Appeal refused by IAS

Grimble

Would this refusal be classed as a "false instrument" and be reported to the SRA and trading standards?

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

let me edit this:

do you think the Red cow gang use "barristers" ?

why should a fully fledged barrister work on trivial cases with a trivial payment

Think Mark meant Baristas, like the Costa coffee lot.
At that time of day most likely The Red Cow bunch sent it from The Red Cow pub at the end of the lane using a Barista

pappa_golf

a Barista could earn more per hour than a barrister down a back yard

The_Deep

How reasonable is their assumption that you were the driver? Have you told them that you were not? Would you tell a judge that you were not? Are others namrs of your insurance, or do others drive your car on their own insurance


I you can answer "yes" to all, or even some of these, then you have them by short and curlies, few judges will not find for you.


This is the reason why I advocate appealing this lot, they have nowhere to go now, and their appeal system is further diminished.

Simplythebeast

Their assumption is totally unreasonable as I wasnt the driver. Three family members are insured to drive my vehicle and someone else occasionaly drives the vehicle on their own insurance.
I have told them from the start that I wasnt driving though I chose not to identify the driver or tell them why that individual was driving.
Its all very well them "not relying on PoFA" but I think that Statutory Instrument was produced so that it's requirements could be relied upon by both sides so it is hardly irrelevent and I am certainly relying upon it, in that they have failed to comply and therefore I believe they cannot pursue me for the debt of the driver.

HornetSaver

The_Deep wrote: »

How reasonable is their assumption that you were the driver? Have you told them that you were not? Would you tell a judge that you were not? Are others namrs of your insurance, or do others drive your car on their own insurance

Just a side question which may or may not be applicable to someone I know should they ever be a victim of the practise we tend to discuss on this board. What if the answer were "no" to all of those questions?

Coupon-mad

Simplythebeast wrote: »

Their assumption is totally unreasonable as I wasnt the driver. Three family members are insured to drive my vehicle and someone else occasionaly drives the vehicle on their own insurance.
I have told them from the start that I wasnt driving though I chose not to identify the driver or tell them why that individual was driving.
Its all very well them "not relying on PoFA" but I think that Statutory Instrument was produced so that it's requirements could be relied upon by both sides so it is hardly irrelevent and I am certainly relying upon it, in that they have failed to comply and therefore I believe they cannot pursue me for the debt of the driver.

You are right. But you should not have bothered with IAS. You were doomed to lose and now you'll get the debt collector threatograms.

Please don't post about them, as already begged by me in my last post showing you where to look rather than tell us about the tediousness.

Simplythebeast

I will not be posting about threatening letters. I hadnt heard of MSE Parking Tickets Forum until after the event. Having read the Newbies section I know now that appealing to IAS was a bit pointless and counter productive but at that stage having never had a parking charge I was just doing what I thought was normal in naively following the 'procedure'.

Coupon-mad

Yep, which is how these firms get so much money. People believe it's a 'parking ticket' from a 'traffic warden' and has to be appealed. We do understand.

esmerobbo

By continuing to refer to Elliott v Loake would indicate that it surely can not be anyone with legal training adjudicating on these appeals. Would a solicitor/barrister make a written statement that a person is a liar, without the protection of a court?