IAS appeal for RHA

mjg79

Update, firefox appeared to save the day as you can set it up to always allow copy and paste - IAS have tried to disable it from their site. However they are limiting statements to 1000 words, presumably to try to stop the kind of appeal that found success in the link given by Umkomass. Again, so transparent. I will have to put the summary in my statement box and then upload the rest as a separate document.

It's worth noting that the rest of the page has been designed to confuse. The box identifying me as the driver is by default set to "yes" and if you change it to say "not prepared to answer" a warning box flashes up explaining that you must either admit this or else admit being the keeper and inviting you to amend your selection - crucially this is done before you do anything to the "were you the keeper" box - a trick to get the unaware to amend their first answer. The whole site comes across as very dodgy - I wonder why I am surprised!

enfield_freddy

the site and the whole setup is very dodgy , I await the time a man in a frock and wig receives a ticket from one of those clowns , tries to appeal and the muppets send him a rebuttal ,


I await the day

mjg79

Indeed enfield freddy. I honestly get so frustrated at bullies getting their way that I would be perfectly happy if they take it to court and I get the chance to argue it in front of the small claims court judge.

As I wrote above I have had a fair bit of experience with the small claims court for trying to get money owed to me - and that was when the others had signed a real contract with witnesses! And then the judge went through everything and had to have receipts for everything. The idea these cowboys would stand up and claim that someone in a car registered to me pulling up for 15 seconds cost them £100 is utterly laughable.

mjg79

Another update. I finished my appeal. In the comments section I put the following (apologies for the capital letters):

THIS BOX ONLY ALLOWS 1000 WORDS AND MY COMMENTS QUITE REASONABLY ON THIS IMPORTANT LEGAL MATTER REQUIRE MORE. I WILL UPLOAD MY COMMENTS INTO THE DOCUMENTS SECTION. I WILL UPLOAD IT AS A WORD DOCUMENT FILE - I WILL UPLOAD IT TWICE, ONCE AS A WORD .DOCX FILE AND ONCE AS A WORD .DOC FILE SO IT CAN BE READ IN ANY VERSION OF WORD. IF THE IAS IS UNABLE TO OPEN IT THEY MUST CONTACT ME AND PROVIDE MEANS FOR ME TO SUPPLY IT IN ANOTHER FORMAT OR ALTER THIS PAGE TO ALLOW LONGER COMMENTS AND INFORM ME (I GAVE MY CONTACT DETAILS) - FAILURE TO DO SO WILL BE TAKEN AS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DENY ME THE RIGHT OF APPEAL THROUGH IAS AND THE PCN WILL BE OF COURSE HAVE TO BE CANCELLED.

FURTHERMORE THE DESIGN OF THIS WEBPAGE TO DISABLE COPYING AND PASTING IN THE COMMENTS BOX IS A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM PREPARING A STATEMENT IN ANOTHER PROGRAMME AND THEN COPYING IT HERE AND DELIBERATELY MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO APPEAL AND HAS BEEN NOTED. IT HAS CAUSED ME TO HAVE TO CONVERT MY FILES FROM APPLE PAGES FILES TO MICROSOFT WORD FILES WHICH CAUSES PROBLEMS WITH FORMATTING.

And I of course uploaded the two files. In the end I scrapped the original statement I had here in my first post and used the one posted in the link given by Umkomaas above, obviously changing some parts and removing others that didn't apply in my case - probably about 85-90% of it is the same. If I have any success I will of course post up the full text of what I sent so others might use it.

bargepole

Dear mjg79,

I have carefully considered the points raised in your appeal, and would comment as follows.

The signs at this location create a contractual obligation on motorists. By stopping, for any length of time, you have contractually agreed to the charges. The question of loss to the operator is irrelevant, as the charge is not levied for breach of contract.

The signage at this location has been inspected and audited by the IPC, who are satisfied that it complies with the Code of Practice.

