More IAS Nonsense

Zero_Gravitas

See this thread on Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=96466

Someone with a VCS ticket appealed to the IAS. This is part of the anonymous IAS response:

"Having examined the operator's signs, it seems to me that the parking charge is being claimed as a result of a breach. The operator is therefore entitled to recover an amount reflective of its loss. In the context of private parking cases, loss has been held to include the commercial and operational costs of running a parking scheme. In my view, £100 is a commercially justified amount. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed."

Which appears to be their attempt at getting round old signage (as IAS members should not be operating the "breach" model, I believe)

More evidence of the kangaroo court...

ZG.

trisontana

"loss has been held to include the commercial and operational costs of running a parking scheme."

I would like to know who has held this view. Certainly not POPLA who regular rule that ordinary day-to-day business running costs can't be classed as a loss caused by a particular parking event.

peter_the_piper

I foresee many more movers from BPA now they have said this.

BlackSpangle

trisontana wrote: »

Certainly not POPLA who regular rule that ordinary day-to-day business running costs can't be classed as a loss

Not just POPLA. The courts themselves have held this view repeatedly. The usual test of including staffing costs as consequential losses is to determine whether the staff were significantly diverted from their normal duties. The PPCs, by maintaining these as losses, are saying that their ticketing and appeals staff have normal duties which never include ticketing or appeals.

I cannot see that IAS is anything except a fig leaf of an appeal service in order to achieve access to DVLA data. I keep hoping for even more egregious injustices to flow from them: eventually the imbalance between POPLA and IAS will be so apparent that we can force a policy change from DVLA.

Technics

Did they cite the private parking cases where the loss has been held to include those costs? Of course they didn't. In what forum were these cases heard (other IAS appeals?). They sound like wannabe judges running a kangaroo court. Someone should inform them that real courts try to deal with the relevant legal framework and come to a decision based on the merits of the case. Not make a decision and then resort to casuistry and sophistry to find a way to justify it.

In this case I would certainly write back asking for clarification of the cases they are basing that on and why they apply to these specific circumstances. I suspect they wouldn't reply.

The_Deep

We need to get these decisions in front of a judge, alongside similar cases dismissed at Popla.

To this end we should urge all punters to appeal IAS cases, but not try too hard to win.

trisontana

The IPC state that the IAS uses barristers to assess the cases. Don't they mean "baristas" moonlighting from Costa Coffee?

ampersand

trisontana - re: 'Don't they mean "baristas" moonlighting from Costa Coffee?'

Doubtful:-), better perks here:
https://www.costa.co.uk/about-us/our-people/careers/

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

The IPC state that the IAS uses barristers to assess the cases. Don't they mean "baristas" moonlighting from Costa Coffee?

Yes. That explains the quick response to appeals - expresso.