IAS Appeals or not

bigbadbaz123

Sorry to start a new thread, but there is conflicting advice on the usefulness of appealing to IAS.

I am guilty of a minor keying error, getting the 5th letter in my registration wrong.  I paid the charge 5 minutes after the photo of my entry so i don't see why the PPC shouldn't have picked this up.  They say a little knowledge is dangerous, so I saw that the guidance from the BPA was that charges for minor keying errors should be cancelled and emailed UKPS appealing the charge.  They rejected my appeal within 4 minutes, so obviously didn't really consider it, or ask me for my ticket (which I still have) or any other evidence.  They did offer to reduce the charge to £30 if I paid immediately.  I tried again by email, with no success and they have now withdrawn the offer of £30.  

I now find out that UKPS are not members of the BPA, but the IPC and I cannot appeal to POPLA, where my I thought my appeal would be upheld, but to IAS where all the advice seems to be that it will not.  

So sorry to ask, Coupon-mad seems to advise that I now do nothing until the nasty letters arrive, logic and some posters say I should appeal to IAS.  Any advice welcome please.  

Snakes_Belly

If you appeal to the IAS there is very little chance of success. It can be a bruising and time wasting experience. 

If the PPC takes this to court you would have to be unlucky to lose. Judges tend to favour drivers who have paid and have the evidence. They are likely to see the input of an incorrect reg as a very minor issue.

Judges do not tend to see a keying in error as a breach of contract. There could always be an exception to that as nothing is guaranteed.




 

Coupon-mad

Ignore it - no IAS - and nothing will happen except threatograms.

What will make this vanishingly unlikely to ever see a court hearing is the new statutory Code of Practice, that effectively states that all 'keying error' cases are an unfair burden on drivers (it should never be a consumer burden not to make a typo and be penalised £100). 

The new statutory code says all keying error cases must see cancellation (no admin fee) because they shouldn't happen at all, should not get past the system and the mandatory 'human checks' of data up front, by a professional PPC.

That's coming in within months.  

Temporarily 'on hold' (forced on the Government ONLY due to greedy Judicial Reviews by what MPs unanimously agreed the "outrageous scam" industry) but only to review the inflated money.  NOT the 'keying error clause' or other rules that the industry cannot pretend are not happening.

It's not retrospective but was first published in Fab 2022 and like I said, no parking firm can pretend they are unaware.  Effectively, this year is their 'last hoorah' with making money from keying errors.

No Judge is going to be impressed by cases like this hitting the small claims track in 2024, so it simply will not happen.

But DO NOT TRY IAS.  That futile stage would be illogical in fact because only 4% of appellants cases are upheld and (believe me) there's nothing in this case that will work at that kangaroo court:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html?m=1

Stay under the radar and laugh at all the £170 demands, knowing also that there's unlikely to be any support for that "extortion" in the DLUHC's final draft Impact Assessment that heralds the new Code.

Le_Kirk

Snakes_Belly said:

Judges tend to favour drivers who have paid and have the evidence. They are likely to see the input of an incorrect reg as a very minor issue.
Judges do not tend to see a keying in error as a breach of contract. There could always be an exception to that as nothing is guaranteed.

Yep, so much so that there is a Latin phrase for it: -
De minimis non curat lex - the law does not concern itself with trifles

Lister_of_Smeg_1981

In my IAS appeal I was able to show that the company contravened at least 5 elements of the IPC code-of-practice.
I could also prove that every piece of evidence the parking company submitted was false.
Guess what - they ignored the whole thing and said I still needed to pay.

It is certainly worth not doing the IAS as I spent a lot of time on it... for nothing.

But, what it looks like is they only consider things related to the actual contravention - at least in my part - they ignored everything else that they should consider and said, tough s**t moron, you still weren't in a bay <-- not true!

Snakes_Belly

Le_Kirk said:

Snakes_Belly said:

Judges tend to favour drivers who have paid and have the evidence. They are likely to see the input of an incorrect reg as a very minor issue.
Judges do not tend to see a keying in error as a breach of contract. There could always be an exception to that as nothing is guaranteed.

Yep, so much so that there is a Latin phrase for it: -
De minimis non curat lex - the law does not concern itself with trifles

In a recent case at Walsall court the rep for the PPC said that the judges decision depended on whether they thought that a keying in error was a breach of contract. The judge said "no I don't case dismissed". The hearing was over in minutes. What a waste of a listing.