Help with IAS Appeals process

shawon007

EDIT: This has now gone to the court stage.



Hi Guys,

Long story short, I parked in a residential private car park for for a few nights around 2am until 6am.

I have received a charge from UK CPM and appealed it, with it being rejected on the grounds of the signage being incorrect. Now this car park is very small (less than 10 spaces) and has TWO signs. One of the signs has a charge amount of £100 and the other sign has a charge of < £10. This is what I based my appeal on.

Fast forward to the IAS stage - I appealed all of the tickets I received using the same worded appeal and photo evidence that there are incorrect signages. HOWEVER in my naivety I marked two of the appeals as I was the keeper and driver, and I marked the rest as prefer not to say who the driver was. The ones where I marked "prefer not to say" had the appeal accepted by the IAS. One of the keeper/driver appeals were rejected and the other one is awaiting a response.

Can anyone advise me on what I should do next, and can I also use the ruling that since one of the appeals were accepted, then all other appeals should be accepted as well, as they have the exact same worded appeal and photo evidence?

Any help is appreciated.

pogofish

Please read the IAS-specific advice in the Newbies Sticky at the top of this board.

Your path will then be quite clear.

waamo

IAS appeals are a complete lottery. If they can rule against you they will.

shawon007

waamo wrote: »

IAS appeals are a complete lottery. If they can rule against you they will.

I understand. However can I reference the accepted appeal in response to the other rejected appeals on the IAS website?

Surely if they have numerous appeals of the exact same wording / evidence, and they accept even one, then on the same grounds all appeals should be accepted?

Fruitcake

shawon007 wrote: »

I understand. However can I reference the accepted appeal in response to the other rejected appeals on the IAS website?

Surely if they have numerous appeals of the exact same wording / evidence, and they accept even one, then on the same grounds all appeals should be accepted?

You are assuming you are dealing with decent logical reasonable human beings. You are not.

This is an unregulated scam and they have made up their own rules to ensure you will fail.

All you can do is complain to the landowner and your MP, and otherwise ignore anything and everything you get from now on except real court papers.

shawon007

Let's assume the worse case scenario and all my appeals are rejected. Court papers are sent to me for all the tickets.

The fact that there are inconsistent signs - one saying the parking charge is £100 and another saying it is <£10 (rest of the terms and conditions are identical) - and the company saying that they will replace the signs - is that a strong defence?

waamo

The good news is the Gladstones, who essentially are the IPC/IAS are useless at suing people. The vast majority of cases that we hear about and assist with are won.

They will fail their case on multiple points.

Coupon-mad

IAS stage - I appealed all of the tickets I received using the same worded appeal and photo evidence that there are incorrect signages. HOWEVER in my naivety I marked two of the appeals as I was the keeper and driver, and I marked the rest as prefer not to say who the driver was.

The ones where I marked "prefer not to say" had the appeal accepted by the IAS. One of the keeper/driver appeals were rejected and the other one is awaiting a response.

Wow, yet again the IAS shows itself to be a kangaroo court.

shawon007

I have been notified by IAS that both appeals have been declined.

Do you think I should I send it straight to arbitration or respond to the appeal?

waamo

Having any further dealings with the IAS will be utterly futile.

beamerguy

shawon007 wrote: »

I have been notified by IAS that both appeals have been declined.

Do you think I should I send it straight to arbitration or respond to the appeal?

The IAS was set up to support it's members, the parking
scammers.

The blame for allowing this scam outfit to continue
lays firmly in the hands of government.

Government is not protecting the motorist against
the Gladstones/IPC/IAS mega scam

Wonga, the pay day loan company, were forced to repay
£millions and then went bust.

The difference is that people entered into a pay day
loan knowing what they have to pay, they signed
agreements

Wonga were caught out faking letterheads pretending
to be debt collectors or solicitors

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE ?

Gladstones / IPC / IAS do not loan money but they do
attempt to extort money from people with a fake ATA

GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN
AND HAVE THEIR ATA LICENCE TO MAKE MONEY ... TERMINATED