IAS Appeal - Wrong car park stated by Car Parking company

playaz

I am going through the IAS appeals process on their website and the Car parking company involved have actually added a TOTALLY different car park to the one they originally are trying to dispute - can anyone assist how I can use this to my advantage?

Half_way

A couple of questions.....
Have you complain to the landowner? If not why not?
Have you informed the landowner and the ppc that you expect them to offer an ADR scheme that meets or exceeds the requirements as laid out in the ADR regulations act of 2015? And if not why not?

if you don't know what any of the above means I strongly advise that you do some research before you either Make a mistake or do something that will mean you are harrassed

playaz

Half_way wrote: »

A couple of questions.....
Have you complain to the landowner? If not why not?
Have you informed the landowner and the ppc that you expect them to offer an ADR scheme that meets or exceeds the requirements as laid out in the ADR regulations act of 2015? And if not why not?

if you don't know what any of the above means I strongly advise that you do some research before you either Make a mistake or do something that will mean you are harrassed

I asked for the landowner details but they declined to provide this information, and as you can imagine they declined when using a different ADR scheme as they use IAS (so-called Independent lol)

Could I use this mistake in regards to the car park against them in anyway?

Hogsta

Hi,


It wasn't Excel was it? I had a similar issue. This was my thread:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5399988=

Dublindel

If they have stayed 2 different car parks in 2 different letters then in my opinion, I wouldn't bother doing anything except when they threaten to do court then respond with the spurious claim details

Fruitcake

Landowners can be found using the Land Registry which costs a few quid. You should complain to both landowners when you have identified them.


Yes, quoting the wrong location should be a winning appeal point, but the IAS probably won't worry about minor details like that.


Your local press and trading standards should be contacted because this is bordering on fraud. Trying to get you to pay for something when you never visited that car park is a scam IMHO.


Please also read this and sign the petition.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5365003

The_Deep

If you do contact Trading Standards, do so in writing, and if they ignore, follow up in writing.

Coupon-mad

playaz wrote: »

I am going through the IAS appeals process on their website and the Car parking company involved have actually added a TOTALLY different car park to the one they originally are trying to dispute - can anyone assist how I can use this to my advantage?

At what point have you seen this evidence? Where are you in the process because I thought you only saw the PPC's evidence afterwards?

zoonyx

VCS told me my stopping ticket was on a 'high security airport access road' - it wasn't. It was a retail park about 20 miles from nearest airport.

I highlighted this, and IAS said "VCS say this was an admin error and did not affect the ticket". Obviously.

So do what you like, but expect disappointment short term, and cost them a lot of money when it goes to real court rather than the IAS playground.

trisontana

Yet another VCS "admin error" for which they are justly famous.

As for that "high security" airport road, I'm sure a potential terrorist would be dissuaded to carry out their bombing if they thought they would get one of VCS's fake fines a couple of weeks after the event.

playaz

Wow..... I WON MY APPEAL WITH THE IAS!!!!

Wow... I cannot actually believe this, but I will post proof later, the IAS said the following in their statement :-

"I note the Operator's comments to this appeal however the images provided do not support their submissions. The background to the two images provided of the Appellant's vehicle show no evidence at all of any markings at this site. Further the images certainly do not prove that the 'appellants vehicle had been parked directly in the middle of a bay marking line taking up two individual spaces and preventing other users from parking there'.

I am not satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case and accordingly will allow this appeal.I note the Operator's comments to this appeal however the images provided do not support their submissions. The background to the two images provided of the Appellant's vehicle show no evidence at all of any markings at this site. Further the images certainly do not prove that the 'appellants vehicle had been parked directly in the middle of a bay marking line taking up two individual spaces and preventing other users from parking there'.

I am not satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case and accordingly will allow this appeal."

Thanks again for the advice (in this thread and others)