IAS Report: Motorists Lose 83% of Appeals

peter_the_piper

Only 81%, they were promised more weren't they?

Umkomaas

The Lead Adjudicator of the IAS has published his annual report for 2016/2017, showing that out of 17.454 appeals received, 2,963 were decided in favour of the motorist (17%).

I don’t think the report provides any information about any cases decided in favour of the motorist. The figure quoted relates to cases discontinued by the ‘trader’ (operator?). This is a ploy we’ve occasionally seen where the operator is in absolute danger of an IAS decision going against them, suddenly discontinuing. One suspects ‘a word in the shell-like’ was provided!

The percentage of alternative dispute resolution procedures which were discontinued for operational reasons and, if known, the reasons for the discontinuation.

2,963 disputes (17%) were discontinued by traders during the relevant period resulting in a positive outcome for the Consumer. The reasons for discontinuation are not known.

The only bit of good news, is that adjudicators have been told to uphold the appeal when the contravention is trivial, such as inputting a '0' instead of an 'O'. It seems the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex has finally reached Cheshire.

The issue referred to above was resolved by providing guidance to all adjudicators, encouraging them to find in favour of the motorist in appropriate cases where the mistake is so trivial that it would be unfair to uphold a parking charge. This has led to a significant reduction in this type of case reaching adjudication.

I wonder whether that other part of appeals-land Cheshire will follow suit, with POPLA Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher providing the same guidance to his assessors. Surely he can’t allow POPLA to fall behind the IAS in demonstrating ‘fairness’?

System

Surely he can’t allow POPLA to fall behind the IAS in demonstrating ‘fairness’?

+1

A race to the "top" between the two in view of the legislation?

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

I don’t think the report provides any information about any cases decided in favour of the motorist. The figure quoted relates to cases discontinued by the ‘trader’ (operator?). This is a ploy we’ve occasionally seen where the operator is in absolute danger of an IAS decision going against them, suddenly discontinuing. One suspects ‘a word in the shell-like’ was provided!

I believe that some pre-vetting of submitted appeals takes place (probably in the aforementioned offices at the golf club), and any that look like a struggle for the operator aren't even sent to an IAS adjudicator, the operator is told, no chance, you should give up on this one.

Reports on the forums of outcomes of IAS appeals decided by an adjudicator suggest that all, or almost all, are won by the PPCs.

Loadsofchildren123

In my 10 months on this forum I remember just one successful IAS appeal.

Johno100

Shouldn't the apparent disparity between the appeal success rate at POPLA and the IAS, who are both essentially doing the same job, be brought to the attention of the competent authority responsible for auditing and approving Alternative Dispute Resolution bodies - The Chartered Trading Standards Institute?

beamerguy

Who is it in government that allows the
Gladstones / IPC / IAS scam to continue ??

We put wild animals in cages to protect people
We put criminals in prison to protect people.

Why not these scammers ???

Half_way

wasn't there a boast somewhere that if you (as in a ppc) joined the ias/ipc they would find 80% of appeals in favour of the ppc?
If this can be dug out and added to the report it might make an interesting statement to help show up the IPC/Gladstones/will hurley and co.

logician

Umkomaas wrote: »

I don’t think the report provides any information about any cases decided in favour of the motorist. The figure quoted relates to cases discontinued by the ‘trader’ (operator?). This is a ploy we’ve occasionally seen where the operator is in absolute danger of an IAS decision going against them, suddenly discontinuing. One suspects ‘a word in the shell-like’ was provided!

The percentage of alternative dispute resolution procedures which were discontinued for operational reasons and, if known, the reasons for the discontinuation.

2,963 disputes (17%) were discontinued by traders during the relevant period resulting in a positive outcome for the Consumer. The reasons for discontinuation are not known.

The issue referred to above was resolved by providing guidance to all adjudicators, encouraging them to find in favour of the motorist in appropriate cases where the mistake is so trivial that it would be unfair to uphold a parking charge. This has led to a significant reduction in this type of case reaching adjudication.

I wonder whether that other part of appeals-land Cheshire will follow suit, with POPLA Lead Adjudicator John Gallagher providing the same guidance to his assessors. Surely he can’t allow POPLA to fall behind the IAS in demonstrating ‘fairness’?

From emails with Steve Clark, it is my understanding that the BPA are already considering this matter, with a view for a section also covering this to be incorporated into the next Code of Practice.


I wonder if this was not an area of concern directed down to Bryn Holloway.. from the report:

"It is an important feature of ADR accreditation that organisations are kept under close scrutiny by
the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and subjected to rigorous annual audits. I am pleased to
say that the first IAS audit in September 2016 provided almost a clean bill-of-health with only four
minor issues identified which were quickly resolved and a recommendation that the IAS continue to
be an approved body.
A commitment to continuous improvement must be a prerequisite for any service that seeks to
provide truly independent redress for consumers. While the IAS has continued to grow since the
2015/2016 report, it is significant that we have also taken every opportunity to ensure the service
evolves and develops to provide the best possible service to the Consumer. One example involved a
growing concern that motorists were being unduly penalised for the most trivial of mistakes when
entering their vehicle registration numbers as they are registering for parking."

HeatonGuy

bergkamp wrote: »

Have you just written that?

What are you trying to say?

No, I have not just written that - read my sig again, perhaps?