UK CPM and IAS Appeals both lost

waamo

The DVLA allowed it to happen. They seem to have acted entirely on their own.

jronnquist

Like just about everything mandated and "regulated" by the EU, the ADR system is rife for abuse inside the nations forced to adopt it. I think both the Davies/Hurley syndicate and the DVLA have gleefully submitted to the edict in their own respective financial interests. Sadly, the concepts of business acumen and innovation in this day and age have become synonymous with the ability to extract as much money from the unsuspecting masses as the letter of the law will permit.

I'm no fan of the European Union as presently constituted, but I didn't vote to leave it either. And I'm certainly not holding my breath for any improvement in the character of regulation once we step (fall?) from beneath its shadow. Especially in England, which seems about a decade behind the rest of the UK when it comes to reigning in unscrupulous private interests in their mission to extort the public for every penny they can. Just look at estate agent letting fees - often in the region of £1000 per contract - that have long since been declared illegal in Scotland (and now Wales, I believe), yet the promises made by the government to follow suit here remain as hollow in action as ever.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, and somehow IAS was made an accredited ADR depsite missing every critical element theyres upposed to comply with - not lesat, they dont disclose the operator evidence and plkace all burden on the appellant, reversing the usual standard of proof.

Coupon-mad

jronnquist wrote: »

I have no doubt the representatives of that bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy would condemn the practice with great zeal. The issue may well be languishing on the desk of some minion in Brussels, destined for a hardy debate by some sub-committee or other in 2024 or 25.

Love it, and that coming from someone who didn't vote leave, you say?

:T

Anyway come back at court claim stage and be ready for the process. You have a good case.

jronnquist

Fruitcake wrote: »

Appealing to the IAS was a bad idea, but that cannot now be helped.

Yes you are now in ignore mode until you get real court papers.

Do you still have a copy of the lease to the residential property?

Have you complained to the landlord or MA about this?

Have you complained to your/your girlfriend's MP yet? [/COLOR]

My girlfriend has a copy of the rental agreement. She is also on very good terms with the landlords, so we should be able to get a copy of the lease too.

I'm currently trying to ascertain who owns/manages the apartment building. Today I submitted a FOI request through the Hampshire County Council website to get the information.

I will be writing a letter to my local MP both on the subject of UK CPM, and the Gladstone/IAS conspiracy.

beamerguy

jronnquist wrote: »

I will be writing a letter to my local MP both on the subject of UK CPM, and the Gladstone/IAS conspiracy.

Good man, not only your MP, Sir Greg Knight MP as well

A little bit of help to save your typing finger

The IPC was set up by Gladstones solicitors
https://www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk/
The IPC in turn set up the IAS which claims to be an
independent assessor similar to POPLA but in reality,
it is a method of rejecting appeals on behalf of the IPC
members.
The members of the IPC were members of the BPA but
were lured into the scam of the IPC because they knew
that the vast majority of appeals against them will be
rejected

HOW THE IPC SCAM WORKS:
1: The motorist gets a parking ticket
2: They appeal to the parking company which is rejected
3: They are then given the opportunity to appeal to the IAS
which is also rejected
4: Shortly thereafter, the motorist receives a letter from
a debt collector, normally DRP, who add £60 automatically
and threatening to take people to court ?
As you probably know, debt collectors involved in the
parking scam have no power and cannot take people
to court. At this stage, due to scare tactics, many people
will pay, mainly because the fear of a CCJ.
Whilst it is advised that debt collectors like DRP must be
ignored as they are powerless .... after a while it is passed
back to the PPC ....... the £60 is passed back as well, despite
DRP claiming they "act on a no win no fee" basis
http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

If the motorist has ignored DRP, then there is no charge
to the PPC but still the £60 is added and passed on

The final part of the scam is that Gladstones solicitors
are instructed and then take the motorist to court and
adding on the DRP scam £60

The Gladstones scam goes in a full circle ??? A SCAM

You probably are aware that Sir Greg Knight has a new
bill which is still waiting to become law.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

Please note what Stephen Doughty MP has said

Stephen Doughty
I am glad to hear that the Minister supports the Bill. Will he also look closely at the links between one of the so-called trade associations, the International Parking Community, and Gladstones Solicitors, and the listing of all these accredited operators? It is clear from Companies House information that there are clear links between the individual directors of Gladstones and the IPC, which goes under United Trade and Industry Ltd, and that there has been a repeated changing of names and addresses in an attempt to cover up these links.

jronnquist

I read the entire discussion. Also read through the entire IPC Code of Conduct without falling asleep.

It would seem Sir Knight has pretty much got the gist of what's going on. I think the most disturbing thing here with regard to the likelihood of success for the bill is the amount of money at stake, and how much of it is likely being surreptitiously leaked into the machinery of Westminster to dull the sensibilities and curb the enthusiasm of our esteemed lawmakers.

beamerguy

jronnquist wrote: »

I read the entire discussion. Also read through the entire IPC Code of Conduct without falling asleep.