The appellant has provided no evidence of any bye-laws applicable to this location, and the onus is on the appellant to prove their case.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant should now pay the parking charge.

mjg79

Sadly bargepole I am sure you are right that that will be the reply - will wait and see!

mjg79

I thought I would give some updates and also seek a bit more advice.

My IAS was declined. They wrote a lengthy unsigned explanation of the rejection. I'll post a few snippets here that seem interesting to me.

"The Appellant is unwilling to name the driver. The Operator does not rely on POFA but brings the claim on the basis the Appellant was the driver. The case of Eliot v Loake makes it clear that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the keeper is assumed to be the driver. In addition I am entitled to infer from the driver’s silence that they were the driver. I am making that assumption and inference. "

I was under the impression that it was POFA that allowed such companies to go after registered keepers and indeed that allowed them to get the DVLA to start handing out my personal details. In particular I find the idea strange that me saying I won't disclose the driver's identity implicates me in a civil matter. It sounds strange to me; would a judge take such a stand?

Robin Hood Airport is still governed by bye-laws that were until recently on their own website. I am sure we're all well aware of the argument that POFA makes it clear that bye-laws take precedence. I included it, they didn't respond to it as such just pointing out "The Appellant has provided no evidence of the bye-laws." (It's true I didn't copy and paste the entire set of bye laws!)

When I pointed out that there is no place to stop and safely read the small print of their "contract" on a sign post their response was:

"The Operator cannot allow the usual grace period to stop and consider the terms in a no stopping area as this would defeat the purpose. To compensate I would expect additional notice to be given. Having considered the evidence of the Operator I am satisfied the driver had that notice and the appeal is dismissed."

They had this to add too:

"Loss is not relevant as the claim, in my view, is not for breach of contract. The contractual terms make it clear that any driver stopping in the area will be issued with the charge. Having had notice of the term and then stopping I believe the Appellant has agreed to pay the charge. It is, in effect, the price the Appellant has agreed to pay for stopping in the area. Once the driver has entered an agreement with the Operator to pay the charge, it is a core term of the contract. The Operator does not have to subsequently show that the charge is the amount they have lost. "

I had basically used 90% of the winning appeal given in the link above but it didn't work. They gave quite dry sounding responses to the other points I won't bother to copy and paste here but if anyone is interested let me know.

The reply wasn't signed with any name. Sorry to copy and paste so much I thought it might be of interest to those with more legal knowledge than I have.

mjg79

I am aware that the general advice here is that after an IAS appeal rejection the best approach is just to ignore their letters unless they send a letter commencing court proceedings. I must confess I don't know if that means a specific letter format etc or just a general letter.

Today I got a letter from them with, in red letters across the top "NOTICE OF INTENDED COURT PROCEEDINGS".

In the letter they say they are disappointed I haven't paid and that:

"Please note that the full charge of £100.00 is applicable as you have appealed to the IAS"

I thought that sounded strange, I don't remember it being made clear that appealing to the IAS meant the offer of a discounted amount disappeared, in fact quite the opposite.

They go on to say that should the "debt" not be settled by 26 October they "may commence debt recovery action or legal proceedings against you without further notice"

So is this the "letter before claim"? Or just another attempt at bullying? The way they put in block capitals in red about "notice of intended court proceedings" at the top is obviously meant to frighten the recipient but I don't know if that means anything as in the letter they go on to say they "may" commence legal proceedings.

Any advice very much appreciated.

enfield_freddy

with a reply like that , they would be foolish to try court, continue to ignore the junk mail , the decision is not binding on you .


there is a fighting fund , mentioned on pepipoo ,(airport cases) I am sure that if they tried court , their legal representative would get a shock.

enfield_freddy

So is this the "letter before claim"? Or just another attempt at bullying? The way they put in block capitals in red about "notice of intended court proceedings" at the top is obviously meant to frighten the recipient but I don't know if that means anything as in the letter they go on to say they "may" commence legal proceedings.






bring it on ,