IAS appeal

srs1311

Hi, thanks to everyone who takes the time out to help me with this..I appreciate that the start of it may sound like I'm just repeating old threads but bare with me :-)

I dropped some people off at Liverpool Airport on a red zone and no surprises I got a PCN. I followed the advice on the forum in the newbie thread and emailed back an appeal, copying the template letter. I received my rejection today but instead of POPLA I've been told that if I want to appeal I need to submit and appeal to IAS.

I looked in the newbie thread again for advice on this, it says not to bother appealing to IAS but I'm unsure if thats because you wont win or not? If so should I just pay the fine?

I'm confused because I've searched the forum for both 'IAS' and still can't find a great deal of info. I've searched for Liverpool Airport and every single thread I've read the person has been told to appeal to POPLA (which would be straightforward, just another template letter to copy) but no one seems to have been told to appeal to IAS? Any help or guidance would be really appreciated.

ezerscrooge

This could be an interesting one because JLA and it approach roads are not 'relevant land' so there is no keeper liabilty under POFA - so any appeal should be automatically successful.

Others may advise differently, but you could do an appeal to the IPC making clear that point. If the appeal goes against you, then don't pay but start ignoring them. You would need to refer to the byelaws

This link will take you to the Parking Prankster site which has good text on the case (which you would need to put in your appeal) and a copy of the byelaws...

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-open-letter-to-simon-renshaw-smith.html

Also, put a complaint into the DVLA as they have obtained your details under POFA and, as this does not apply to the JLA land, then the DVLA should sanction them.

Even if you lost at the IPC, it is highly unlikely that VCS will bother to take the case to court as they are on a hiding to nothing.

Coupon-mad

This could be an interesting one because JLA and it approach roads are not 'relevant land' so there is no keeper liabilty under POFA - so any appeal should be automatically successful.

Only if they can also prove to the IAS 'allegedly anonymous pompous git' that they were NOT the driver as well. Otherwise allegedly pompous git will ignore that.

srs1311

Thanks for replies...

Sorry to sound stupid on this...but when you say appealing to IPC is that the same as IAS?

I've been doing some reading on the byelaws for JLA and theres some confusion (or maybe its just me) as the roads around JLA were sold to Peel holdings so unsure if they are now classed as relevant roads or not.

Appeals seem straightforward with POPLA but not IAS...if I ignore IAS/VCS will I end up in court?

Coupon-mad

You may do - you may well not - but that's an easier defence and a fairer hearing than the kangaroo court of IAS (which is IPC's so-called appeals service, yes). If you can corroborate that it wasn't you - as keeper - also driving and show how the NTK is flawed (it is flawed) as well as the fact it's not relevant land (and it isn't relevant land) it's winnable at IAS. But not if you can't get a friend or relative to sign such a witness statement to say where you were that proves you weren't driving the car.

If you were driving I'd ignore it and just collect the junk mail debt collector letters, which is better than losing at IAS (more likely that such cases might go to Court, I would say based on what we've seen follow an IAS loss. Much less likely VCS will try one where IAS wasn't used). And they almost never try court, once in a blue moon (we know for a fact as us regulars here look at the daily court listings - ParkingEye feature every day. VCS don't even come up once every 6 months; not even one case). I reckon a lot of PPCs are waiting on the Court of Appeal decision in March 2015 about PE v Beavis.

hoohoo

The IAS automatically uphold all appeals where the charge is for breach of contract (or so it seems, anyway).

I would therefore appeal to the IAS since VCS will not have changed their signage yet from breach of contract to contractual charge.

As the IAS do not give you the opeator evidence, I would also send them the analysis from the prankster (excel == vcs) which proves they are lying when they submit their charges.

http://www.parking-prankster.com/excel-parking.html

srs1311

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks for the advice.

I was driving the vehicle so it doesn't sound like I have much of a chance of winning an appeal with IAS. With what Hoo Hoo said, do you still think I should ignore the appeal and all letters after?

Hoo Hoo's advice sounded promising, but then I'm thinking about what you said also - feels like it would likely be rejected and more of a chance of court. Any final advice !:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Well I do agree with hoohoo in that we have seen the IAS accept appeals, where the firm is operating with their charges being for breach - which is what is happening here. The IPC wants all their members to operate as if the charge is 'consideration' (an agreed fee to park). But how can that ever work at an Airport no-stopping zone? Who knows what VCS and the IPC have agreed for that...not sure.

Bottom line, if you want to try you could but as you've been honest here and said you were driving, you have dropped the best appeal point in the bin IMHO. So if you wish to try based on the fact old BPA signs were up (maybe?) and the charge is not a GPEOL and there are no obvious repeater signs clearly showing it's a no-stopping zone, then we can help you word it.

The risk you take is if you lose, VCS will send a Letter before Claim a lot quicker and you will have singled yourself out, whereas people just getting debt collection letters usually just get...debt collection letters!

But then again - if you win it is cancelled! And hoohoo may well be right that it will just be cancelled as VCS are not yet operating the preferred business model the IPC wants them to.

Your call really, either way even with a small claim it's defendable (and rare for VCS to go that far).

srs1311

Hi everyone - thanks so much for the advice so far. Just a quick update, I think VCS have upped their game a bit...I re-checked the original NTK I received and they appear to have changed their wording. Instead of going down a breach of terms and conditions that would leave them open to the GPEOL defence, they now say 'PCN issued for alledgedly breaching T&Cs of use of the privately operated access roads for JLA. The t&cs to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the site are clearly placed...' etc etc.

They make a big song and dance about this clearly only being against the driver. Am I best dropping the GPEOL defence and going down the not relevant land route. Or maybe I'm best just not bothering at all and ignoring all letters from VCS!

ezerscrooge

You could go down a different altogether and report them to the police. The JLA area is covered by Byelaws that state the max penalty for breaking the byelaw is £5, so they are attempting to obtain monies by deception.

BenefitMaster has set up a little sting that you may wish to follow/mirror yourself...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5111796

But whatever they say, the NtK still states the words 'breach t&cs', not that they can apply t&cs to land covered by Byelaws - they cannot over-ride those byelaws. That is what the byelaws are for. It's just VCS drivel.

It would be laughed out of court (not that it will ever get that far).

Umkomaas

PCN issued for alledgedly breaching T&Cs of use of the privately operated access roads for JLA. The t&cs to which the driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the site are clearly placed.

That's a not-so-clever attempt at 'heads I win, tails you lose' or 'cover all eventualities, just in case'.

The term 'breach' means they can only claim for a GPEOL - so leave it in!