Fake PCN For Parking In Visitor Space (IPC Company) (UPDATE: IAS Appeal Rejected)

Daps

Paying them isn't an option so I guess I'll be waiting for the LBC.

Umkomaas

You could suggest that in the event of a 'rejection' from the landowner, should this end up in court, you will be calling him as a witness.

Not quite as easy as that sounds to actuate, but if he is 'court unaware' it might be enough to help to concentrate his mind in not being obstructive.

Try it if necessary, nothing to lose!

Dee140157

I have a sneaking suspicion that the only way we are going to be able to best IPC in the future is with some decent court cases behind us where their cases are thrown out!

So whilst the bigger half of me does not want you to have to face an LBCC etc, there is a little bit of me that wants the to take you to court so you can beat them and give us more things to quote in other dodgy appeals.

The IPC are a huge joke. Especially since they reside in close abode to Gladstones.

The_Deep

So, where do we go from here? Given the standard of adjudication seen here, do we still encourage punters to appeal, or do we advise them to boycott the I.A.S. process?

Do we carry on, appealing on solid legal grounds and have some anonymous person, who may or may not have had legal training, dismiss them without consideration. If every appeal which we put up is rejected by IAS but is upheld at Popla then clearly there is a problem with one of them.

If they are going to lose at appeal anyway, what is the point of appealing, they will probably end up in court anyway.

bazster

Quite. This says it all really:

"The onus is on the Appellant to prove their claim and on a balance of probability there is no reason to believe one account over the other."

Er, it's not the appellant's claim, it's Link Parking making the claim! The burden of proof is entirely theirs! Faced with such a flagrant perversion of natural justice, what's the point? It surely has to be ignore or court with this lot.

Edit: actually, on further reflection, there is a point in getting blatantly biased adjudications such as the one above. There is an obvious weakness in the IPC's approach to this which is quite surprising for an organisation run by solicitors.

If a PPC were to bring a court claim and present the adjudication in evidence the defendant could put them in an impossible position with the simple question "well who wrote it then?" They would then have a choice of responses:

(a) admit they don't know
(b) admit that they do know but refuse to say
(c) 'fess up the identity of the "adjudicator".

(a) and (b) would both destroy the adjudication as evidence and put the claimant in a bad light before the court. (c) would not only be very interesting but, if it truly turned out to be from a solicitor or barrister, might make it difficult for the IPC to get similar adjudications in future. After all, what solicitor or barrister would want to be publicly associated with garbage such as we see above?

jkdd77

One cannot 'contractually agree' to do that which is forbidden, and the invoice is clearly for breach of contract, and so must be a GPEoL, which it isn't. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the PPC as claimant, not the motorist.

I have never seen a more biased or unprofessional "assessment", and suspect that it was never read by any legally qualified person at all.

I agree that the "Independent" Appeals Service is nothing of the sort- it is run by ex-clampers and provides a service to PPCs, solely,- the PPCs pay £15 to the "I"AS, and in return the "I"AS sends a threatening letter to the victim, sorry motorist, telling them that the invoice is enforceable, and that they must pay up. No wonder so many PPCs are switching to the IPC and its "I"AS- they are delighted with the service they receive for their £15.

There is a risk that district judges may place undue weight on the biased "assessment" of a supposedly "independent" appeals service, as apparently once happened with a PPC court claim following a failed POPLA appeal.

The act of appealing to the "I"AS could itself be perceived as recognising its independence, impartiality, and authority, and for this reason I suggest that motorists in receipt of threatograms from PPCs in membership of IPC should either:
a) ignore, or:
b) send a short letter to the PPC denying liability, and then ignore, but in neither case should actual court papers be ignored!

The day may come when POPLA goes the same way (particularly if Mr. Beavis fails with his appeal), but we should cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

bazster

jkdd77 wrote: »

There is a risk that district judges may place undue weight on the biased "assessment" of a supposedly "independent" appeals service, as apparently once happened with a PPC court claim following a failed POPLA appeal.

For all its flaws PoPLA is at least transparent in that we know who it is. We know it is run by London Councils and we know the identities of the assessors.

As indicated above, an "I"AS "adjudication" could easily be challenged in court on the grounds that it is anonymous. A court can't accept anonymous documents as evidence!

Coupon-mad

Reading between the lines the IAS said there was 'no evidence' (of things like the NTK flaws) so since this appeal was lost I have been suggesting IAS appellants attach evidence - such as if they are saying the NTK is flawed then they must attach a copy/scan of it with the flaws numbered & annotated/highlighted to match the appeal. Blow by blow appeals with evidence to match, are what I am encouraging. More like a court defence with exhibits. If that's how they want it displayed then that's what we must do. I am not prepared to throw in the towel or despair, but to try to learn from these.

We'll see - but losing a few IAS appeals at the moment is exactly what happened at first when we tested POPLA nearly 2 years ago. It didn't take long to learn what will work, the difficulty is when you win, IAS don't say why or give any feedback so it's hard to suss the killer points, that's all. There have also been IAS appeals won of course, some v PCM for example.

Also we know Link Parking have no case against a keeper as they don't use a compliant NTK - and if the IAS can't see that, then a court may well do if Link want to try.