Rejected IAS Appeal

waamo

On the good side any attempt at suing the RK is doomed to failure. If they are not relying on POFA then they have to chase the driver.

Whilst they say they can assume the RK is the driver they will find that a court wouldn't make that assumption when presented with evidence. They've shot themselves in the foot really.

Fergie76

waamo wrote: »

On the good side any attempt at suing the RK is doomed to failure. If they are not relying on POFA then they have to chase the driver.

Whilst they say they can assume the RK is the driver they will find that a court wouldn't make that assumption when presented with evidence. They've shot themselves in the foot really.

Good point and in court you don't have to prove that you were not driving, the PPC has to prove that you were!!

SailorSam

On a regular basis the phone-in on our local radio gets calls complaining about Liverpool Airport. It's not unusual to hear people calling in to say they've had so much trouble trying to prove they haven't parked that they now drive the extra 35mls down the road to go to Manchester.
The High Court is expected to make a decision this afternoon which may clarify excess parking charges.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/01/how-challenge-parking-ticket

Fergie76

SailorSam wrote: »

The High Court is expected to make a decision this afternoon which may clarify excess parking charges.

Make a decision on what?

Technics

You are still under no legal obligation to name the driver. The IAS has erred in drawing the inference as they repeatedly do. It's simply that you are one of the first cases where there is a good possibility it could be proven. You may be able to prove it without identifying the driver but regardless the burden of proof should not be on you.

No acceptable court or adjudication process can begin with the assumption that the defendant is guilty. However, the IAS seem to think this is fine. It cannot be claimed to be an independent appeals service simply because it's called the Independent Appeals Service (something the IPC seems to rely on). Would an IAS by any other name smell as independent?

Every similar IAS rejection should result in a complaint to the DVLA and IPC. If you do write something then I'm sure people here would be happy to contribute and perhaps a template can be created to help others. Enough noise needs to be made or the farce will continue.

Redx

SailorSam wrote: »

The High Court is expected to make a decision this afternoon which may clarify excess parking charges.

I think you mean after NEXT WEEK, the Beavis case is from the 24th and the COA decision is expected in march

Toiletduck

Technics wrote: »

You are still under no legal obligation to name the driver. The IAS has erred in drawing the inference as they repeatedly do. It's simply that you are one of the first cases where there is a good possibility it could be proven. You may be able to prove it without identifying the driver but regardless the burden of proof should not be on you.

No acceptable court or adjudication process can begin with the assumption that the defendant is guilty. However, the IAS seem to think this is fine. It cannot be claimed to be an independent appeals service simply because it's called the Independent Appeals Service (something the IPC seems to rely on). Would an IAS by any other name smell as independent?

Every similar IAS rejection should result in a complaint to the DVLA and IPC. If you do write something then I'm sure people here would be happy to contribute and perhaps a template can be created to help others. Enough noise needs to be made or the farce will continue.

Actually this isnt the first case, I am still awaiting a response from the IAS for my appeal submitted last month for Liverpool Airport where it was conclusively proven (with evidence attached) that the RK could not have been the driver.

4 weeks now and still no response from IAS as the 6 week deadline approaches...

Technics

Toiletduck wrote: »

Actually this isnt the first case, I am still awaiting a response from the IAS for my appeal submitted last month for Liverpool Airport where it was conclusively proven (with evidence attached) that the RK could not have been the driver.

4 weeks now and still no response from IAS as the 6 week deadline approaches...

I take it you declined the opportunity to name the driver? If that is the case then your appeal should be interesting. However, it doesn't change the fact that the IAS require the RK to prove that they are not the driver (proof which many people will not have) when they should be asking the PPC to prove that the RK was the driver if they are not going to consider POFA.

bod1467

Toiletduck wrote: »

Actually this isnt the first case, I am still awaiting a response from the IAS for my appeal submitted last month for Liverpool Airport where it was conclusively proven (with evidence attached) that the RK could not have been the driver.

4 weeks now and still no response from IAS as the 6 week deadline approaches...

Yours is a harder case for them to find suitable weasel words to be able to reject your appeal. That's why it's taking so much longer.

Toiletduck

Technics wrote: »

I take it you declined the opportunity to name the driver? If that is the case then your appeal should be interesting. However, it doesn't change the fact that the IAS require the RK to prove that they are not the driver (proof which many people will not have) when they should be asking the PPC to prove that the RK was the driver if they are not going to consider POFA.

The driver was not named.

NTK issued too late to comply with POFA (not that it applies at JLA)

Indisputable evidence submitted to show the RK was not the driver.

Waiting to see how they riggle out of it. Seems they are thinking hard as most IAS rejections come back in 1-2 weeks on here.