IAS appeal rejected - next step?, Advice on what to do next after the IAS rejected an appeal |
IAS appeal rejected - next step?, Advice on what to do next after the IAS rejected an appeal |
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:45
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 15 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,408 |
Hi,
Been learning a load form these forums (thank you!) But at a stage where I don't know what to do next. I parked in an area managed by HX Car parks. From within the car park the ticket machine isn't visible; the only machine in view is on the edge of the car park (the road name shares the same name as the car park so it seemed logical that the ticket machine was one and the same.) Essentially a valid ticket was purchased, just from a different parking scheme on the same street. It turned out the official ticket machine was hidden away around a corner. However, as the keeper I received the charge notice. I appealed directly with evidence. It was rejected. I received this while on holiday so had to make a paid for appeal to the IAS when I returned. It was rejected. So now I have 14 days to pay. What's not clear is: What other options do I have? How much can they increase the fine? How do I avoid it going to court? (From a time and expense perspective) Still reluctant to pay - the signage is absent - but don't see I have much choice. Any suggestions? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:45
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 17:50
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
You paid for IAS? Wow - wasn’t there a binding contract you signed for this?
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:00
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
QUOTE had to make a paid for appeal to the IAS when I returned. Oh no no no. No-one here does that ever. You paid £15 to lose at IAS and the t&cs you sign say it's binding on you? |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 07:51
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Yep, pretty sure thats the case
So if you dont pay youre on the hook for DEFINITE breach of contract you DEFINITELY agreed to Just pay up and next time dont panic! |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:12
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
I haven't heard of the IPC testing this in court. Not sure they'd want to!
--Churchmouse |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 10:39
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Indeed, they would have to prove it was carried out in accordance with a reasonable standard such as the ADR regs, which I doubt it was. For example they don’t normally share the operator evidence with the appellant, do they for people who pay?
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 11:21
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Do they have to prove that?
Or do they simply have to prove it was carried out in accordance to the t and c the individual signed up to? ALso it wouldnt be the IAS suing but the operator, from what I ve seen of it. This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 11:22 |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 11:41
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
My understanding is that the paid-for service is for a decision in accordance with the ADR Regulation
If that's the case, the OP's only realistic option is to pay A Small Claims Court isn't going to rule that the only service provider appointed under the legislation isn't fit for purpose It doesn't augur well for the motorist when the new private parking legislation eventually arrives : Parking Notices to be enforceable as long as the Code of Practice is followed - mopping up the ones falling outside the scope of Beavis A business owned by the companies' trade association making the decisions The Law of Unintended Consequences yet again : No situation is so bad that Government action cannot make it worse |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 17:22
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Do they have to prove that? Or do they simply have to prove it was carried out in accordance to the t and c the individual signed up to? ALso it wouldnt be the IAS suing but the operator, from what I ve seen of it. Interesting argument, as the payment is a believe to the IAS and therefore the contract is with them, does the operator have standing? They promise it’s to ADR standards so if it’s not, in my opinion, that would make the agreement a nullity whoever it’s with? -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:06
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,114 Joined: 7 Aug 2009 Member No.: 31,007 |
I presume the PPC will simply apply to the court for the "I"AS decision to be enforced under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/2...lation-to-award,
regardless of its merits? The OP might be able to challenge the fairness of the "I"AS process and its appeal rejection quotas as a "serious irregularity" within the meaning of section 68 causing "substantial injustice" to the OP, but, unfortunately, like Redivi, I cannot realistically see a district judge effectively declaring the Government-approved "I"AS to be a fraud. The OP's only realistic hope would be to hope that HX don't actually take motorists to court, or that they fail to claim the protection of the Arbitration Act in the correct manner, but I don't think it is wise to reply upon this. This means that I, too, would, with reluctance, advise paying this one and never again making a binding appeal to the "I"AS. This post has been edited by anon45: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:14 |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:39
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,508 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
They are quite litigious. But I would have rather had my day in court than the IAS decision.
-------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:42
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If evidence isn’t shared then section 33 is in play as well to contest the result.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 19:56
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
I wonder if in fact this would just proceed as the usual unchecked Gladstones roboclaim, as per all HX cases...might be worth seeing what happens and not reminding them this was a stupid pay-to-lose IAS case.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:32 |