Appeal rejected for private parking fine - what next?

B789

They've said you were the driver and the keeper. If you haven't admitted to being the driver, then they don't know who the driver is.

Irrespective of CCTV, they cannot identify the driver. Even if they had a full face and clear picture of the driver, they still don't know who it was. There is no magical database with everyone in the country's photo, name and address that they have access to.

Why do you think they are saying you admitted to being the driver?

KeithP

B789 said:

Why do you think they are saying you admitted to being the driver?

I don't think they are saying that are they?

From VCS's response to the IAS...

7. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver.

"The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver..."

Is that really true?

Ange1402

Because they're full of crap?

KeithP

Ange1402 said:

Because they're full of crap?

Excuse me??

Grizebeck

The IPC/IAS/Gladstones love elliot vs loake but it never works . So you will lose at the ias but I'd put my money on you winning in court

Ange1402

Grizebeck said:

The IPC/IAS/Gladstones love elliot vs loake but it never works . So you will lose at the ias but I'd put my money on you winning in court

Ok. So there is no point me replying to that argument at all then and I should accept that I will lose at IAS?

Ange1402

KeithP said:

Ange1402 said:

Because they're full of crap?

Excuse me??

Sorry, I meant they're making it up.  As I never admitted during any correspondence that I was the driver.

Coupon-mad

Ange1402 said:

Grizebeck said:

The IPC/IAS/Gladstones love elliot vs loake but it never works . So you will lose at the ias but I'd put my money on you winning in court

Ok. So there is no point me replying to that argument at all then and I should accept that I will lose at IAS?

Nope, I would reply. Have some fun!

State that Elliott v Loake is a steaming pile of irrelevant crap trotted out in court by VCS occasionally and Judges aren't that thick.  The Appellant is happy if VCS wish to waste their money on a meritless small claim against the keeper who they know is the wrong person, if IAS Assessor proves themselves deluded enough to side with their beloved IPC member.  If so, the Appellant will take the IAS decision with a massive pinch of salt.

The facts are:

in that case (Loake) there was forensic evidence that the keeper was the driver.

Conversely, in this case the prima facie case from the Appellant is that the keeper was not the driver.

The keeper is female.

The driver was male.

The Parking Operator admits they have further CCTV evidence that would show the driver but they've withheld that evidence from the IAS under the pretence of GDPR.  This excuse only makes sense if the missing footage includes images of the male driver.

Over to you IAS, but your days are numbered, the entire industry has been declared a 'market failure' and the Appellant is not legally liable and won't be paying either way.

B789

KeithP said:

B789 said:

Why do you think they are saying you admitted to being the driver?

I don't think they are saying that are they?

The IAS are claiming that that is what VCS has said:

Ange1402

Coupon-mad said:

Ange1402 said:

Grizebeck said:

The IPC/IAS/Gladstones love elliot vs loake but it never works . So you will lose at the ias but I'd put my money on you winning in court

Ok. So there is no point me replying to that argument at all then and I should accept that I will lose at IAS?

Nope, I would reply. Have some fun!

State that Elliott v Loake is a steaming pile of irrelevant crap trotted out in court by VCS occasionally and Judges aren't that thick.  The Appellant is happy if VCS wish to waste their money on a meritless small claim against the keeper who they know is the wrong person, if IAS Assessor proves themselves deluded enough to side with their beloved IPC member.  If so, the Appellant will take the IAS decision with a massive pinch of salt.

The facts are:

in that case (Loake) there was forensic evidence that the keeper was the driver.

Conversely, in this case the prima facie case from the Appellant is that the keeper was not the driver.

The keeper is female.

The driver was male.

The Parking Operator admits they have further CCTV evidence that would show the driver but they've withheld that evidence from the IAS under the pretence of GDPR.  This excuse only makes sense if the missing footage includes images of the male driver.

Over to you IAS, but your days are numbered, the entire industry has been declared a 'market failure' and the Appellant is not legally liable and won't be paying either way.

I'd like to see VCS' faces in court when the CCTV is played and see the driver is a 6 ft 16st man with a beard...