IAS and POPLA - What's the difference?

in_john_lennons_name

Hi guys,

The 'registered keeper' got charged for stopping for two seconds to read signs at JLA in Liverpool a while back. Followed the fantastic advice here and received my reply from the company with my options for appeal.

They have told me to apply online to the IAS (Independent Appeals Service) at theias.org

However, everything I have read on this website refers to POPLA.

My query is simple - could anyone please tell me what's the difference between the two? Can I just make the appeal to POPLA and bypass this IAS group?

Thanks for the help!

Fruitcake

in_john_lennons_name wrote: »

Hi guys,

The 'registered keeper' got charged for stopping for two seconds to read signs at JLA in Liverpool a while back. Followed the fantastic advice here and received my reply from the company with my options for appeal.

They have told me to apply online to the IAS (Independent Appeals Service) at theias.org

However, everything I have read on this website refers to POPLA.

My query is simple - could anyone please tell me what's the difference between the two? Can I just make the appeal to POPLA and bypass this IAS group?

Thanks for the help!

You can't appeal to PoPLA unless the PPC is a member of the BPA. Have you read the NEWBIES thread because I'm sure it deals with this? IAS is part of the IPC which is a completely different outfit of scammers with different scamming rules.

in_john_lennons_name

Cheers Fruitcake. Found other threads with the same issue as mine. Think I'm gonna give the appeal a go to IAS anyway. I've come this far. Lets see.

Fruitcake

in_john_lennons_name wrote: »

Cheers Fruitcake. Found other threads with the same issue as mine. Think I'm gonna give the appeal a go to IAS anyway. I've come this far. Lets see.

It is so difficult to win an IAS appeal as opposed to PoPLA that the thinking is now Not to appeal to IAS because it's easier to win at court than at an IAS appeal.


Hopefully one of the experts here can confirm this but carry on reading up and preparing your appeal just in case.

Trebor16

Fruitcake wrote: »

It is so difficult to win an IAS appeal as opposed to PoPLA that the thinking is now Not to appeal to IAS because it's easier to win at court than at an IAS appeal.


Hopefully one of the experts here can confirm this but carry on reading up and preparing your appeal just in case.

This appears to be the advice in the stickies about the IAS. Their appeal system is anything but transparent and seems to be loaded in favour of their members.

Coupon-mad

in_john_lennons_name wrote: »

Cheers Fruitcake. Found other threads with the same issue as mine. Think I'm gonna give the appeal a go to IAS anyway. I've come this far. Lets see.

Only worth a try if you include all sorts of evidence, including an attachment of both sides of the NTK, and a link to the current byelaws, and proof (corroborated) that the appellant keeper wasn't the driver. Therefore no keeper liability ,and you have to show why. And that there was no GPEOL and that the signs were old BPA ones talking about breaching the terms, so the charge needs to be a GPEOL and it is not.

Takes a lot of proving - and even then IPC/Gladstones Mr Hurley's friends at another solicitor firm (the anonymous Adjudicators, it seems) might say 'this appeal has no merit' and look down their noses at you...almost makes one wonder if there could be an element of bias...

Everyone having to deal with IAS should be complaining to the DVLA, every time, about the perceived unfairness and lack of transparency of the appeal system and the question of appeals being heard by an anonymous person who may/may not be independent. Also the fact that they expect a person to prove they were not driving which is outwith POFA 2012 (it was the will of parliament that a consumer does NOT have to say whether they were driving or not, and yet the IAS still expects proof or they disregard ANY point made about 'no keeper liability'). The IAS then declare that the appellant is liable and should pay, even in cases where the appellant has shown that a NTK is not compliant with Schedule 4 and the Adjudicator does not even know who was driving. It is not on and oversteps the mark!

kev_min

C-M, I believe, in years gone by, that kind of process was known as a "kangaroo court"..... I can not believe that our "elected" masters have allowed such a scheme to evolve, especially as the IAS appeals are supposedly dealt with by qualified legal folks!

Or am I insulting kangaroo courts?

Dublindel

POPLA is independent and in general follows law but not always. IAS is run by directors of Gladstone Solicitors who chase alleged parking debts, the IAS and Gladstone Solicitors both trade from Red Cow Yard in Knutsford.Make your own mind up

Coupon-mad

kev_min wrote: »

C-M, I believe, in years gone by, that kind of process was known as a "kangaroo court"..... I can not believe that our "elected" masters have allowed such a scheme to evolve, especially as the IAS appeals are supposedly dealt with by qualified legal folks!

Or am I insulting kangaroo courts?

Search this forum for the word 'kangaroo' and you will see it described that way all the time!

HO87

Agreed.

The IAS procedure is effectively opaque.

Its operational standards appear "flexible", adjudicators are anonymous so complaining about inconsistent decisions by the same adjudicator is impossible.

Above all the process acts contrary to natural justice in that the defendant is obliged to prove their innocence rather than for the accuser to prove their case. Worse still, accusers get to see how the accused sets out to prove their innocence before they produce their "evidence" and there is no right of rebuttal.

In terms of hobbling the appellant POPLA's restriction of the grounds of appeal pales into insignificance in comparison with the way in which the IAS operates.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the IAS was established and is at least fed by a private members club (in the shape of the IPC) that's sole purpose is to promote and protect its members interests. It has no standing whatsoever other than offering what is nothing more than a service to its members. The public, by appealing, simply submit themselves to a game entirely of the IPC's devising, played to rules drawn up by the same party during which they never get to see their opponent's cards but its own cards are laid bare. If the banker decides that the other side has a 5-card flush then that is what they had.

IMHO you submit yourself to the IAS at your peril. If you choose not to appeal to them you should prepare yourself for the IPC/Gladstones to make much of your failure to submit yourself to their so-called ADR when and if the matter gets to court.

bazster

HO87 wrote: »

So, to avoid the
IMHO you submit yourself to the IAS at your peril. If you choose not to appeal to them you should prepare yourself for the IPC/Gladstones to make much of your failure to submit yourself to their so-called ADR when and if the matter gets to court.

All true, but as I have said several times recently, I think Gladstones or anyone else would be insane to put an IAS win in front of a court. All the defendant need do is to point out that the adjudication is anonymous and therefore worthless. So that is a good reason for submitting an IAS appeal.