Is this company classed as a small company in the flowchart?

Dee140157

The first thing to remember is that as far as we are aware Link Parking don't to court, so apart from a barrage of debt collector letters, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Dee140157

However, the notice to keeper should contain information as to how the Appellant can resolve complaints either formally or independently and they have provide evidence that this was not done. The Operator has not responded to this and therefore, even though I am certain there is another page of the notice to keeper which has not been supplied by the Appellant, applying the same balance of probability test I cannot be satisfied that the claim under PoFA meets the necessary criteria. However, the Operator is also claiming that the Appellant is the driver. The Appellant is unprepared to state who the driver is and so I am safe to assume the Appellant is the driver and the appeal therefore fails."

When you compare this to spex's successful appeal today I am at a loss

“Since the operator is pursuing the appellant as the driver and not the registered keeper, the procedural requirements of POFA do not apply. However, the operator would still need to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was the driver at the material time. There is nothing in the evidence provided that would allow me to conclude that the appellant was the driver. The appellant has been very careful not to admit this fact and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this appeal must be allowed.”

Hopefully C-M will be able to explain the difference between to 2 decisions today.

Edna_Basher

Dee140157 wrote: »

When you compare this to spex's successful appeal today I am at a loss

Me too. I suppose we have to assume that these are the decisions of two different adjudicators; however, because the IAS continues to hide behind the mask of anonymity, we can't be totally sure of this.

Even in spex’s successful appeal, it is very clear that the adjudicator’s acceptance was begrudged – e.g. “the appellant has been very careful not to admit the fact that they were the driver” (hang on a minute, what about the real possibility that the appellant was not the driver?).

The adjudicator in your own case takes this subjectivity even further.

I cannot be satisfied that the claim under PoFA meets the necessary criteria. However, the Operator is also claiming that the Appellant is the driver. The Appellant is unprepared to state who the driver is and so I am safe to assume the Appellant is the driver and the appeal therefore fails.

Given that the adjudicator concedes that they cannot be satisfied that the Operator’s Notice to Keeper was fully compliant with POFA 2012, this should surely have been sufficient for them to uphold the Keeper’s appeal. The argument that the adjudicator puts forward against this is irrational to the point of being farcical.

In the event that Link Parking continues to pursue you (as Keeper), they must bear in mind that the IAS adjudication confirms that they have not fulfilled the requirements of POFA 2012 and therefore have no statutory right to pursue the Keeper. Link Parking will then have to weigh up whether or not it would be cost effective to pursue payment of this charge from you, given the risk to their case that the Keeper may not have been the Driver after all.

On a separate note, it’s quite shameful how the IAS continues to ignore the fact that they should interpret the meaning of the car park signs in a way that is most favourable to the driver / keeper (the contra proferentem argument in your appeal). This is not optional, it is a statutory requirement (under Paragraph 7(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999). A favourable and reasonable interpretation of the car park sign is that the so-called “contractual agreement” to pay £100 merely serves to set a pre-agreed level of compensatory damages to be paid in the event that the driver parks “otherwise in accordance with what is permitted”. Consumer Protection legislation requires that the level of these compensatory damages cannot exceed a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

How on earth did the IPC manage to gain full accreditation from the DVLA (rhetorical question only).

bod1467

NobleSX wrote: »

The Appellant is unprepared to state who the driver is and so I am safe to assume the Appellant is the driver

Erm no? You are equally safe to assume that the appellant was NOT the driver.

You know what they say about assume, don't you?

Coupon-mad

Dee140157 wrote: »

When you compare this to spex's successful appeal today I am at a loss

Hopefully C-M will be able to explain the difference between to 2 decisions today.

Me three. I am shocked.

I think the Prankster should Blog about these two outcomes.

And I think the OP should complain to the IPC about the two decisions and ask why his went one way and the other one completely contradicted it.

And Noble SX certainly should not pay.


No way would Link Parking win in court with that useless Notice to Keeper. See it out, Noble SX but try a complaint to the IPC about this huge contradiction in a decision on the same basic point of law. Attach the two outcomes (just like Dee has done above) and ask - which is right and why have I as a keeper been assumed to be the driver when there have been no admissions in that respect and the PPC hasn't shown any evidence either? Yet in the other case, the IAS Adjudicator has gone in the opposite direction which hardly looks favourable to the IPC's so-called 'independent appeal service'. Where is the consistency which POPLA shows as regards such basic points? Finally, does the IPC support an adjudicator saying 'I am safe to assume' when making a decision on a point of law? Assume makes an a.s.s. out of u and me.

IAS and the IPC, William Hurley - if you read this thread - this makes your so-called appeals service look a JOKE.

Then send a complaint to the DVLA as well about this as they have agreed the IAS can adjudicate. This beggars belief. Rattle some cages while you wait and see what Link do.

Dee140157

So the question has to be asked, if there is a lead assessor for POPLA to whom we occasionally recommend complaining for spurious decisions, is there a similar structure within the IAS for a complaint over an IAS decision?

Personally I am beginning to wonder if we almost need an IPC PPC PCN to be taken to court so that precedents can be set. Especially on their contractual agreement charge. maybe once Beavis is dealt with this could be the next one to sort?

bod1467

Dee140157 wrote: »

is there a similar structure within the IAS for a complaint over an IAS decision?

We don't even know who their assessors are nevermind who their Lead assessor might be (if he/she even exists - which I doubt).

Dee140157

This thread on Pepipoo is another loss at IAS on the balance of probabilities that the person appealing was the driver when he says definitely he was not. But in this instance the PPC actually referred to the thread. They seemed to think he had admitted to being driver on the forum, which he hadn't in fact done so felt this served the balance of probabilities.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=92646

They certainly seem to be making some mad decisions. How are you supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you weren't the driver unless you have clear evidence you were somewhere else, eg flying a plane at the same time?

Coupon-mad

This is wrong - they cannot make assumptions. It has to be based on facts and evidence, and certainly the two polar extremes are the two cases you posted in post #103. It has to be worth a flurry of angry complaints from NobleSX, including copying in his MP to the emails to focus the mind of Mr Hurley.

The wording that NobleSX got has been seen before on here (the bit where they say the arguments are 'without merit and well rehearsed') and even that annoys me because if anyone puts forward well-rehearsed (rubbish) templates it's PPCs. It is written in such a biased and critical way against the ordinary man, it makes me wonder if that 'well rehearsed' decision could be Mr Hurley of the IPC himself - it couldn't be, could it? Surely not. Ahem..no...it has to be independent...what was I dreaming about!

Also who owns Link Parking? Just wondering...they are a small bog standard firm with a wholly non-compliant NTK and yet the IAS find in their favour...why?

Dee140157

Martin Toby Gardner, who is director, used to be a director of Sextoys Are Us! Says it all really.