Ongoing Brewerygate issues, and illegal reset 2 years later, sanctioned by IPC

Coupon-mad

sickofthiscrap90 said:

as below, my complaint beneath asking where a reset is written in the code or what the legal precedent was. it was just closed without response. I made another and they closed it next day and said sorry you feel that way bt we cant further.  

The IPC Code of Practice is the one they have to follow for my ticket because it was in place at the time. 

Agreed.

Not that the IPC Code was or is law but the old one applies (the one before the current joke Joint Code). None of these Codes are worth reading though! Self serving drivel.

But if the IPC 'investigated' (I use that word loosely) a complaint, they 'can' agree with their member that the PCN could be reissued. So, this is not really important.

As I have said twice now, I have completed the consultation.

Oh sorry! Didn't want to harass you but in fact I checked your thread before I posted and didn't see anywhere that you'd mentioned that you had. I'll stop reminding you!

  

However, I still have evidence of procedural abuse and unfairness if it goes to court. 
1. failure to acknowledge a valid appeal, as confirmed by the IPC themselves. 
2. a bunch of procedural failings by them in regards to their formal complaints policy, and Gladstone. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority is involved in that now which might help me if further regulatory action is taken.

Good fightback, reporting Gladstones to the SRA. And you are well set to defend a claim.

sickofthiscrap90

Umkomaas said:

Question - the joint code appears to have come into effect in 2024. The PCN is from 2023. Is there any limitation to it retroactively? How far back does that apply? 

Well, interesting question. Excel and VCS (in relation to the 5 minute consideration period changing to 10 minutes) actually argue that any 5 minute breach occurring before the new code is game for pursuit. But I'm sure a judge won't stand for that, but it doesn't stop them trying.

If the minutiae of the Code doesn't confirm the answer to your question, it's the IPC who need to answer it.

The 5 minute thing doesn't apply here though. Nothing in the new code applies to my circumstances at all. Also, the IPC explicitly refused to answer my direct question about their decision. They just closed it immediately and said we cant help any further sorry.

I feel its also important that from a legal perspective, the IPC is an advisory body but they are not a regulator and have no power to legislate or regulate. In other words they cant make stuff up or change the rules/laws, and they cant take enforcement action either. So they can be wrong/biased and a judge can definitely rule against unfair conduct - which I can demonstrate very clearly has happened on multiple occasions. I've been effed every which way til Sunday with all their tomfoolery. I think they're all used to people not knowing the law, and being intimidated or confused by the legal jargon. But I work for a government regulatory body - I know enough to understand what they can and cannot do. 

Also, the code isn't a law or regulation, but it is a mandatory condition of membership for the operator. It applies to them, not me. Finally - burden of proof lies with the claimant. They cant provide proof of a breach. I made an SAR for everything they have, and all there is, is proof that the car was there. Nothing else. So they're going on nothing and I have stacks of evidence of procedural misconduct from both them and their solicitor, and now even the IPC. I'm going to defend in court when they finally get around to that - i'll let people know how I got on. 

James_Poisson

Exactly, a Code of Practice is merely a publication by a trade body that outlines what they consider to be best practice to try to keep within relevant ethical, legal obligations or industry best practices.

I used to work in the brewing industry in an area that was covered by electrical test regulations and pressure vessel regulations, the COP we  all worked to on planned pressure testing was changed at one stage to extend the period from 5 years to 7 purely to save money. 

They just mark their own homework to their benefit!

sickofthiscrap90

James_Poisson said:

Exactly, a Code of Practice is merely a publication by a trade body that outlines what they consider to be best practice to try to keep within relevant ethical, legal obligations or industry best practices.

I used to work in the brewing industry in an area that was covered by electrical test regulations and pressure vessel regulations, the COP we  all worked to on planned pressure testing was changed at one stage to extend the period from 5 years to 7 purely to save money. 

They just mark their own homework to their benefit!

I work for HSE, so I'm very familiar with how the law vs guidance. My argument is procedural unfairness under consumer protection laws. The list of ways they have acted unfairly and unreasonably is so long now. 

As a consumer, I have a right to expect them to act fairly and uphold their own code. Although their code isn't an enforceable law, it can be argued that they have acted unfairly and broken consumer protection laws, which is ultimately only for a judge to decide. I'm hoping to get it struck on that basis. 

Like, I have a right to fair process which at a bare minimum includes acknowledgement of my appeal. They've also obstructed natural justice. By not rejecting my appeal or acknowledging it at all I was unable to go to the IAS. The website doesn't recognise my details at all. Dragging it on for 2 years without any explanation, they've admitted they got my original appeal, and the follow up I sent 29 days later, as per the instructions on the PCN. The IPC have confirmed this and constitute that as a breach. 

And then, there's nothing to allow a reset in this scenario, in spite of what people say above. I've checked thoroughly and as I say its literally my job to understand and interpret these things. They definitely cant just reset it because they feel like it. I really don't think a judge will uphold any of this. They've sent more than 1 non-PAP-compliant 'LBC's, they've sent inappropriate emails saying, 'we suggest you pay or else...'

Keeper liability has long since passed but we're still going. They've ignored official formal complaints, not replied to enquiries when they really should have. The list goes on and on and I've documented it all. I'm hoping to just wrap them up in procedural failings and unreasonable delays. 

Either way, yes it could end up costing me £220 ish if I lose but I really think I will win the counterclaim for £350 and I also win on the moral grounds, because they've already spent way more time and money on this than they can ever reclaim. It's a joke - Im hoping my persistence is also teaching them to do better for others. And I really hope the government does pass official regulations and create a truly independent regulator soon! It cant go on like this. 

James_Poisson

It has beem thought on here for some time that the appeals process is a sham process especially with the IAS (where Will Hurley has bragged they reject over 95% of appeals) and the only fair decision comes in the SCC

ChirpyChicken

oh yes its well known about the legal reps who do the adjudications for the IAS  (ie those who work for the likes of Ashley Taylors / LPC / Elms and represent parking firms in court), also doing the IAS appeal. Has been going on for years

Coupon-mad

By not rejecting my appeal or acknowledging it at all I was unable to go to the IAS. The website doesn't recognise my details at all. Dragging it on for 2 years without any explanation, they've admitted they got my original appeal, and the follow up I sent 29 days later, as per the instructions on the PCN. The IPC have confirmed this and constitute that as a breach. And then, there's nothing to allow a reset in this scenario.

The whole house of cards is shaky at best. 

Totally agree about breaches of consumer law too. I think the DMCC Act will prove a powerful weapon now that it is fully in force and the CMA is its regulator, with power to fine traders.

I'm very glad you responded to the Consultation - a perfect person to be heard.