Rejected IAS Appeal

Darrenjo · 20 February 2015 at 11:39AM

Hi all,

Just had an appeal that was lodged for stopping on road (not parking) at Liverpool airport rejected..

As far as IAS think - very black and white - I need to become part of CSI team to prove that I should nto have been fined

Disputed point 1: Disputed loss to operator and if any loss occurred then the fine was dispropotional (given that car stopped on road for seconds) whilst driver checked for flat tyre

Response:In my view it is a contractual term. By stopping as they did the appellant agreed to pay the charge, once agreed to pay, the operator does not have to show loss.

Disputed point 2: I was not the driver

Response:The Appellant accepts being the keeper buthas not named the driver. They do not have to do this, but I am entitled toinfer from this silence that they are the driver and I do infer it. Therefore,PoFA is irrelevant.
Disputed point 3: It is for the landowner to contest a claim and not a third party operator with no legal ownership rights to land

Response:In this appeal it is for the Appellant to prove their claims not the Operator. The Appellant has provided no proof that the land is not relevant.

Disputed point 3: Signage was not clear enough to indicate contractual obligations (given it was evening)

Response: Having considered the evidence I am satisfied the terms could be read whilst driving a moving vehicle and that they provided sufficient notice. The consideration is the parking charge in ret urn for stopping in an area the Operator does not want drivers to stop.Having considered the wording on the signs I consider them to be clear.

Disputed point 4. The use of CCTV van parked in area that operator deems "prohibited" - given the angle of photograph this must have been taken from within"red zone"

Response Again it is for the Appellant to prove it was not compliant and not for the Operator

Fruitcake · 20 February 2015 at 11:46AM

Have you contacted Sky News? You mentioned in another thread you were female and the driver was male as shown in the PPC photo, but the IPC assessor said he believed the keeper was the driver. An IPC rep is on the news item apparently so a good question to ask would be about your rejection by the IPC kangaroo court for ignoring evidence and making things up.

bod1467 · 20 February 2015 at 11:49AM

#3 HOW can an appellant prove a negative? How can he/she prove the PPC's contract does not confer such rights? How can he/she even get to see the PPC's (unredacted) contract?

Utter baloney, and if they ever tried court action this (the IAS judgment) would be a defence point and VCS would be laughed out of court.

Herzlos · 20 February 2015 at 12:06PM

There's no way they are entitled to infer that the keeper is the driver and that POFA does not apply.

Fergie76 · 20 February 2015 at 12:17PM

Would love to see a PPC take one of these rejected IPC appeals to the Small Claims Court.

I would would definitely, be asking the DVLA what procedures they have taken to prove that the IPC is independent and request copies under the FOI.

Darrenjo · 20 February 2015 at 12:52PM

Seems very harsh that I have to prove that appeal should be in my favour when the only evidence shown is a grainy photograph showing a car stopped for 30 seconds. I cannot re-create the situation to prove that the CCTV vehicle contradicts the operators own prohibited regulations and I cannot easily access contracts between land owner and operator along with the fact that the person making the descision seems to think that me not naming the driver is an admission of guilt. I'm not entirely sure that this is a requirement or would have any impact on decision

Fergie76 · 20 February 2015 at 1:04PM

You can't prove it. It's a kangaroo court.

Technics · 20 February 2015 at 1:05PM

I wouldn't say it was harsh. I'd say it was completely unjust.

Complain to the DVLA and IPC that the PPC and IPC have not offered an unbiased appeal service as outlined in the IPC Code of Practise. If the DVLA refer you to the IPC and they fob you off then refer it back to the DVLA and ask them to investigate the non-compliance.

Darrenjo · 20 February 2015 at 1:38PM

Thanks for the advice, obviously I know who the driver is but feel this is totally unfair as the driver was concerned that they may well be entering onto a public highway with a flat tyre and no loss was made to airport in question as they offer 20mins free parking anyway. If the fine would have been a lesser amount, I would have probably just paid it but £60-£100 feels totally unjustified. And the IPC have clearly set their stall out when it comes to appealing, it's definately guilty until proven innocent whilst not having all information readily available to you to prove innocence

dr_jones · 20 February 2015 at 1:40PM

It feels like they're getting more lazy with their rejections, not even bothering to try and sound impartial.

It'll soon be "Dismissed - tough s***".

Ralph-y · 20 February 2015 at 1:48PM

You really do need to complain to the DVLA , even though they will also initially reject this!

Try searching the forum for JLA to see just how bad this is........

After complaining to the DVLA then complain to your MP, I know they are busy this year with an election and all that

Ralph:cool:

Rejected IAS Appeal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free