IAS Appeal Process exposed?

amjidh

Half_way said:

The gym is on the other side of the retail park 

amjidh

The thing that incenses me the most is that IAS is meant to be a proper independent appeal process where someone has close look and thinks about everything before they give a verdict. Due to me having two tickets, i saw that they give a stock answer for all appeals. I can now see that there is nothing specific in there. Surely this is illegal?
here is the stock verdict i received for both tickets from the 2nd stage appeal process:-

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to return during the no return period as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

Whatever2023

There will be a template for ‘approved’ and a template for ‘dismissed’, with scope for the adjudicator to add a paragraph or two in relation to any points that are in dispute. 

If you did not dispute that you failed to register your vehicle / returned within the no return period, there is nothing for the adjudicator to add as you conceded that that the charges were issued correctly i.e. is immaterial WHY you parked in breach or whether you disagree with the terms retrospectively.

amjidh

Whatever2023 said:

There will be a template for ‘approved’ and a template for ‘dismissed’, 

that's a good point. Maybe the judge would feel obliged to do the same. They care more about he law rather than justice. 

Coupon-mad

The thing that incenses me the most is that IAS is meant to be a proper independent appeal process where someone has close look and thinks about everything before they give a verdict. 

No it's really not:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6452802/ias-appeals-or-not

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

And read the HoC early 2018 debate that has led to the Code of Practice that later this year will remove the IAS, as part of sweeping changes to bring an end to the worst practices:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

"Companies in this industry are like bloodsuckers in many cases. The reality is that the current system of regulation is absolutely hopeless. It is like putting Dracula in charge down at the blood bank. There are two different sets of regulations and companies can choose which they use, so there is an incentive to dismiss as many appeals as possible. To be fair, I do not want to impugn either set of regulations, but it is clear that the system does not have any rigour or structure and it desperately needs to change."

That's just one quote.

If you'd Googled it more, you'd never have wasted your time on the farce of the IAS.  You haven't exposed anything that we and the DLUHC (Government) don't already know.  And it IS being addressed.  Nearly there...

One poster on your thread is from the parking industry, as I presume you spotted. He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but the reason the industry lurk in MSE forum is because we help people to WIN parking cases in court 99% of the time, we tell EVERYONE not to pay, and because change is being actively led by us.  I'm on the Government Steering Group, with direct contacts at the DLUHC and direct input into the Code of Practice.

The parking industry aren't chuffed with this forum, put it that way 

fisherjim

Whatever2023 said:

There will be a template for ‘approved’ and a template for ‘dismissed’, with scope for the adjudicator to add a paragraph or two in relation to any points that are in dispute. 

If you did not dispute that you failed to register your vehicle / returned within the no return period, there is nothing for the adjudicator to add as you conceded that that the charges were issued correctly i.e. is immaterial WHY you parked in breach or whether you disagree with the terms retrospectively.

Back to a more level headed reply thank you, however to pick up on one point; "the charges were issued correctly" that of course is not automatically true as you suggest.

There are many reasons why they may not have been, but the OP has fallen into the trap of not understanding the second stage appeal process (forget mitigation as you have pointed out) has missed all the salient points, and as you and we all know the IAS is a kangaroo court anyway, I doubt they could find the appeal "approved" template without a lot of searching as we know it is rarely used!

I also notice your "lawyer" has now morphed into being just an adjudicator!

Half_way

"The charges were issued correctly" according to who??

The IAS is a sham and the very definition of oxymoron, its not independent, they are not appeals as there is nothing to appeal, and it most certainly is not a service to the public

patient_dream

Government has knowm about the IPC SHAM / SCAM for years .... why on earth are they still an ATA ?

Fruitcake

@amjidh During the IAS appeal process, did the PPC respond with evidence, or just provide you with their decision?
If they did respond, were you advised via email by the IAS that there was evidence for you to see?
If you received notification that there was evidence to review, were you given the opportunity to respond to/rebut their assertions?
Was this process repeated?

I would be interested to know what the IAS appeal process consisted of in your case so I can compare it with my own experience. 

amjidh

Thank you everyone for your advice and reassurance. I truly appreciate having this space to talk about it. However, 

THE SCAM CONTINUES

I started by saying i had received notification from IAS that they had rejected both my cases using the exact same wording . They had replied by email stamped 

Wed, May 1 at 2:13 PM  & Wed, May 1 at 2:19 PM

On Thursday, i received two letters ( one per case)  from PCM, dated 30/04/2024.
They had sent the letter to me before IAS had replied to me.

The Letter says in bold

"As previously advised, by engaging with the IAS, the offer to settle the charge at the discounted rate has been withdrawn and therefore, the full charge of £100.00 is now outstanding. This reminder is to inform you that from the date you received your decision, you need fourteen days to make a payment of the outstanding balance"

What i can glean from this is 

1 - PCM and IAS probably sharing the same office
2 - PCM knew what the decision would be before i did and before even IAS emailing me
3 - I am getting penalised for appealing

Point 3 stands out most for me. Surely this is utterly wrong?  I find it disgusting