so there is no reason for them to accept the latest appeal, as they know they will get paid. There is nothing to discourage them from rejecting any appeal as they can breach the Code, ignore the law, and there is sweet FA any one can do about it lol.

But ultimately the Company is repeatedly paying me to waste my time appealing for something they are going to pay anyway. It makes sense if we get one or two parking charges a month, from a business perspective. But we get like a dozen a week and most are nonsense charges from places we are delivering.

Maybe this time they will listen, but I wouldn't count on it

[b789]

Maybe you can persuade them to let this or some others run their course all the way to a hearing, although in most cases it will never reach that stage before being thrown out or discontinued.

You have to persuade them that debt recovery letters are meaningless. Explain why debt collectors are powerless to actually to anything. They are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. They cannot take anyone to court. They are powerless. Their only power is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

These cases are so easily defended and rarely are successful even they manage to make it all the way to an actual hearing in front of a judge.