Excel Parking!

Chedder_Chad

I was so surprised they accepted it!

I've included a copy of the summary below because I think it will be very useful for people in the future.

The Appellant in this case contends that the Parking Charge should not have been issued as he was not the driver at the time, and as the operator is not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), not having served the Parking Charge in time to rely on the Act, they can make no assumption that he was the driver. The operator quotes the case of Elliott v Loake, which a criminal case from 1982, where the magistrates' court found (beyond reasonable doubt) that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle, which had been involved in an accident and had subsequently been abandoned. In that particular case, despite the defendant's claims that he was not the driver, there was ample evidence which stacked up against him, and which satisfied the magistrates that he was in fact the actual driver at the time of the accident.
There is no evidence here which suggests that the Appellant was the driver, apart from the fact that he is the registered keeper, and in civil cases it cannot be said that it is reasonable to assume the Appellant is the driver just because he is the registered keeper. The Appellant is also well within his rights to refuse to name the driver, or even to identify himself as the driver.
It is all too common nowadays for families to own a number of vehicles and for all family members to be insured to drive each and every one of those vehicles, and it may be the case that it would be impossible to name the driver, or it may be the case that the Appellant is not willing to name the driver.
It cannot simply be assumed that the registered keeper of the vehicle was the driver, without some further evidence being submitted. It is not for the Appellant to prove he was not the driver, which in many cases would be difficult (if not impossible) to do. If the operator is too late in the service of the Parking Charge to rely on PoFA, then without any further evidence being submitted to satisfy me that that the Appellant was the driver, I cannot be satisfied, to the required civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities), that the Appellant was the driver, and is therefore liable for the Parking Charge.

Coupon-mad

There is no evidence here which suggests that the Appellant was the driver, apart from the fact that he is the registered keeper, and in civil cases it cannot be said that it is reasonable to assume the Appellant is the driver just because he is the registered keeper. The Appellant is also well within his rights to refuse to name the driver, or even to identify himself as the driver.

It cannot simply be assumed that the registered keeper of the vehicle was the driver, without some further evidence being submitted. It is not for the Appellant to prove he was not the driver, which in many cases would be difficult (if not impossible) to do. If the operator is too late in the service of the Parking Charge to rely on PoFA, then without any further evidence being submitted to satisfy me that that the Appellant was the driver, I cannot be satisfied, to the required civil standard of proof (on a balance of probabilities), that the Appellant was the driver, and is therefore liable for the Parking Charge.

That is a complete U turn by the IAS and it's brilliant!   This is all true as a matter of law, but the IAS have NEVER said that before.

I reckon they have a new Assessor who has more integrity than some.

nosferatu1001

Indeed! So unusual.

A belated attempt to try to show theyre not a complete bunch of shysters?

Coupon-mad

It's either an off-piste new assessor or a very late and cynical attempt by the IPC to try to remain in contention to be allowed to keep running as an alternative ADR...or even worse, if they are planning to put themselves forward to run the new Single Appeals Service.  Over my dead body.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

There is no evidence here ................................ that the Appellant was the driver, and is therefore liable for the Parking Charge.

That is a complete U turn by the IAS and it's brilliant!   This is all true as a matter of law, but the IAS have NEVER said that before.
I reckon they have a new Assessor who has more integrity than some.

IAS = Integrity As Standard (well maybe not but it's a start!)

Fruitcake

I suspect this is a new assessor who has not been properly trained.
He will now have to go through intervention involving a series of deprogramming sessions until all signs of decency and integrity have been removed.

In my former employ, we had a Test Pilot who had to go on a "Marine Conversion". He had been flying an RAF Harrier Jump Jet but needed to learn the differences between that and the US Marine Corps version. The US aircraft type had a different mark of engine, different engine controls, as were flying controls, navigation equipment, and weapons.

When my boss was asked what a Marine Conversion involved, he replied that our pilot would have his head shaved and his brain sucked out.* I believe this assessor will have something similar done to him now.

*I should add that US Marine Corp pilots are actually extremely intelligent and very capable of flying a unique and complicated aircraft in difficult conditions.

Umkomaas

*I should add that US Marine Corp pilots are actually extremely intelligent and very capable of flying a unique and complicated aircraft in difficult conditions.

Particularly adept at 'blue on blue' missions?  Maybe the Donald will have a new one for them in the next 12 days - Pyongyang, Moscow, Tehran or Beijing?  Place your bets!