Liverpool Airport PCN received from Vehicle Control Services

Umkomaas

You're right CO. The case was overturned on appeal and in any case was one relating to permits to park. Other than it involved VCS the case had nothing to do with stopping on an airport road.

One of the real problems of copy and pasting - especially quoting case law when there is no understanding of its meaning or context.

Toiletduck - it needs removing.

Toiletduck

So it’s a win at IAS, I was starting to wonder if they would ever get back to me as the 42 day deadline approached.

Some lovely sneering comments from the anonymous adjudicator “spurious and without merit” and with reference to the witness statement “This has no more value than the letter provided by the Appellant’s colleague confirming they were in a meeting at the relevant time “

Im not sure I understand the logic they put forward for approving the appeal but it appears to be based upon my not compliance with POFA timescales argument.

The main argument of the appeal that the registered keeper was not the driver is not addressed directly and nor are any other arguments.

Is it possible that they couldn’t come up with any credible way of rejecting the appeal but didn’t want to set any sort of precedent on the forums regarding witness statements as to the registered keeper not being the driver as a basis for winning at IAS?

They’ve obviously been thinking this response over somewhat based on the IAS rejections you see on here that come back in 1-2 weeks.

Ralph-y

WEll done .........

please consider posting up the full letter so that it may help others

Ralph:cool:

DoaM

So IAS reject keeper assertions about not being the driver because they haven't proven they weren't the driver. So when a keeper does provide such evidence, they reject it is not being valid - ergo they are claiming the letter writer is lying.

TD ... I suggest you show this to the person who provided the letter of evidence, so they can complain to IAS regarding their libellous claims, and advise them that a claim for defamation of character may ensue.

Toiletduck

The way they have come to a decision is interesting. They allow the appeal based only on my POFA relevant periods not complied with argument and do not address the other much stronger arguments.

They then go on to explain that although my argument is not actually correct the operator did indeed fail to comply with POFA:

“just not in the specific manner suggested by the Appellant.”

How odd this is, they pick holes in my argument but go on to find another way to find that the operator didn’t comply. Why do this, surely IAS are usually looking for any excuse to reject anappeal?

Seems in this case they were looking for an excuse to allow it on this point. Perhaps so to not have to address the main argument relating to the witness statement in relation to the VCS assumption:

“On the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary”

Maybe they do not want to set a precedent for the basis of future appeals to IAS?

ManxRed

They'd look bloody stupid in court if they'd rejected and the PPC had started a claim. Really bloody stupid. I mean, really really stupid.

So, they've 'found' a reason to uphold your appeal even though (a) you didn't actually raise that point and (b) they won't actually tell you what the point was?

What's that smell?.....

ManxRed

I'm sure Pranky might like this one.

Toiletduck

ManxRed wrote: »

They'd look bloody stupid in court if they'd rejected and the PPC had started a claim. Really bloody stupid. I mean, really really stupid.

So, they've 'found' a reason to uphold your appeal even though (a) you didn't actually raise that point and (b) they won't actually tell you what the point was?

What's that smell?.....

No to be fair they do go into detail to explain exactly why they upheld the appeal on it not being in compliance with POFA. Its just that it wasnt the main point of my appeal:

"Although not specifically raised as an appeal point, the Appellant has raised PoFA deadlines and the failures by the Operator"

Why expand on this minor point and ignore the key point is my thought?

DoaM

Toiletduck wrote: »

Why expand on this minor point and ignore the key point is my thought?

Because they know they'd have a smoking gun (like POPLA do with GPEoL) if they found for you on that point.

Ralph-y

Please can you post the full appeal up so we can read it in full?

Ralph:cool: