IPC Draft appeal, new signs, parking having exceeded the time limit

EnigmaPart1

At least this has been tested out on a tame PPC , others in the same club are not so tame.

4consumerrights

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

..... and come and get into bed with me , you wont regret it.

perhaps you should paraphrase that a little better.....

Umkomaas

4consumerrights wrote: »

perhaps you should paraphrase that a little better.....

Ouch!

I think so too.

EnigmaPart1

Na i think it makes the point quite nicely:p

Umkomaas

4CR/EP1 - nice to see you both inputting to the forum more frequently these days. Good to have you back!

Northlakes

One would expect from any appeals body a degree of consistency as has been demonstrated by POPLA (with the odd recent exception). However IAS has shown since it obtained accreditation from the DVLA it has shown the opposite.

The IAS decisions in June allowed appeals on wrongly worded or drafted NTK's. This latest decision doesn't even consider these apparently valid points.

I have come to the conclusion that the IPC and it's appeal body is a sham and the strongest complaints should be made to the DVLA and any local MP wishing to listen. The DVLA has been hoodwinked and at first sight I can't see an easy way round it.

I'm not convinced at all by the idea of service addresses suggested by Enigma 1 . As soon as a number of cases come up even the dimmest PPC will realise these are fraudulent addresses and just harass the RK. Databases soon gather evidence of addresses that have CCJ's. I know this from having tenanted properties.

I must admit I can't see the purpose of spending a lot of time doing an appeal to the IAS when the same amount of time could be used to prepare a defence at a SSC. This might go against all the principles of ADR but unless an appellant gets a fair hearing there is no point to it.

The vagaries of a DJ at a SSC are surely better than the stonewalling we have seen demonstrated by the so called IAS.
If it were my money I would prefer to spend it on a court defence than wasting my time at a kangaroo court.

EnigmaPart1

No one wants to wast their time in a court hearing, to suggest that is silly

I am surprised you cant see a round the IAS - When the solution to IPC tickets has been aired............

Fergie76

If using a service address and it goes to court and someone ends up with a CCJ as result, how does this not result as a linked address on the CRF?

EnigmaPart1

Fergie76 wrote: »

If using a service address and it goes to court and someone ends up with a CCJ as result, how does this not result as a linked address on the CRF?

Very simple its like this.

Fergie moves house from 121 to 151 high street and tells his bank and phone and credit card company he is moving. They update their records and this then creates a linked address between 121 and 151 (forward links) at the main Credit reference agencies (to those whom they report data). He would also give this previous address for any credit searches for up to 3 years

Fergie gets a parking ticket from SIP. Fergie knows he cant win and knows that SIP like to sue people. Fergie gives the service address as defined by POFA as 101 north street.

Fergie doesn't do anything. Fergie at 101 north street receives a court claim. The person dealing with this knows this and receives the papers. This then goes to a default CCJ.

As Fergie has not moved to or from this address. or lived here there is no linked address issue.

Since Fergie will not be creating any form of links with this service address then the tracing businesses operated by the likes of Experian/Equifax wont work.

You see this works not only in theory but in practice. Unlike a lot of people on the forums ( dont be offended) I have actually done what I preach so when I am doing this I actually know it works because its been done before and it works. It isnt just theory dreamt up on a keyboard by someone who wouldnt actually go and do it themselves

Coupon-mad

Consequently, I choose to infer from their silence that they are the driver.

What utter codswallop - this isn't fair or true at all. Even Parliament stopped short of allowing PPCs to insist on learning who was driving, and then set out clearly the statutory requirements for keeper liability. The Schedule couldn't be much clearer - that a keeper can appeal and a keeper does not have to divulge who the driver was! Why would they say who was driving (whether they were or they weren't) since that then robs the household of the protection of the POFA and the requirements that this PPC has ignored.

Ignore this kangaroo court, SosXX. Don't pay, this just means you are back to where we were two years ago before appeals existed (because the IAS is often NO APPEAL). William Hurley should be ashamed of this diabolical rubbish.

I think this needs to be reported as a strong complaint to the DVLA because the DVLA decided that the IPC had to remove their condition of appeal that the driver 'had to be named' a few months ago. So why are the DVLA letting Hurley get away with the same thing now but by this method instead?

Bottom line as I see it -

How can the IAS be allowed to say: 'as registered keeper you are liable to pay the PCN because we are guessing you were driving. Whether we are right or wrong, pay up' when the appellant is categorically NOT liable because the NTK hasn't followed the statutory and prescribed wording? PPCs were banned by the DVLA for that same thing in recent years - i.e. saying a keeper is liable when they are not - and yet the IAS is repeating it and not even bothering to look at whether POFA was adhered to.