The IPC Ltd - Independent Parking Committee - **UPDATE**

Stroma

Yes but that is the same with bpa cop as well

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

Yes but that is the same with bpa cop as well

There is a difference between the BPA/POPLA and the IPC.

BPA/POPLA allow appeals from the keeper, as POFA indicates. The IPC will not.

They say the following in their Appeals Service guidelines

7. Where the appeal is in respect of a Notice to Keeper under schedule 4 paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 the following provisions apply.
a. Appeals will only be accepted if they are received by the IAS within 21 days from the date of rejection of the appeal to the Operator unless the appellant shows there are exceptional circumstances for making the appeal out of time.
b. Appeals will only be accepted where the following are identified:

(a) the vehicle registration mark,
(b) the name and a current serviceable address of the driver,
(c) the creditor or operators name, and,
(d) the land that the vehicle was parked on.
(e) the date of issue of the Parking Charge.
(f) the date of the rejection of the internal appeal

.

Following this, they say

c. Appeals must clearly identify the grounds upon which the keeper states that he is not liable for the parking charge and be accompanied by any such evidence that the driver would like to be considered during the appeal.

This seems to say that if you don't give up the driver's name and address, you have no appeal rights.

Stroma

I meant on your second point about naming a driver

nigelbb

If they are given the driver's name then they are not able to pursue the keeper so it would then be pointless them hearing an appeal. This is just a deceitful attempt to get the keeper to name the driver. They can then pursue the driver in court.

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

I meant on your second point about naming a driver

With respect, there is a difference - at least in what I was trying to get across.

In the current regime, the PPC can say "Had sufficient of this he says - she says nonsense - the buck lies with you, keeper" But at least the keeper can fight it.

In the proposed regime, the keeper can't go to their appeal.

It may not have come over as that, but it's clear now.

Slightly changing the subject, I wonder just what attrition the BPA will be facing as, on the face of it, this group seems to have a distinct appeal - for now. But the big question, already asked, is "Are they able to offer an independent appeal service?" I contend not.

Stroma

That is exactly the same with the bpa right now, you name someone, then if that someone says it's not me it's someone else, then the bpa cop doesn't offer anything for that, neither does this lot

Guys_Dad

Stroma wrote: »

That is exactly the same with the bpa right now, you name someone, then if that someone says it's not me it's someone else, then the bpa cop doesn't offer anything for that, neither does this lot

Extract from IPC
Schedule 6 – Independent Appeals Service
(England and Wales Only
b. Appeals will only be accepted where the following are identified:
(a) the vehicle registration mark,
(b) the name and a current serviceable address of the driver,

Appeals must clearly identify the grounds upon which the driver states that he is not liable for the parking charge and be accompanied by any such evidence that the driver would like to be considered during the appeal.

or, in the case of an ANPR letter to Keeper

c. Appeals must clearly identify the grounds upon which the keeper states that he is not liable for the parking charge and be accompanied by any such evidence that the driver would like to be considered during the appeal.

Now the Extract from BPA CoP

22.14 Drivers and keepers may appeal against a parking charge to POPLA.

There is no pre-requirement to have named the driver. In fact, we advise all motorists NOT to admit driving.

Would that still be the advice to the IPC, given that their appeal service demands that you give up the driver?

I can't make it any clearer than that.

Stroma

You are talking about their appeals service, I'm talking about when you name the person responsible for the vehicle, in your post above you were not speaking about what happens when you appeal to that, you were talking about when one person names another.

So don't confuse the issue by taking it off on a tangent, the situation is exactly the same in both instances from these and the bpa, there is nothing in either cop to say what happens if the person named refuses to accept liability or if they want to name someone else.

Guys_Dad

Well I believe that there will be a practical difference in real life and only time will tell. I think there is a double whammy for this example under IPC that doesn't exist under BPA.

You are correct that there is nothing in writing in either CoP to cover the he says-she says situation, but by a simple process of extrapolation and seeing what the logical course would result in, this lot have an additional restriction on appealing that BPA/POPLA do not.

HO87

The important fact is that Parliament (the committee reviewing the draft Bill and the DfT) have made it very clear that there was never any intention that PPC's would have recourse to a legal compulsion to disclose the driver's details a la s.172 RTA.

This is made very clear in POFA which provides for a "creditor" to invite the keeper to disclose these details (in a NtK) but in its conditions for appeal the IPC is clearly seeking to circumvent this and in so doing is going against Parliament's intentions.

If this is not tackled now then it will be allowed to sneak through under the wire and before long POPLA will adopt the same procedure - its probably intended as a means of offering a commercial advantage. I have already complained to the DVLA and a letter to the DfT is being drafted.