Lost my IAS appeal... what next?

BarryTS

I previously opened this post forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5200035

Just received notification that my appeal has been dismissed by IAS, so looking for advice as to what to do next.

Is it worth posting the appeal rejection on here?

Neither VCS or IAS have asked why I stopped... are mitigating circumstances futile?... and does a disabled badge carry any weight?

Any replies are appreciated

Fergie76

BarryTS wrote: »

I previously opened this post - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5200035

Why didn't you just post in your original thread to keep the context?

BarryTS wrote: »

Just received notification that my appeal has been dismissed by IAS, so looking for advice as to what to do next.

Ignore everything unless you get a LBA or County Court papers from Northampton.

BarryTS wrote: »

Is it worth posting the appeal rejection on here?

Yes, as it can help other people on what not to write.

BarryTS wrote: »

Neither VCS or IAS have asked why I stopped... are mitigating circumstances futile?

Yes, they will only judge on points of law and even then they will do everything the can to ignore them.

http://www.theipc.info/#!independent-appeals-service/citr

They can only consider the lawfulness of a charge and cannot consider mitigating circumstances.

BarryTS wrote: »

and does a disabled badge carry any weight?

About 50gm?

Seriously though, as per your disable badge handbook, they are not valid on off-street and private car parks.

BarryTS

The flowchart thread suggested opening a new thread!
Sorry if I transgressed the forum rules.

Here's the response from the IAS

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Appellant raises a number of familiar and popular arguments and I shall respond to each.

1. The Unfair Contract Terms Regulations have little weight as the Appellant has all of the negotiating power. If they do not wish to accept the terms they do not have to do so.

2. Loss is not relevant. The contractual terms advertised on the signs at the location make it clear that any driver stopping agrees to pay the charge. Once the driver has entered an agreement with the Operator to pay they are bound by this, and there is no requirement for the Operator to show they have lost the amount the driver agreed to pay.

3. In this appeal there is no requirement to prove anything, that burden falls on the Appellant. In the absence of any evidence to support this ground of appeal I do not accept it.

4. The Appellant provides no evidence of the contradiction but the legal status of the charge is defined by the terms of the contract from which it originates not by its nomenclature. If I describe a mortgage as a lease it does it stop being a mortgage. If the Operator has used the term breach this is unfortunate but it does not affect my view that it is a contractual agreement based on the contractual terms.

The signs say no stopping, a clear message that the Operator wishes to discourage stopping. The fact that it then explains the price the driver agrees to pay for stopping is evidence that stopping is permitted.

5. There does not appear to be a point 5.

6. The Appellant provides no evidence.

7. The Appellant is not a resident of the land where they stopped and it is for the Operator with the land owner to decide the terms for stopping and whether to issue permits. They have not issued permits and therefore thi s is not relevant.

The Appellant has not provided copies of the judgments they have relied on."



As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

---

There are also dire warnings about not publishing their response... I've chosen to ignore that

Thanks in advance for any advice

Fergie76

What was your appeal?

Fergie76

BarryTS wrote: »

The flowchart thread suggested opening a new thread!
Sorry if I transgressed the forum rules.

You haven't broken any rules, it's just that there a lots of new threads everyday asking for help, so if you keep everything in one thread, it makes it easier, for the people giving advice as it saves them from having to click on several different links.

I have suggested that they change the flow diagram. There maybe a good reason, that I don't know about, that they have chosen to do it that way.

The_Deep

Please publish your appea.

Paragraph 1 of the Adjudicator's decision looks decidedly dodgy and it would be interesting to know why he/she feels that legislation to protect consumers from being ripped off is "hardly relevant".

Also, what does this mean

The signs say no stopping, a clear message that the Operator wishes to discourage stopping. The fact that it then explains the price the driver agrees to pay for stopping is evidence that stopping is permitted.

If one of these IAS companies were to take a motorist to court on the basis that the IAS refused the appeal, it would be most likely that, if an appeal such as this was produced, things might be said by a judge about the merit, or lack thereof, of that appeal. In which case it would be likely that no IAS decision could ever be used in court by a PPC.

esmerobbo

I would love the "independent adjudicator" to explain how you digest the information on the signs without stopping?

Also how can you agree to pay for something you are not allowed to do?

matttye

esmerobbo wrote: »

I would love the "independent adjudicator" to explain how you digest the information on the signs without stopping?

Also how can you agree to pay for something you are not allowed to do?

Exactly it's either "no stopping" in which case if you breach it, damages may be payable, or its "you can stop but it will cost you £xx", which would reflect a contractual agreement.

Can't be both.

ampersand

op - ask crabman to merge both Threads please.