Parking in own space/IAS as Kangaroo court/complaint to MA and freeholder

KoalaMSEF

Worth doing a LBC to the landlord, MA, and PPC now? The next letter from bwlegal will be a letter of claim. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Attack can be the best form of defence.

And you can name more than one Defendant on MCOL now, I'm told. 

KoalaMSEF

@Coupon-mad, I saw you asking for IAS in another post. 

From what we have received - (1) IAS has almost repeated Parking & Property's (problematic) reasoning point-by-point. (2) IAS said explicitly that "once liability has been established, only the operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge." Happy to share if it is of any use to you. 

Coupon-mad

KoalaMSEF said:

@Coupon-mad, I saw you asking for IAS in another post. 

From what we have received - (1) IAS has almost repeated Parking & Property's (problematic) reasoning point-by-point. (2) IAS said explicitly that "once liability has been established, only the operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge." Happy to share if it is of any use to you. 

Yes please. A screenshot, so it is clearly from the IAS.  On this thread, not by pm.

I want to show some shocking decisions.

If any regulars can recall or find a really terrible IAS decision (not the "little ol' wine drinker, me" one from this week, as I have that) please pm me a link to the thread.

KoalaMSEF

Here is the first one - shocking and shameful

"freeholder's term of use" is that this is allocated parking, no permit whatsoever is needed. To have a permit clause, freeholder needs to alter the Lease. These people just invented stuff as they went along, as if they never had any basic idea about what a lease is. How can they call themselves "legally qualified"??? 

@Coupon-mad

KoalaMSEF

Here is the second one - shocking as the first but, the adjudicator at least admitted that this was pointless because PPC dictates the terms. 

LDast

Why not write to the IAS and ask them the identity of the adjudicator as you do not believe that they are legally qualified as either a barrister or solicitor.

I note that the IAS claims its adjudicators are qualified barristers or solicitors. However, as the identity of the adjudicator is not disclosed, it is impossible to independently verify this claim. I therefore request the name and qualifications of the adjudicator in my case to ensure that the appeal has been conducted by someone with the requisite legal qualifications.

In the absence of verifiable evidence that the adjudicator is indeed a qualified barrister or solicitor, I am unable to accept the claim at face value. I request that you disclose this information, failing which I reserve the right to question the legitimacy of the appeal process.

KoalaMSEF

Thanks for that LDast. It may be entertaining to interact with IAS but at the moment, I find it quite tasteless if I need to interact with the stupid in a malicious system. 

They had our full lease in front of them but refused to read but came up with things like 'landlord's condition' on an assumption that leaseholders in this country is inferior than freeholders, without knowing that landlord needs to adhere to to the Lease. 

On the other hand, as far as I know, some solicitors in some reputable law firms are not better. They called PCNs as 'fines' and they do not know (or won't do) what they are supposed to know (or do). 

IAS won't make any difference. Just like debt collector companies, they follow the instruction of PPCs and that's why PPC encouraged and urged us to go through IAS, directly and through MA, promised to 'help' multiple times, but ultimately and inevitably we are now at stage 4. 

IAS is a form of business model. Unless such a business model is disrupted by regulation or other forms of mandates, it doesn't matter because it is a tool for the PPCs. It makes no difference. If court is the inevitable, we will see them in court. 

If anything I've learned from this drama is that - this is a robotic system to go against individuals. The letter chain, the seemingly 'legit' procedure, the convoluted quasi-legal languages used in the letters, the intimidating techniques, the convenient omission of facts, among others (e.g., IAS, debt collector companies) are meant to maximise their chance to get your money. In every step, there is psychological manipulation that screams at you that - pay it, pay it, and if you pay it, you will be left alone. 

For such cases, regulators/justice system should think about 'making it too expensive for them to do that again.'  

LDast

Hopefully this will all come to pass when the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is enacted. Until then, I would have a bit of fun making the vermin squirm and obfuscate. It can all be used as evidence later if necessary.

Fruitcake

If you are going to challenge the legal status of the IAS assessor, I suggest you read what the ADR regulations say about whether or not their identity should be given. I think it does, but I'm not sure the assessor must be legally qualified.
Also note that both IAS and PoPLA appeals fail the requirements of the regulations because neither allows an appeal period of not less than twelve months. I believe this failure is due to be rectified when the mandatory CoP is introduced.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

Transparency

5.  The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—

(a)its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;

(b)a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;

(c)its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;