East Midlands Airport - VCS LTD - Petrol Station

Coupon-mad

They haven't disabled it for you. In fact even the first IAS appeal box used to prevent copy & paste so it is a slight improvement if that's no longer an issue!

Keep pulling the strings while watching TV one evening every week. 

LoneStarState

There is a way to allow pasting in the developer console (at least for Chrome) for websites that disable this.

How To Enable Pasting Text on Websites That Block It

Alternatively you could attach a pdf and then in the text field refer to the attachment for your response. But you're right I think it is best to just have text input directly in the main appeal text input boxes.  They can't conveniently miss it then.

iWindmill

LoneStarState said:

There is a way to allow pasting in the developer console (at least for Chrome) for websites that disable this.

How To Enable Pasting Text on Websites That Block It

Alternatively you could attach a pdf and then in the text field refer to the attachment for your response. But you're right I think it is best to just have text input directly in the main appeal text input boxes.  They can't conveniently miss it then.

Where were you 5 responses ago???? lol

Thanks so much for this!

iWindmill

No response from them, they've sent the case to adjudicator yesterday. 

Let's see what happens now! 

Coupon-mad

Yes, please post the joke IAS rejection of your appeal in my IAS Decisions 2025 thread with some context added & a link to this thread.

iWindmill

It's no surprise that IAS has rejected my appeal:

"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.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but is not willing to state who 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 they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore it is presumed they were the driver.

To clarify, the landowner agreement attached confirms the area in which this matter concerns is private land.

A number of images have been provided to me by the Parking 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, specifically that this is a no stopping or drop off location, and this area is for refuelling only. The CCTV stills clearly show the driver dropping off passengers, and the Appellant confirms this is what the driver was doing at the time. I am satisfied this is a direct breach of the term "no drop offs" as per the signage. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The appeal is dismissed." 

I'll post this in the rejection thread as well.

Coupon-mad

As expected:

"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."

They try that in court hearings too. They fail. And that interpretation of the above case is not even true.

iWindmill

Thanks - I shall wait until LBC

Car1980

No such principle was established. It was a criminal case for starters and has been deemed irrelevant a thousand times. If there was such a principle, you'd have to "assume" the owner would be the keeper and therefore driver, yet the keeper supplement specifically states the keeper
may not be the owner. Otherwise Ryan Johnson, the CEO of Enterprise, would be in court every day of the week as Excel could bombard him with claims. After all, he surely couldn't disprove he wasn't driving EVERY one of his hire cars  😂

doubledotcom

If further evidence was ever required that the IAS are liars when they say that their adjudicators are legally qualified to at least solicitor level, just get the IAS adjudicator to reveal their identity so that their legal reasoning can be put to the SRA under their reporting and regulatory processes for misconduct, including the making of materially false legal assertions (for example, the fabricated ‘principle’ they claim was established by Elliott v Loake), and for any associated breaches of the Principles and Code of Conduct.