NCP Car Park - Glasgow Fine

pappa_golf

NCP are not a member of the IAS , they are a member of the BPA

please upload your NCP letter and your IAS dismissal letter to tinipics , etc , as a new user you will not be able to link them so copy / past the link , but change hppt to hxxp

Johno100

Hasn't this come up before? Because NCP can't offer POPLA to cases in Scotland (such as this one) I thought they'd come to an agreement with the IAS to adjudicate on such cases.

Disney17

This is the response I got from the IAS, It was all done online so I have just copied this from the IAS page where I need to log into as it is quicker than uploading links to a photo of it.

""The adjudicator made their decision

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The Operator’s signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it clear that the terms and conditions of parking are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of a driver’s reasons for being on site. It is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed park otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms. While noting the Appellant's comments, it is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.""

fisherjim

I agree with Johno100, as NCP are members of the BPA who use POPLA and don't consider appeals in Scotland, this looks like an attempt by NCP to try to blind the motorist with legalese jargon through the Muppets at the IAS:

"However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles."

So what!!

Pity the OP admitted being the driver, but it would be highly unlikely that NCP tried court up there with their current hearing count and such small fry to go after.

pappa_golf

now my reading on laws implemented back in 2012 , state that an independent appeal must be offered by the trade body they are a member of , in fact they must be a member to offer an appeal , in the case of NCP , there trade body is the BPA , so basically they have broken the law , and the KODOE agreement

the other thing that worrys me is the IPC or whatever actually doing an appeal in a situation that appeals cannot be heard

pogofish

This may also be a matter for Trading Standards - In Scotland, they are already wise to PPCs taking POPLA/IAS in vain because they have no remit at all up here.

fisherjim

Ahh yes but the IPC COP states in section D 3.2 J Operations in Scotland Where Keeper Liability is not sought:

(j) Inform the driver of your own internal appeals procedure and that they may appeal further to the IAS if the internal appeal is rejected.

What a bunch of con merchants, how can they use the IPC system when they are not members!

Johno100

pappa_golf wrote: »

now my reading on laws implemented back in 2012 , state that an independent appeal must be offered by the trade body they are a member of

Yes, but the law(s) you refer to relate only to their operations in England & Wales.

pappa_golf wrote: »

in the case of NCP , there trade body is the BPA , so basically they have broken the law , and the KODOE agreement

But by that logic, as the BPA don't offer POPLA in Scotland, then all BPA AOS members operating in Scotland "have broken the law".

pappa_golf wrote: »

The other thing that worrys me is the IPC or whatever actually doing an appeal in a situation that appeals cannot be heard

What do you mean "can't be heard"? As we have already determined POPLA is not available in Scotland, so clearly NCP who no doubt believe they are a responsible parking company want to offer a secondary appeal system to those they ticket. Like it or not the IAS is a certified Alternative Dispute Resolution entity under the UK wide Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 and so are perfectly able to hear such cases.

I'm sure if NCP were offering and using another ADR, one that was fair and competent to deal with parking matters, for cases in Scotland we would probably be welcoming that on this board. Sadly they chose the IAS.

Umkomaas

Sadly they chose the IAS.

Is it just the cynic in me that wonders why?

Alternatively, I wonder if they are doing some water-testing with an eye to a possible migration? Now that would be a real hammer blow for the BPA.

Johno100

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is it just the cynic in me that wonders why?

Well are there any other ADRs out there (other than The Ombudsman Service Limited who operate POPLA) who do or have ever dealt with parking matters NCP could have chosen?