IAS now legit!

Umkomaas

nigelbb wrote: »

The IPC's appeals service has not been approved as complying with the ADR regulations. The IPC has been approved as an ADR body but the parking appeals they handle are just an 'appeals service'. This is just the same situation as Ombudsman Services who are an approved ADR but the new POPLA that they administer is merely an 'appeals service' & doesn't comply with the ADR regulations.

Nigel - are you saying that there is (or should be) another level of appeal beyond IAS/POPLA?

Johno100

nigelbb wrote: »

The IPC's appeals service has not been approved as complying with the ADR regulations. The IPC has been approved as an ADR body but the parking appeals they handle are just an 'appeals service'. This is just the same situation as Ombudsman Services who are an approved ADR but the new POPLA that they administer is merely an 'appeals service' & doesn't comply with the ADR regulations.

But do they have to comply to provide an 'appeals service'?

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

Nigel - are you saying that there is (or should be) another level of appeal beyond IAS/POPLA?

No. I think that any appeals service should comply with the ADR regulations but currently neither IAS nor POPLA complies. POPLA with a few small changes could comply e.g. offer ADR for 12 months. IAS has so many areas that are non-compliant that it would require a fundamental change to their governance & ethos before they could possibly comply.

nigelbb

Johno100 wrote: »

But do they have to comply to provide an 'appeals service'?

No they don't & it compromises the independence & reputation of an organisation like Ombudsman Services that they are prepared to lower their standards for POPKA just because their paymasters the BPA Ltd tell them to. Apparently Ombudsman Services are ready willing & able to offer proper ADR but the BPA Ltd don't want it.

Herzlos

Castle wrote: »

• Where the appeal is considered to be vexatious.
• Where dealing with such a type of dispute would seriously impair the effective operation of the IAS

As far as the IAS is concerned, surely those are true all of the time? I mean, asserting that the operator has no authority to issue tickets is totally vexatious, since apparently they don't need it, and highlighting the whole scame would hurt the operation of the IAS because if they admitted it they'd need to shut down.

This sounds like they are going to try and put people off of even appealing.

One question though - the £15 non-standard appeal (I have a feeling they'll claim a lot are non-standard) is supposedly binding on the driver - based on what? Contract law? So breaching it is just a case of them proving a loss (to who?) in small claims court?

Castle

Umkomaas wrote: »

What's the difference between:

1. A 'Standard Appeal' - free to the consumer - binding only on the parking operator, and

2. A 'Non-Standard Appeal' - £15 fee to the consumer - binding on both parties?

http://www.tradingstandards.uk/templates/asset-relay.cfm?frmAssetFileID=77423

See here!!
https://www.theias.org/appeal-flow-chart
As I read it any appeal submitted after 21 days is Non Standard and therefore the £15 is chargeable and the decision is binding on you!!

The_Deep

Lots of toing and froing here. The remedy is simple, if we think that a decision from the new PoPLA regime is flawed or unfair, we invite the PPC to take us to court. where we will ask a judge to decide.


A few overturned PoPLA decision will soon send the PPCs a clear message. et

peter_the_piper

Pardon my ignorance but does the POFA allow a charge to be made?

Herzlos

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance but does the POFA allow a charge to be made?

What do you mean? POFA allows an unpaid charge to be chased. It reads (IMO) as if it's was intended to cover people who underpaid and pay and display car parks, and this whole overstay/breach in free car parks is an unintended (and potentially invalid) consequence.

Herzlos

Castle wrote: »

See here!!
https://www.theias.org/appeal-flow-chart
As I read it any appeal submitted after 21 days is Non Standard and therefore the £15 is chargeable and the decision is binding on you!!

At least it says 21 days after your appeal has been rejected by the operator, not 21 days after the alleged parking event, so that's something.

As said above, if you feel that the appeal is incorrect, you can presumably appeal it or leave it for a judge. But how many people are going to pay £15 for an appeal, rather than just paying to make it go away or ignore it completely?


What I don't undestand is the paying to appeal - I would never have to pay to contest any other invoice generated from any industry, so why would I be obligued to pay for a speculative parking invoice?