IAS Appeal Dismissed VCS

arthurx1234

The_Deep wrote: »

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.

MOJ/LCD not a clue what these abbreviations are
help please (excuse my ignorance)

Arthur

The_Deep

Ministry of Justice, Lord Chancellor's Department.

Castle

I would suggest sending a Subject Access Request to the IPC asking for copies of all the information they hold on you, which will include any information provided to/received from the adjudicators as well as the parking company.

neil.net

Herzlos wrote: »

(no doubt they'll say "in this instance it was a barrister so there's nothing for you to do").

In which case there's the Bar Standards Board https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/

arthurx1234

Just to recap on my situation
28/2/15 PCN attached to windscreen
20/3/15 Appeal rejected by operator
12/4/15 Appeal rejected by IAS

I have had no Notice to Keeper, do they (the parking company) still need to send me a NTK?

thanks
Arthur

bod1467

If you appealed the windscreen ticket, no.

ColliesCarer

bod1467 wrote: »

If you appealed the windscreen ticket, no.

I was under the impression that if the PPC receive an early appeal from the reg. keeper in response to a windscreen notice then they do still need to provide a compliant Ntk.

Isn't that the reason behind the advice to appeal (as reg. keeper) the windscreen ticket early (i.e. after about 21 days) for some PPC's and locations - so that by the time it got to 2nd stage appeal there would be an extra appeal point - No NtK provided and now out of time therefore no keeper liability.

Or have I misunderstood?

Of course now 2nd appeal has been refused it is probably now moot either way but would appreciate someone clarifying if I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick

arthurx1234

Just to recap on my situation
28/2/15 PCN attached to windscreen
20/3/15 Appeal rejected by operator
12/4/15 Appeal rejected by IAS

I have had no Notice to Keeper, do they (the parking company) still need to send me a NTK?

bod1467 wrote: »

If you appealed the windscreen ticket, no.

Taken from Parkingcowboys web site

A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either

1. (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or
2. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

So i am still unsure if a NTK is required a the above seems to saythat a NTK is needed

I assume notice to driver is the windscreen ticket?

Arthur

nigelbb

arthurx1234 wrote: »

Just to recap on my situation
28/2/15 PCN attached to windscreen
20/3/15 Appeal rejected by operator
12/4/15 Appeal rejected by IAS

I have had no Notice to Keeper, do they (the parking company) still need to send me a NTK?

You appear to have misunderstood the process. This is the end of the line. If you appeal an NTD there will be no NTK. If your appeals to the PPC & to the 'independent' appeals service have been turned down then just be prepared to ignore begging letters for the next six years & to keep an eye out in case genuine court papers are served on you to which you much respond.

arthurx1234

Thanks for clearing things up
Will look out for any letters
Will respond to ALL letters as I think if it gets to court a judge would look dimly on a defendant not following the appeals process (flawed it may be).
Also the more these people write IAS etc the more they contradict their own COP

E.G.
"the code of practice does not bind the Operator."
"2.1 It is a condition of AOS membership that you agree to abide by this Code of Practice"

The Adjudicators comments are as follows: "The Appellant challenges the parking charge on the basis that there are a number of breaches of the code of practice.

If there is a breach of the code this does not mean that the charge is no longer valid. For example, the sign may not comply with all the requirements of the code, but if it still provides sufficient notice, whilst in breach of the code, the charge would be legal.

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."

The whole industry is populated by genetically defective organisms, what a shambles!!

Arthur