It would seem Sir Knight has pretty much got the gist of what's going on. I think the most disturbing thing here with regard to the likelihood of success for the bill is the amount of money at stake, and how much of it is likely being surreptitiously leaked into the machinery of Westminster to dull the sensibilities and curb the enthusiasm of our esteemed lawmakers.

Yes ... you mean ??? surely not ??

It's strange you know, just how many of us think the same

We will see because after years of this scam, now getting worse, if it is not stopped then serious questions must be asked

It could be similar to Watergate and needs a very serious reporter or two to delve deeply

jronnquist

So, having heard nothing from anyone about this parking ticket since June 2018, I was beginning to believe they had given up on it as a bad job.

How wrong I was.

I moved out of my house in Southampton in June of this year, but have been returning to the property weekly to make sure I am not receiving any mail there still. On October 13 I opened the door (the house is empty but belongs to a friend and I still have the key) to find a letter from the good folks at Gladstones.

The envelope actually contained two letters. One is the original Letter Before Claim the firm claims to have sent on 19 August 2019, and the other is a follow-up letter to the first, dated 20 September.

The 19 August letter DID NOT arrive at the house. Of this there can be no doubt at all. I would have seen it, opened it, and dealt with it accordingly. Nor was the follow-up letter sent anywhere near the date on the letter (20 September). As I said, I have been checking on a weekly basis. The letter was NOT there the week before (around 5 October). Unfortunately, the envelope contains no hint as to when it was posted. It has some kind of code on it and two bar codes, but there is no way of establishing the date of postage.

Anyway, it is now October 13 and the follow-up letter stated that the firm had kindly given me until October 4 to respond via their online "reply form" with a valid reason for non-payment. It also states that any reply received after this date "may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued".

I logged into their website on the same day (October 13) and was able to use the "Reply to Letter Before Claim" option on the dashboard to contact them. Their "Pre-Action Protocol" facility lets you either accept or dispute the debt, give a reason if you dispute it, and upload documents. I'm guessing this is a chance for them to get a look at your defence before taking you to court. So I disputed the debt, stating simply that it was not reasonable and that I am ready and willing to defend that claim in court should they wish. I also attached a short letter in PDF format informing them of the suspect dating and postage of their letters and my new address.

This was done 9 days outside their stated deadline for replying, so I wasn't sure if it was going to mean anything. I can only assume that if the online facility was still available they must at least have read it. I also have an email acknowledgement from them.

Fast forward to today (November 5) and I have heard nothing from them. Nor have I received a court claim at either the old or my new address. My only worry now is that they haven't acknowledged the fact that I have moved. To that end I sent them a query today via the same dashboard asking them to do so. According to the form they give themselves 28 days to reply.

So I'm thinking one of two things will now happen:

1. They ignore everything I have sent them on the grounds that it was received too late, make a legal claim against me, and have the paperwork sent to my old address, knowing I do not live there, and hoping this will work to their advantage. I am far too cynical to put this beyond them. (I will keep checking the old house, of course).

2. They make a legal claim using my new address.

Either way, it would seem we are off to court. I have read everything on here I can find on the subject of how to proceed once the claim is made and will keep the thread up to date as I go.

The case itself is very simple. My girlfriend was moving out of her apartment, I hired a van to help her. She had an allocated parking space in the inner courtyard of the building, but the van was too high to get through the access tunnel, and all the guest spaces were occupied. There was, in other words, NO alternative but to park outside the entrance to the building and get everything downstairs as quickly as possible. Unless, that is, you consider extending the lease on her flat indefinitely a reasonable option.

UK CPM has not disputed this essential fact. Instead they have argued that I should have called them up and asked for permission to park where I did.

The way I see it my primary defence in this case will revolve around Jopson -v- Homeguard Services Ltd and the point the judge makes in part (paragraph? point? section?) 22 of the ruling:

"The respondent at one stage sought to argue that it would not have charged the appellant if she had telephoned to explain what she wanted to do. She would then have been given permission. But the notice said nothing at all about exemption being granted on request, and the reference to “all enquiries relating to parking in this area should be directed to 14 Services” was insufficient, in my judgement, as an indication that there was indeed scope for periodic exemptions on request. The whole tenor of the sign was to the contrary, and the idea that a postman or a milkman would have to telephone for permission to pause outside each set of premises on the estate was manifestly quite unrealistic."

This fits the bill perfectly. The UK CPM signs are indeed silent on the point of "exemptions being granted on request" and the "whole tenor of the sign" is certainly "to the contrary".

Add in the fact that the phone number on the sign is a premium rate number (£0.55 a minute form your mobile) and I think a case could also be made that this effectively constitutes a parking charge as there is no way to obtain the "right" to park without calling.

Le_Kirk

Send a Data Rectification Notice to the DPO at the PPC notifying them of your new address for service and requiring them to ERASE your old data. Find the e-mail address on the privacy page of the PPC.