One Parking Solution - Another version of a non-POFA NTK

Coupon-mad

Only if you want a laugh.  Even worse...

triple-clones

Latest update, OPS are saying " under Elliot v Loake we can assume that the driver and the keeper are the same"

Grizebeck

triple-clones said:

Latest update, OPS are saying " under Elliot v Loake we can assume that the driver and the keeper are the same"

of course they, that old chestnut, why have you bothered with the IAS, 

Coupon-mad

triple-clones said:

Latest update, OPS are saying " under Elliot v Loake we can assume that the driver and the keeper are the same"

Heard it every time. IAS will repeat that rubbish.

Why not counter it by uploading the appeal transcripts of VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith (just search the forum for those transcripts).

triple-clones

IAS rejected my appeal, adjudicators decision:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Appellant provides no evidence in support of his claim that the site is not private land/is controlled by the local authority and therefore this is not accepted.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. 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 he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to pursue the Appellant as the registered keeper.

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. The Appellant's contention that the signage is insufficient, which is not supported by evidence, is not accepted.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that vehicles must be pre-authorised to park by way of possessing an OPS e-permit for their vehicle or drivers must display a valid OPS permit in the front windscreen of their vehicle. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and in the data provided I can see that the Appellant's VRN was not registered for a valid e-permit, which the Appellant also does not dispute. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. Drivers are entitled to a reasonable period to park, read the signage and then take steps to comply or leave the site. There is no evidence either in the photographs provided or the Appellant's appeal that this is what the Appellant was doing during the period parked. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

triple-clones

So do I just keep refusing to answer who was driving and ignore OPS and wait for court summons?

triple-clones

Grizebeck said:

triple-clones said:

Latest update, OPS are saying " under Elliot v Loake we can assume that the driver and the keeper are the same"

of course they, that old chestnut, why have you bothered with the IAS, 

It wasn't clear to me having read the newbie threads there was an alternative but appeal?

Le_Kirk

triple-clones said:

So do I just keep refusing to answer who was driving and ignore OPS and wait for court summons?

Why do you think you will receive a summons?

Coupon-mad

triple-clones said:

Grizebeck said:

triple-clones said:

Latest update, OPS are saying " under Elliot v Loake we can assume that the driver and the keeper are the same"

of course they, that old chestnut, why have you bothered with the IAS, 

It wasn't clear to me having read the newbie threads there was an alternative but appeal?

The third post of the NEWBIES thread tells you not to use the IAS.  You could have just ignored them entirely (except for a court claim form). No harm done!

Hilarious that the IAS spouted exactly what we said they would. Useless. Kangaroo court IMHO.  It was a waste of your time.

Now start ignoring them entirely (except for a court claim form, which certainly isn't a 'summons').

Umkomaas

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice

With tosh like the following, I suppose that's some blessing!

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 he/she was not the driver at the time of the incident.