IAS Appeal Process exposed?

Coupon-mad

No that 's normal in all penalty and parking charge appeals systems and is correct. The same happens with local authority PCNs

You aren't being penalised. The PCNs have not increased & were always £100 each.

The fact there was an early payment discount (a bribe to stop you appealing) is irrelevant and was in the past.

You are focussing in the wrong thing.  The expiry (weeks ago) of what we call "the mugs'' discount" is irrelevant because you aren't going to be paying an ex-clamper firm, outed as a rogue trader on Watchdog years ago!

amjidh

Coupon-mad said:

No that 's normal in all penalty and parking charge appeals systems and is correct...

i see, so that means they have taken away the discount. This is not so clear to a layperson who thinks that appealing puts things on hold. 
I like your fighting spirit! Im going to hold tight. If it comes to court, i will be asking for more help .
I am heartened by what you wrote on another thread :-
"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."
I don't remember not inputting the reg so i just assumed i must not have. It might be that i typed it in wrong. My 2nd ticked was because i stopped to ask about the first one and to buy pizza. They know that's ridiculous so they offered to drop it if i paid £60 for the first. Meanwhile i had started the appeal so they withdrew that offer, Nevertheless, the fact they were prepared to suggests they know its weak. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my side.

amjidh

Coupon-mad said:

No that 's normal in all penalty and parking charge appeals systems and is correct. The same happens with local authority PCNs

You aren't being penalised. The PCNs have not increased & were always £100 each.

The fact there was an early payment discount (a bribe to stop you appealing) is irrelevant and was in the past.

You are focussing in the wrong thing.  The expiry (weeks ago) of what we call "the mugs'' discount" is irrelevant because you aren't going to be paying an ex-clamper firm, outed as a rogue trader on Watchdog years ago!

Hi Fruitcake
when i appealed to PCM first, they then responded with a stock answer. It was basic data of my parking 

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 22/03/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 16/03/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

they also gave general pictures of the car park and very clear bright pictures of the warning. Its like talking to a machine

I then appealed to IAS and then got back the same stock answer for both.

Coupon-mad

Yep typical rubbish.

These cases are won in court and it's far easier than you would think.

Fruitcake

amjidh said:

Coupon-mad said:

No that 's normal in all penalty and parking charge appeals systems and is correct. The same happens with local authority PCNs

You aren't being penalised. The PCNs have not increased & were always £100 each.

The fact there was an early payment discount (a bribe to stop you appealing) is irrelevant and was in the past.

You are focussing in the wrong thing.  The expiry (weeks ago) of what we call "the mugs'' discount" is irrelevant because you aren't going to be paying an ex-clamper firm, outed as a rogue trader on Watchdog years ago!

Hi Fruitcake
when i appealed to PCM first, they then responded with a stock answer. It was basic data of my parking 

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 22/03/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 16/03/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

they also gave general pictures of the car park and very clear bright pictures of the warning. Its like talking to a machine

I then appealed to IAS and then got back the same stock answer for both.

@amjidh You haven't answered my specific questions about your IAS appeal. For your convenience I have repeated them here.

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?

Whilst it won't help you now, the answers to those questions may help if you receive a court claim because it will determine if the IAS followed their own procedures as a UK ADR provider that has not been reported as accredited to the relevant body. 

amjidh

Fruitcake said:

Hi fruitcake, 
I've had a  close look at your question and reviewed my paperwork so i can answer your question.

Yes, IAS did on the surface give me a rebuttal from the Operator. The evidence they gave was reiterating the rules and maintaining that the rules were broken, hence pay up.  They also provided  photos of the car and also nice clear jpegs of the signage.
for the first ticket - 

"The advertised terms make it clear that vehicles may park in this area for a maximum of 2 hours, or 3 hours for JD gym members, providing the vehicle is registered at the gym on the provided tablet. In addition to the limit on how long a vehicle can park in this area there is also a no return period of 4 hours. The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that the assessor is only permitted to consider the law of contract and legal challenges & not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. Only the Operator can consider mitigation when adjudicating upon an appeal. I can confirm that we have carefully considered the Appellant’s circumstances both at the internal appeal stage and when this appeal was received. Whilst the Operator sympathises & understands the situation, unfortunately, forgetting to register the vehicle for the extra hour of free parking cannot be considered as sufficient grounds for appeal therefore we have made the decision not to accept the mitigation in this case. Considering the facts of the matter only, the ANPR cameras have captured the vehicle entering the Manningham Lane Retail Park at 20:45 and leaving 2 hours and 45 minutes later at 23:30. As the vehicle was parked for longer than the permitted time frame advertised on the signage throughout the area, the Operator maintains that the PCN was correctly issued"

