funny season at ITAL

Coupon-mad

It has been posted on this forum that they did say that.

Posted/interpreted wrongly. They did not say that.

Because they are inexperienced, ITAL said:

The result of any appeal is binding on the parking operator, however, the motorist can take the case to the magistrates (as long as it is within the 6 month deadline).

Which is garbage because there's no mechanism for the victim of the scam to 'take the case to Magistrates'!

ITAL is not binding on motorists.

twhitehousescat

yes and in the case of popla , the word bylaws stopped them in there tracks , I am not confident that Ital understand and can interpret bylaws** , popla just stopped at that point , with ital we are going a lot further .

I am also not happy about the info that Ital are asking for , DOB etc that is info that magistrates need /

circumventing KODOE is another of my worries ,

**however, the motorist can take the case to the magistrates (as long as it is within the 6 month deadline).

why put yourself in that position

Parkingfines

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Posted/interpreted wrongly. They did not say that.

Because they are inexperienced, ITAL said:


Which is garbage because there's no mechanism for the victim of the scam to 'take the case to Magistrates'!

ITAL is not binding on motorists.

100% on this!!!,

twhitehousescat

in the words of ITAL

"The appeal result is not binding on the motorist, however, if you have an unsuccessful appeal and opt not to make payment, you may face action via the Magistrate Court. "

you may face court action , brought by whom?

not by indigo thats for sure , maybe train operator coerced by I wonder who

twhitehousescat

just been speaking to a friend of mine who,s brother is or was a magistrate , spoke on phone

simple questions

"I am not paid to understand bylaws , if they say you broke them , then you are guilty , I and my colleagues have not got time ro leave the room and speed read the full working "


driver , yes I understand driver , keeper , thats more to do with DVLA , in a motoring case , for example no insurance or drunk driving , I would ask "are you the driver" , keeper means nothing to me



so , if a case gets to magistrates , the chances are of arguing bylaw 14 (2)(ii) and (3).(non display of ticket) are slim to non

"where you the driver that day" (you have admitted to it on your ital appeal) "did you display a ticket" "do you dispute this photo of your car with no ticket on it "

GUILTY , send him down

Coupon-mad

But it won't go to Mags, so it doesn't matter.

twhitehousescat

time will tell , remember the IPC , conology on a large scale , with government backing

Parkingfines

I would suggest before people start discussing magistrates courts in relation to issues such as these they read up on the processes involved.

Quite different to the county court

twhitehousescat

railway bylaw = magistrates
private parking tickets = county court

the one thing that ITAL know correctly

"The appeal result is not binding on the motorist, however, if you have an unsuccessful appeal and opt not to make payment, you may face action via the Magistrate Court. "

Coupon-mad

Sounds like Steve Clark has had words with ITAL by way of damage limitation, before they say anything else stupid.

Expect to see their website changed too, in order to hide the (shown by screenshots we have on this forum) copying of Indigo's website.

Steve Clark seems too good to front such a scam industry of chancers and their woeful excuses for an appeals service, and his fair view*, ability to get things done and his eye for detail would be better used against them IMHO.

Maybe he will defect to the good guys & girls and support British motorists instead one day, using his insider knowledge of the worst things he knows have been swept under the carpet over the years (in our dreams!).


*except for whoever at the BPA sanctioned the Wright Hassall farce and 'allowed' them to actually write to PPCs (or turned a blind eye to it, as nothing was ever done) tipping them off about what to add to their already-filed evidence, to win WHOPLA cases back in the day. That was unforgiveable.