Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 22nd Nov 17, 7:39 AM
    • 2,157Posts
    • 6,215Thanks
    bargepole
    IAS Report: Motorists Lose 83% of Appeals
    • #1
    • 22nd Nov 17, 7:39 AM
    IAS Report: Motorists Lose 83% of Appeals 22nd Nov 17 at 7:39 AM
    The Lead Adjudicator of the IAS has published his annual report for 2016/2017, showing that out of 17.454 appeals received, 2,963 were decided in favour of the motorist (17%).

    The only bit of good news, is that adjudicators have been told to uphold the appeal when the contravention is trivial, such as inputting a '0' instead of an 'O'. It seems the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex has finally reached Cheshire.

    These figures contrast sharply with the outcomes achieved at POPLA, both in its previous incarnation with London Councils, and the present setup with Ombudsman Services, which are consistently around the 50% mark. Similar percentages also apply to the PATAS and TPT appeals service for Council tickets.

    So it seems that if you appeal to POPLA, it's a coin toss, whereas if you appeal to the IAS, you have to roll a dice and hope it lands on a six.

    Meanwhile, Gladstones Solicitors have moved out of their previous shabby backstreet offices which looked like a kebab shop, and now occupy shiny new premises at a prestigious golf club,

    Who paid for all this? Answer: you did!

    Edited: Was quoting last year's report, now adjusted to this year's.
    Last edited by bargepole; 22-11-2017 at 9:29 AM.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 29. Lost 9.
Page 2
    • HeatonGuy
    • By HeatonGuy 27th Nov 17, 8:00 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    HeatonGuy
    Have you just written that?
    Originally posted by bergkamp
    What are you trying to say?

    No, I have not just written that - read my sig again, perhaps?
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 27th Nov 17, 8:15 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    What are you trying to say?

    No, I have not just written that - read my sig again, perhaps?
    Originally posted by HeatonGuy
    Your post reads that you expected a blog from the prankster that didn't happen, so wrote one yourself.... That's how I read it.

    And as that was posted today, the first for months, I assumed you wrote it....

    I wasn't being unfriendly.
    • HeatonGuy
    • By HeatonGuy 27th Nov 17, 8:22 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    HeatonGuy
    And as that was posted today, the first for months, I assumed you wrote it....
    Originally posted by bergkamp
    So do you assume that because Prince Harry and Ms Markle got engaged, after months of not being engaged, that I did that too?

    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 27th Nov 17, 8:26 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    So do you assume that because Prince Harry and Ms Markle got engaged, after months of not being engaged, that I did that too?

    Originally posted by HeatonGuy
    I didn't see your post about that, so no.
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 28th Nov 17, 7:18 AM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Why have you deleted your post HeatonGuy?
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 28th Nov 17, 8:54 AM
    • 728 Posts
    • 1,349 Thanks
    Johnersh
    So do you assume that because Prince Harry and Ms Markle got engaged, after months of not being engaged, that I did that too?
    FWIW it appears that Harry and Ms Markle HAVE been engaged for at least a month, but that's probably a bit off topic!
    Last edited by Johnersh; 28-11-2017 at 6:38 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Nov 17, 9:03 AM
    • 1,135 Posts
    • 1,159 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Probably because its against MSE rules to advertise PPA on here?
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 28th Nov 17, 3:07 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Probably because its against MSE rules to advertise PPA on here?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I don't think that is the reason...
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 9:17 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    logician
    Probably because its against MSE rules to advertise PPA on here?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I don't think that is the reason...
    Originally posted by bergkamp
    Perhaps MSE deleted the post - maybe the IPC/IAS complained??

    The report does not breakdown the two different appeals processes however as an accredited ADR provider (don't laugh) the IAS is supposed to adhere to the following requirements



    Below are the requirements you will need to comply with to become and remain an approved ADR body.
    There are 7 main areas you need to consider in relation to the operation of your organisation. These are:
    Access
    Expertise
    Independence
    Impartiality
    Transparency
    Effectiveness
    Fairness


    taken from their guidance brochure

    https://www.tradingstandards.uk/media/documents/commercial/adr/ctsi-adr-guidance-brochure-final-15-06-17.pdf
    TAKE PITY ON THOSE BLIND BADGERS

    FOR EVERYONE ELSE - THERE IS SPECSAVERS*

    * NB OTHER REPUTABLE OPTICIANS ARE AVAILABLE
    THE POSTER DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY ONE OPTICIAN
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 28th Nov 17, 9:39 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Perhaps MSE deleted the post - maybe the IPC/IAS complained??
    Originally posted by logician

    Nope.

    My quote of the post would be gone to....

    HeatonGuy seems to have deleted their signature that I was urged to read yesterday as well.
    • logician
    • By logician 28th Nov 17, 9:44 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    logician
    Doubt it if you look up the status of both him/her and other persons with that status... it is also against the forum rules to make comments about members of that status
    Last edited by logician; 28-11-2017 at 9:46 PM.
    TAKE PITY ON THOSE BLIND BADGERS

    FOR EVERYONE ELSE - THERE IS SPECSAVERS*

    * NB OTHER REPUTABLE OPTICIANS ARE AVAILABLE
    THE POSTER DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY ONE OPTICIAN
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Nov 17, 10:04 PM
    • 6,442 Posts
    • 8,242 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I know it's getting close to xmas so is this the white rabbit
    from "Alice in wonderland", love guessing games
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 28th Nov 17, 10:08 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Doubt it if you look up the status of both him/her and other persons with that status... it is also against the forum rules to make comments about members of that status
    Originally posted by logician
    No idea what you are talking about...
    • Handbags-at-dawn
    • By Handbags-at-dawn 28th Nov 17, 10:10 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 83 Thanks
    Handbags-at-dawn
    Doubt it if you look up the status of both him/her and other persons with that status... it is also against the forum rules to make comments about members of that status
    Originally posted by logician
    Sorry to be dumb, but what status are you talking about? The only thing I can see is that he ( like you) has only been posting on here for one month - is there some kind of special newbie status?
    Last edited by Handbags-at-dawn; 28-11-2017 at 10:12 PM. Reason: Typo
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 28th Nov 17, 10:27 PM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    We are probably going to have an attempt to get the thread deleted now, as HeatonGuy seems to have

    'dropped a bo!?*;k' in the original first post on this page. (Now gone).
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Nov 17, 10:06 AM
    • 6,442 Posts
    • 8,242 Thanks
    beamerguy
    We are probably going to have an attempt to get the thread deleted now, as HeatonGuy seems to have

    'dropped a bo!?*;k' in the original first post on this page. (Now gone).
    Originally posted by bergkamp
    bergkamp ... may I suggest in your post 21 that you
    remove the link within the quote.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 29th Nov 17, 10:21 AM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    bergkamp ... may I suggest in your post 21 that you
    remove the link within the quote.
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Link disabled.
    Wouldn't want that to be a reason for deleting the thread....
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 29th Nov 17, 10:25 AM
    • 6,442 Posts
    • 8,242 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Link disabled.
    Wouldn't want that to be a reason for deleting the thread....
    Originally posted by bergkamp
    Thanks, we just wait and see if it goes back on any thread
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bergkamp
    • By bergkamp 29th Nov 17, 10:29 AM
    • 88 Posts
    • 134 Thanks
    bergkamp
    Thanks, we just wait and see if it goes back on any thread
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    It won't beamerguy.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

280Posts Today

1,142Users online

Martin's Twitter