Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: IAS appeal rejected - next step?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Sirsponge
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?
Jlc
You paid for IAS? Wow - wasn’t there a binding contract you signed for this?
SchoolRunMum
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?
nosferatu1001
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!
Churchmouse
I haven't heard of the IPC testing this in court. Not sure they'd want to!

--Churchmouse
The Rookie
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?
nosferatu1001
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.
Redivi
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
The Rookie
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 12:21) *
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?
anon45
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.
Jlc
They are quite litigious. But I would have rather had my day in court than the IAS decision.
The Rookie
If evidence isn’t shared then section 33 is in play as well to contest the result.
SchoolRunMum
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.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.