Shock IAS Win Against Smart Parking Ltd – Keeper Liability Thrown Out!

Bazarius

A Curious Calm Before the Single Appeals Storm? 

A leading FB group bagged an IAS appeal win against Smart Parking Ltd—keeper liability thrown out.    Their PCN quoted Paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) of PoFA… despite failing to comply with Paragraph 9(5). Sloppy and misleading.   

The adjudicator upheld the appeal, confirming that PoFA couldn’t apply and keeper liability did not stand. 

But here’s what really raised an eyebrow—no mention of Elliot v Loake by the IAS. Anyone who’s been around knows that case is their usual go-to when PoFA fails, trotted out like it’s gospel. So why the sudden silence?

 Is it coincidence—or caution? With the Single Appeals process on the horizon, maybe IAS  are finally playing by the rules of law? - of course not… it doesn’t wash with me .   

Umkomaas

Thanks for the above posting. 

Is it coincidence—or caution? With the Single Appeals process on the horizon, maybe IAS  are finally playing by the rules of law? - of course not… it doesn’t wash with me .  

They have form!  They used to fulfil the role correctly and impartially during the 'probation' period leading up to the accreditation of the IPC as an ATA.  Then, once accredited, the horns emerged and 5% became the unashamedly stated promise to IPC operators. 

The MHCLG should be alert, and extremely wary!

ChirpyChicken

Probably hasn't been on-boarded correctly by the in-house legals at the IPC

Bazarius

ChirpyChicken said:

Probably hasn't been on-boarded correctly by the in-house legals at the IPC

I agree . it looks like the operator may not have been properly briefed on how to approach this case at the IAS. If they’d presented it differently, they might’ve won. For example, stating:

“We believe the keeper was the driver on the balance of probabilities, as they declined to identify the driver and offered no evidence to the contrary.”

That kind of reasoning is textbook adjudicator bait. It shifts the burden subtly, and historically, IAS has been receptive to that logic , especially in non-PoFA cases. So their failure to deploy it here feels like they are probably still using the same template  used at POPLA.   

Coupon-mad

I suspect it's a combo of a rookie IAS Assessor and the staff at Smart Parking having no clue how to handle second stage appeals.