PCN 1 Minute over consideration period / Appeal won at IAS

ChirpyChicken

There is a sentence in there that is often quoted by certain people within the IPC
Funny that.

Bazarius

I need to sit down ……..

Car1980

Well, the future of the IPC / IAS is by no means guranteed.

If Will Hurley wants to keep the gravy train rolling with the new government now taking an interest, starting to give his "adjudicators" instructions to actually start adjudicating would be very wise move.

Coupon-mad

IhateFines said:

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't necessarily sound non-compliant to me but I've already covered this in my NTK pictures thread that shows everyone all NTKs.  It's designed to stop people making mistakes or showing us endless NTKs and asking if they are PoFA worded.

Just a quick update to this thread: 

I know its suggested on these forums its not advised to appeal to the IAS, considering that less than 10% are upheld but I gave it a shot anyway and won!

The adjudicator even stated that they feel the operator should have cancelled the PCN when it was originally appealed to them.  

"Whilst it was not unreasonable for the PCN to be issued as the Operator could not have known about all of the circumstances faced by the driver that the Appellant has cited in their appeal, the Operator could have allowed the appeal at the internal stage. As that did not occur, I am prepared to allow the appeal on the basis that a reasonable consideration period was not afforded to the driver on this occasion. 

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed."

Unheard of! Congrats!

I do wonder if they are trying to skew the figures. If so, I would say "too little, too late" and hope that the Minister Alex Norris at the MHCLG makes the right call.

We'll see the lie of the land in the Public Consultation this summer.

Umkomaas

Car1980 said:

Well, the future of the IPC / IAS is by no means guranteed.

If Will Hurley wants to keep the gravy train rolling with the new government now taking an interest, starting to give his "adjudicators" instructions to actually start adjudicating would be very wise move.

I did get a sense of that from reading the adjudication, just like they did in the run up to achieving ATA status way back when. Then it all changed!

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

IhateFines said:

Coupon-mad said:

Doesn't necessarily sound non-compliant to me but I've already covered this in my NTK pictures thread that shows everyone all NTKs.  It's designed to stop people making mistakes or showing us endless NTKs and asking if they are PoFA worded.

Just a quick update to this thread: 

I know its suggested on these forums its not advised to appeal to the IAS, considering that less than 10% are upheld but I gave it a shot anyway and won!

The adjudicator even stated that they feel the operator should have cancelled the PCN when it was originally appealed to them.  

"Whilst it was not unreasonable for the PCN to be issued as the Operator could not have known about all of the circumstances faced by the driver that the Appellant has cited in their appeal, the Operator could have allowed the appeal at the internal stage. As that did not occur, I am prepared to allow the appeal on the basis that a reasonable consideration period was not afforded to the driver on this occasion. 

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am not satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued and therefore this Appeal is allowed."

Unheard of! Congrats!

I do wonder if they are trying to skew the figures. If so, I would say "too little, too late" and hope that the Minister Alex Norris at the MHCLG makes the right call.

We'll see the lie of the land in the Public Consultation this summer.

Read some of the wording in that appeal allowance and some of it is precisely what certain indivuals within the IPA say in various pieces.

doubledotcom

A bunch of recent "generic" IAS appeals have been sent recently with the following included in the appeal referencing landowner contracts:

The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

Who knows if some of this allegation of non-accountability is rubbing off on them?

Kaizen2024

The adjudicator always has sight of the contract with the landowner; it is automatically attached to every appeal.

Coupon-mad

Kaizen2024 said:

The adjudicator always has sight of the contract with the landowner; it is automatically attached to every appeal.

Yep we know. Withheld from the consumer.

Just as all the IAS annual reports are except for a random 2023 one on the IAS website.