IAS Appeal Dismissed VCS

Fergie76

Escalate the complaint to the CEO's office.

The_Slithy_Tove

Maybe you should suggest, no, TELL, the DVLA to carry out a proper investigation based on the reasonable assumption that the BPA are liars, cheats, disreputable, self-interested, just like their members.

arthurx1234

I have E mailed the ceo of SRA & DVLA telling them of operators not complying with the code and the ATA not enforcing the code
however as part of my reply from my rejected appeal contained this
phrase "the code of practice does not bind the Operator."
frankly what hope of success is there

"The first breach concerns the lack of grace period for enforcement of new terms and conditions. The Appellant is correct that the code suggests a grace period of one month before enforcement action is taken, but the fact the Operator has chosen to enforce prior to the recommended date does not mean the parking charge is no longer enforceable as the code of practice does not bind the Operator. The fact that the Operator is enforcing earlier than recommended is not a predatory tactic."

Arthur

nigelbb

arthurx1234 wrote: »

I have E mailed the ceo of SRA & DVLA telling them of operators not complying with the code and the ATA not enforcing the code
however as part of my reply from my rejected appeal contained this
phrase "the code of practice does not bind the Operator."
frankly what hope of success is there

"The first breach concerns the lack of grace period for enforcement of new terms and conditions. The Appellant is correct that the code suggests a grace period of one month before enforcement action is taken, but the fact the Operator has chosen to enforce prior to the recommended date does not mean the parking charge is no longer enforceable as the code of practice does not bind the Operator. The fact that the Operator is enforcing earlier than recommended is not a predatory tactic."

Arthur

To quote Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean:-

"The Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

arthurx1234

nigelbb wrote: »

To quote Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Caribbean:-

"The Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

Taken from IPC Code of Practice
2. Conditions 2.1 It is a condition of AOS membership that you agree to abide by this Code of Practice and comply with the Independent Appeals Service. It is your duty to be fully appraised with the Code. Unawareness of the terms of the Code or any applicable legal provisions will not be regarded as an excuse for non-compliance. 2

Also

Members of the IPC who operate within the private parking sector are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code of Practice which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness.

The Code is enforceable against its subscribers and includes a scheme of sanctions which can be invoked in instances of non-compliance

---

I am sure somewhere it says the code is the minimum standard

It does seem that this code of practice is ignored by all, never mind

Arthur

bod1467

arthurx1234 wrote: »

It does seem that this code of practice is ignored by all,

Including the people who wrote it and are supposed to enforce it. :mad:

arthurx1234

Here is the reply from the Solicitors Regulatory Authority


Basically they need to be informed of the firm of solicitors used by IAS (I knew that but IAS cannot be forced to tell us victims)


Have emailed the CEO of the SRA, but not hopeful.


It would seem no one is bothered about these private car park firms, the code of practice is a joke, they must have a good laugh at our emails and letters when we quote chapter x of the cop


Have not heared anything from v c s for a while but will be incuding an invoice with each reply with a copy of my terms and conditions because assoon as they write to me they have entered into a contract my rates are £250.00 per hour or part of. ( i am a bit p**sed off with these guys and the organisations that are suposed to help the general public)

---

In review of the IAS service it states this is an independent body that uses solicitors and barristers to review appeals who also are independent.

As you are unaware of whether it is a solicitor or barrister that has dealt with the matter i am unsure of the breach of codes of practice you are referring to as both are governed by different codes of practice and conduct.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) do not regulate the IAS service as they are not a law firm of England & Wales. I would suggest you seek further legal advice if you have a dispute with the IAS service or refer to your local citizens advice bureau CAB, or local MP for further advice.

I am sorry that we are unable to help further. If you ascertain that a solicitor has dealt with your matter and you believe the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) code of conduct or practising guidelines has been breached then please report this to us using the details provided in the previous emails.


Thank you for contacting the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Yours sincerely

[FONT=&quot]Tony Westwood[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Contact Centre Officer
Solicitors [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regulation[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Authority[/FONT]

bazster

From the IPC website:

Whilst the Appeals system is administered by the IPC, each appeal is dealt with by a qualified and practising solicitor or barrister who will consider written representations from you and the Parking Operator before deciding whether the charge was lawfully issued.

Adjudicators are appointed under a contract of self-employment...

...presumably a contract with the IPC.

And both directors of the IPC are practising solicitors, so perhaps you should report them to the SRA:

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08248531/INDEPENDENT-PARKING-COMMITTEE-LTD/directors-secretaries#people-summary

The_Deep

You need the name of the adjudicator in order to know which regulatory body. If they will not supply it bring the matter to the attention of the MOJ/LCD.

Herzlos

They won't supply it. Presumably refusing to name the adjudicator is against the SRA guidelines? I'd definitely start with the directors, who must have some responsibility for the behaviour of their staff, or at least be able to point the SRA towards the solicitors in question (no doubt they'll say "in this instance it was a barrister so there's nothing for you to do").