IAS appeal for RHA

Umkomaas

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."

@OP. I would write to the DVLA with a suitably constructed complaint to highlight this nonsense part of the decision from the IAS - how can anyone read, understand, agree and comply with a complicated 'contractual agreement' when driving at (any) speed when the contents cannot be comprehended without stopping? Catch 22 personified.

Ask the DVLA to investigate this perverse distortion of 'justice'. Ask them how they suggest motorists could possibly comply. Copy in your MP and make sure your letter to the DVLA clearly shows the 'cc' to your MP on it.

Would be an interesting response. Let's see how (if they can) they fudge and condone this blatant bias towards the PPC and complete injustice for the motorist.

hoohoo

mjg79 wrote: »

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.

Just to be safe, I would write stating that as the debt is denied; debt collection is therefore not appropriate. You are willing to use ADR to mediate; however the IAS is not suitable as it fails most of the statutory criteria.

You might also consider a WP offer in a separate letter (can be in same envelope);

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE TO COSTS

I note that the signage cannot form a contract with the driver, because it cannot be read before you claim the contact is concluded. Your only basis of claim is therefore trespass. I note that ANPR Ltd was recently awarded £7.50 in court for a parking related trespass and I therefore offer £7.50 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer is open for 14 days.

Fruitcake

The parking-prankster is collecting these perverse IAS decisions. I would suggest you contact him. I believe his email address is available on his Blogspot.

nigelbb

hoohoo wrote: »

Just to be safe, I would write stating that as the debt is denied; debt collection is therefore not appropriate. You are willing to use ADR to mediate; however the IAS is not suitable as it fails most of the statutory criteria.

You might also consider a WP offer in a separate letter (can be in same envelope);

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE TO COSTS

I note that the signage cannot form a contract with the driver, because it cannot be read before you claim the contact is concluded. Your only basis of claim is therefore trespass. I note that ANPR Ltd was recently awarded £7.50 in court for a parking related trespass and I therefore offer £7.50 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer is open for 14 days.

There could never be a claim of trespass as there is an implied licence by the landowner of the airport (Peel Holdings) to use the road. How else are passengers to reach the terminal building?

hoohoo

Trespass can be how you use the road. See Ransomes Park v Anderson on Prankster site. But I agree a trespass should fail as the landowner needs to give time to leave. This is just an exercise in covering the basis for future protection.

nigelbb

hoohoo wrote: »

Trespass can be how you use the road. See Ransomes Park v Anderson on Prankster site. But I agree a trespass should fail as the landowner needs to give time to leave. This is just an exercise in covering the basis for future protection.

To have any hope of enforcing a claim for trespass the signage would need to be just as prominent & easily readable as if there was an attempt to claim that the driver entered into a contract by reading the signs. As effectively demonstrated by the Prankster current airport signage falls far short of the necessary standards.

A claim for trespass would need to be made by the airport operator themselves which would be a public relations disaster.

hoohoo

Hhj Moloney ruled the signs were irrelevant and that all that was needed was the double yellow lines.

I agree regarding the landowner.