IAS disregards evidence and rules in favour of member

ninjapark

So here is the issue. Got a PCN for parking infront my home. But the PCN wrongly stated the address. The PCN was issued by Parking & Property Management (PPM) on private land. But the location given is wrong and council property. Strangely enough, the documents submitted by PPM did not provide proof that they had authority to issue tickets on council property or private land as required by Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code. The adjudicator stated "While noting the Appellant's comments I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site." None was provided by the operator for the site nor the council property it claimed I was parked on which was factually false.

Question here is what is the relevance of stating the location of the vehicle in the PCN if the adjuciator ignores it completely. It appears fraudulent that the operatory (PPM) issues PCN for council property despite proof of parking was different and the IAS rules in their favour. Who else has faced same? Is there anyway to have the IAS censure its adjudicators for decisions that claim evidence was viewed that was not submitted by the operator. Do I initiate a court challenge against PPM?

KeithP

You ask "Who else has faced same? "

Many have.

You need to read the NEWBIES FAQ thread to better understand the game you are caught up in.

In there you will see that the general advice on here is to never bother with the second level appeal to the IAS, simply because it is extremely unlikely that you will win.

You have no chance of getting them to change their mind.

You now need to accept that you will receive a barrage of debt collector's letters and post #4 of that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread gives good guidance on how to deal with them.

Coupon-mad

If you'd come here first and read our consistent advice, you wouldn't have bothered with the IAS. No chance! Read the NEWBIES thread post #3 all about that kangaroo court, and post #4 about ignoring debt collection letters for now.

You will need to come back if/when Gladstones solicitors (who are connected to the IPC and IAS...read all about it by Googling!) start a court claim.

These cases are not won at IAS, they are won by defending a small claim. NOT a big deal, no risk, nothing scary, no huge costs, no CCJ, and we see people win almost every case.

waamo

If you had Jesus, the Pope and Mother Theresa as witnesses they would say they weren't independent so couldn't be relied on.

Ignore the verdict.

ninjapark

I don't want to wait for them to make a claim against me.. I want to go after them first. Is that possible?

KeithP

Of course it is. Sue who you like.

Who do you want to 'go after'?
PPM or IPC?

What are you going to claim?

Coupon-mad

ninjapark wrote: »

I don't want to wait for them to make a claim against me.. I want to go after them first. Is that possible?

Only if you had a cause of action. Can't see that you do, but all these drivel cases are defendable.

beamerguy

You will know by now that the IPC/IAS is just a major
scam invented by the incompetent Gladstones Solicitors

IPC members are scammers in their own right and that
is why they belong to this SCAM CLUB

Any rejection from the IPC kangaroo court can be taken
with a pinch of salt, A real judge is your answer and that
is where Gladstones get zapped because they are so
incompetent ..... all with the help of this forum

Chill and wait

LadyDee

Why on earth doesn't the Law Society close down these cowboys and rescind their licence?

peter_the_piper

In the mean time, get it in writing from the council that the place parked is council property and that they do not have permission/a contract to ""manage""parking where you parked.

beamerguy

LadyDee wrote: »

Why on earth doesn't the Law Society close down these cowboys and rescind their licence?

Gladstones have been reported to the SRA by many, one
being a Scottish MP

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) claim they are
Protecting consumers of legal services

I think most on here have a better chance of seeing
a flying pig than action by the SRA

There is good reason to ask the government to set up
a new Regulator to regulate the Solicitors Regulation Authority