Should we advise people to appeal to the IAS?

Nodding_Donkey

As title. There seems to be two schools of thought on this. If people could vote and then give their reasons in the thread it may give us some sort of reference point.

Herzlos

Yes

I think yes because:

1. It costs them money (about £20 per appeal, I believe)
2. It's less likely to get to court, because they must know how bent the adjudication is.
3. It makes you look more reasonable if it gets to court
4. It gives you the opportunity to claim for costs/damages when the court upholds something they rejected, on the grounds that they are being unreasonable
5. It further skews their figures - it'll look bad if POPLA appeals go 50/50 and IAS appeals go 80/20.
6. Bad results give something to complain about (to the IPC, SRA, DVLA and your MP). I feel it's the weight of these complaints that'll eventually bring the whole scam down.

I don't think there's much risk of legitimizing it, because you can always request appropriate ADR from the court system, and you can always prepend you appeal with "Due to the well documentated nature of the IAS, I already know the outcome of this, but in the nature of fairness I am appealing anyway", or a footer along the lines of "I am fully aware of the IAS's reputation for fairness, and as such will be vigourously contesting any poor decisions".

hoohoo

Yes

Herzlos wrote: »

I think yes because:

1. It costs them money (about £20 per appeal, I believe)
2. It's less likely to get to court, because they must know how bent the adjudication is.
3. It makes you look more reasonable if it gets to court
4. It gives you the opportunity to claim for costs/damages when the court upholds something they rejected, on the grounds that they are being unreasonable
5. It further skews their figures - it'll look bad if POPLA appeals go 50/50 and IAS appeals go 80/20.
6. Bad results give something to complain about (to the IPC, SRA, DVLA and your MP). I feel it's the weight of these complaints that'll eventually bring the whole scam down.

I don't think there's much risk of legitimizing it, because you can always request appropriate ADR from the court system, and you can always prepend you appeal with "Due to the well documentated nature of the IAS, I already know the outcome of this, but in the nature of fairness I am appealing anyway", or a footer along the lines of "I am fully aware of the IAS's reputation for fairness, and as such will be vigourously contesting any poor decisions".

+1 The thing that will eventually bring the IPC down is the bogus appeals system, and this can only be shown to be bogus if people use it and there a large number of results showing incompetence and inbuilt bias against the motorist.

Quentin

There is only one "school of thought" in the authoritative FAQ thread.


This issue needs resolving otherwise the authority of the FAQ thread is jeopardised.


The authority(s) who disagree with the FAQ bold "DONT BOTHER APPEALING TO IAS" message needs to sort this out behind closed doors, and not just confuse newbies (who come here primarily to get their ticket sorted, not "bring down the IPC")

The_Deep

Yes

I agree with Herzlos. This is a no brainer, everyone should appeal.

Grimble

Yes

They would never want a real judge asking them for the name of the adjudicator to report to the SRA. If presented with a letter before claim or actual court papers you could reasonably ask for the name of said adjudicator to be disclosed for the court.

enfield_freddy

but barista,s are too busy doing there day job to turn up in court.


ok , how much does a team of barristers earn in an hour?


how many cases can be read thru and discussed and decided on in one hour ,


I suspect that they would have to assess a claim in 16 seconds to equate the fees taken from members to the wage bill by the barristers


IE , there ARE NO BARRISTERS , it is done in house by themselves , on a 80+ to 20 fail ratio ,

enfield_freddy

Independence Guaranteed

We guarantee that your appeal will be considered by a completely independent and impartial adjudicator.

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 and it is an express term of their appointment that they must retain complete impartiality. They are not permitted to be influenced by the IPC and must not exercise any bias towards either the Parking Operator or the Motorist.

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

Although the IPC works in association with Gladstones Solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors DO NOT consider appeals.




no the guy doing tea duty that day plays lucky dip , to get a sample 20% and then has to type letters to the lucky winners in the daily lottery

Herzlos

Yes

I think we all know they aren't proper solicitors/barristers, but how do we prove it? I think it'll take an offended judge or MP to bring things to light. The more appeals they reject for unlawful reasons the better. Especially where the same appeal would be upheld by POPLA.

enfield_freddy

y6up , but how many times have they tried court after giving a stupid reply ?


no judge would like there terms , Ie you have your say PPC have last word , you cannot add or see info , you are tried by a "ghost" , you are asked to prove the unprovable ,


yup , one day a judge is going to set to on this lot , and sort it out


but until they start with cases (multiple) , this will not happen

hoohoo

Yes

enfield_freddy wrote: »

y6up , but how many times have they tried court after giving a stupid reply ?

As far as I know, lots of threats but a big fat zero getting as far as a hearing. I don't think Excel/VCS would be stupid enough to do court, but Gladstones may well persuade some of the bottom scrapers to cough up and try a case or two out.