Help for PCN in 'Visitors' space (Small PPC using IAS)

Stroma

The appeal to the IPC, and if needed the one to the IAS as well as well because this is a code of practice breach, but more importantly a pofa 2012 breach. I would say that all these complaints should be done to the dvla as well.

lybwgf

What do you guys think of this, taken from page 40 of IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, under Schedule 6, Operation of the IAS, section 7 (my highlights):


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.
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.


Also, I think Link have updated their website a little, inc. their 'Appeals procedure' page and no longer mention using photographs as prosecuting evidence.

trubster

still has this beauty in the contract. "2.2 Method of control. Unauthorised or illegally parked vehicles
not displaying a valid parking permit will be issued a PCN by
an employee or agent of the company. "

Stroma

Take screen shots of all the pages now, they have obviously been alerted to the thread and they are trying to cover their tracks.

That wording by the IPC is in a middle of a complaint as pofa 2012 does not say the driver must be identified, this is a made up rule that has no basis in the law as it stands right now. If I'm not mistaken HO87 is the one to speak too about this.

Coupon-mad

lybwgf wrote: »

What do you guys think of this, taken from page 40 of IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, under Schedule 6, Operation of the IAS, section 7 (my highlights):

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.
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.

Also, I think Link have updated their website a little, inc. their 'Appeals procedure' page and no longer mention using photographs as prosecuting evidence.

The bit in bold was the subject of a formal complaint to the DVLA at the time when the IPC was first set up last year. It seems the DVLA has done the usual and swept it under the carpet. Of course the keeper does NOT legally have to give the name and address of the driver and should never be stopped from a lawful appeals process because of that detail.

I would send a complaint to the DVLA by email and ask why the IPC has not been told to remove that part of their CoP bearing in mind that they have no legal right to insist on knowing who was driving and POFA2012 unequivocally establishes keeper liability. So clearly the person 'liable', can appeal. State that you know this was raised as a formal complaint months ago and why is it still there in the CoP and why have the DVLA not acted on this matter as it is wholly unfair and could actually prevent keepers from being able to appeal, even though they 'could' be held liable in a small claim. This flies in the face of POFA 2012 and the more complaints the merrier.

[EMAIL="david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

lybwgf

Coupon: Just to let you know, I emailed the DVLA re. this and their Policy Team have now responded noting that they are aware of the points raised and their investigations are ongoing. At present, they're not in a position to add anything further.

Umkomaas

lybwgf wrote: »

Coupon: Just to let you know, I emailed the DVLA re. this and their Policy Team have now responded noting that they are aware of the points raised and their investigations are ongoing. At present, they're not in a position to add anything further.

Not much 'investigation' required. I'll do it for them.

1. Investigation - Findings.

IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, Schedule 6, Operation of the IAS, Section 7 b Bullet Point (b).

This condition cannot be imposed on the Registered Keeper in order to submit a valid appeal to the Independent Appeals Service.

2. Investigation - Remedial Action.

Remove Bullet Point (b) of IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, Schedule 6, Operation of the IAS, Section 7 b

3. Investigation Resources and Costs.

Investigation and Remedial Action recommendation - time taken - 2 minutes
Investigation costs - £0.00

NobleSX

Apologies for resurrecting this old thread but I'm keen to know the outcome of this particular PCN with Link.

Coupon-mad

Well if you want to know the outcome of the complaint to the DVLA about the IPC insisting on knowing who was driving, the answer is that 'we' won:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/consumer-pressure-forces-change-to-ias.html