IAS decisions at a real court

esmerobbo

As I posted on PPP.

If he/she did know the approach road, he/she would know two things.

1, It is not busy at all. "(of stopping a car on a busy airport approach road)"

2, It is actually less convenient then the main car parks and the collection point. "put convenience over cost"

It would be interesting to know how he/she read the signs without stopping.

It seems strange that VCS's claim the need for this restriction is for Airport security, when the CCTV van goes away when the operators shift ends.

bazster

esmerobbo wrote: »

It seems strange that VCS's claim the need for this restriction is for Airport security, when the CCTV van goes away when the operators shift ends.

Well Skippy the IAS adjudicator seems to think that stopping on the road is a service for which there is a charge of £100. Not quite sure how that squares with it being a security risk!

The_Deep

Indeed, the appellant should do everything in their power to get this in front of a judge. Production of the byelaws would kill it stone dead.

Do not the PPCs realise that such decisions from "Independent Adjudcators" do them no service at all.

Castle

bazster wrote: »

Well Skippy the IAS adjudicator seems to think that stopping on the road is a service for which there is a charge of £100. Not quite sure how that squares with it being a security risk!

If Skippy thinks it's a service then IMO there's no reasonable cause to request RK details as there's no breach/contravention by the driver, other than failure to pay.

However, as the driver has 14/28 days to pay from receipt of the PCN, there's no failure to pay on their part until the 14/28 days are up. (Basically it's catch 22)

bazster

Castle wrote: »

If Skippy thinks it's a service then IMO there's no reasonable cause to request RK details as there's no breach/contravention by the driver, other than failure to pay.

However, as the driver has 14/28 days to pay from receipt of the PCN, there's no failure to pay on their part until the 14/28 days are up. (Basically it's catch 22)

Unfortunately that kind of irrefutable logic will be dismissed out-of-hand by the corrupt DVLA.

ManxRed

The_Deep wrote: »

Do not the PPCs realise that such decisions from "Independent Adjudcators" do them no service at all.

I think it's more likely to be the case that the percentage of people who subsequently pay up once their IAS appeal is rejected does the PPCs every service they desire. Which is why the IAS do it.

I think they've probably done the maths and realise that they make more money through people paying up following a rejected appeal, and are happy to steer well clear of a court claim given the kangaroo court outcomes.