IPC Change of Approach

da_rule

Has anyone else noticed that under Question 10 of the FAQ's for IAS (page 3: http://media.wix.com/ugd/bd9e08_07849864194c4a27aa22b156c9dcc630.pdf) that when appealing as a registered keeper they will only accept appeals based on the ticket being paid or the vehicle being stolen. Things such as the charge exceeding the appropriate amount (which is where I imagine the no genuine pre-estimate of loss would fall) is only available to drivers.

Should the approach when dealing with IPC members be to identify the driver so that this route of appeal is open?

bod1467

IMHO they can say whatever they like ... as they say in FAQ 10 "The independent adjudicator is only allowed to consider the lawfulness of the charge" ... so ANY other appeal point (on the basis of law, and No GPEOL is part of Contract law) should be allowed. And what about POFA? What if the PCN to the RK was not POFA-compliant? (That's another Law).

If the IAS rejected any RK appeals containing other points than FAQ 10 suggests then the motorist would likely have a clear case (to win) at court.

Coupon-mad

I think people should be upping the pressure on the DVLA about this - clearly this isn't a fair appeals process for registered keepers who can be 'just as liable' under POFA 2012 as a driver and yet the IAS are severely restricting their chances to get a case considered at independent appeal. That's not right. Another post mentioned that the CoP also says the name and address of the driver has to be supplied, which is drivel. It was attempted to be included by the lobbyists from the BPA but was turned down for inclusion in the Freedoms Bill ages ago and as such, flies in the face of POFA2012.

The DVLA should not allow this from an ATA and there were already complaints in with the DVLA about this when the IPC first set up shop in 2013. We should complain again to Hugh Evans and David Dunford that they appear to be letting the IPC get away with this as an ATA, why?