For the 2nd ticket, the Operator response was

The vehicle was captured by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to first enter the site at 14:13 then leave the site at 14:31. The second entry was captured within the 4 hour no return period, at 17:29 and the vehicle left at 19:03. The charge was issued for returning within the 4 hour no returning period. In order to avoid the charge being issued, one needed to not return to the site until 4 hours after they first left, this would have been no earlier than 18:31 on this occasion. Signage makes it clear that parking is permitted for a maximum of 2 hours and that there is to be no returning within 4 hours. There are 34 enforcement signs throughout the car park and 2 entrance signs. When parking on private land, it is the motorist’s responsibility to first check for signage and park according to the terms and conditions. Regardless of one’s reasons for returning to the retail park, the terms are applicable to all motorists and by returning to the site within the 4 hour no return period a charge was issued correctly to the motorists. It is on that basis that PCM maintain the decision to reject the Appellant’s appeal. The vehicle has been issued with 2 PCNs. As a gesture of goodwill PCM agreed to cancel the second PCN if the 1st PCN was paid at the discounted rate by 05/04/2024. The Appellant chose to ignore the offer, therefore both PCNs are still outstanding, and the offer has now been withdrawn. The fact that the Appellant is a member of the gym is wholly irrelevant, as the no return period applies to all vehicles. As the vehicle had returned within 4 hours which contravenes the terms, the Operator maintains that the PCN was correctly issued."

I responded by telling them that it was unreasonable. I told them about my chronic kidney disease stage 5 making me forgetful so its possible i forgot to type in the Reg into the gym tablet. Now i think about it, i might have just typed it in wrong. i say that because i was conscious of the 3 hour limit and left within 3 hours. 
The 2nd ticket was only generated because i was chasing up the 1st one. Luckily i also bought pizza from another shop there. 
To me its clear that there is no taking the mick. Its not like i was some Herbert who was using the space to park whilst i went off elsewhere. 

Do you think i am being naïve by expecting the Judge to that?

Coupon-mad

You will win in court.

amjidh

Coupon-mad said:

You will win in court.

Thanks CM
your reassurance is appreciated 
you are giving me the strength to hold on and carry on !

Fruitcake

Did the PPC respond to your IAS appeal within five days for both PCNs?

I ask because there are timescales in the IAS appeal process and I was wondering if the PPC missed them. Section 5 refers.

https://www.theias.org/the-ias-private-parking-charge-appeals-rules-and-procedure

Did the PPC's evidence include photos of the signs at the site? If not, they cannot have proved a prima facia case because they have not provided proof of the contract terms to the IAS "arbitrator *sic*.

They don't accept mitigation, but a judge will if it comes to that because you will highlight your medical issues, which may be covered by the Equality Act 2010 such that you are deemed to have protected characteristics.

amjidh

Fruitcake said:

Did the PPC respond to your IAS appeal within five days for both PCNs?

I ask because there are timescales in the IAS appeal process and I was wondering if the PPC missed them. Section 5 refers.

https://www.theias.org/the-ias-private-parking-charge-appeals-rules-and-procedure

Did the PPC's evidence include photos of the signs at the site? If not, they cannot have proved a prima facia case because they have not provided proof of the contract terms to the IAS "arbitrator *sic*.

They don't accept mitigation, but a judge will if it comes to that because you will highlight your medical issues, which may be covered by the Equality Act 2010 such that you are deemed to have protected characteristics.

Im not quite sure 
ive got the timeline of the 1st ticket

PC61122319

issued - 9/3/2024

date  of posting of this notice - 16/3/2024

date this notice was given - 19/3/2024

apppealed to pcn - 26/3/2024

pcn appeal dismissal letter dated 4/4/2024

appeal to IAS - 14/4/2024

operator response - 15/4/2024

response to operator - 19/4/2024

Adjudicators decision - 30/4/2024 on ias website

email from IAS about decsion - 1/5/2024

letter from PCN  asking for £100 now due to IAS dismissal - dated - 30/4/2024

The instant response from the operator suggests its automated. Also the fact PCN had sent a letter to me about the IAS dismissal before i got the email from IAS looks well dodgy to me. And then there is the fact that after careful consideration, the so called adjudicator dismissed both my appeals with the exact same words. Which suggests there is no adjudicator and its all automated.