In this report on pepippo a motorist claims Vehicle Control Services fabricated false evidence to win an IPC appeal. The car park in question was an Aldi site and had no white lines until a few months after the ticket was issued. The ticket was issued for being in a restricted area. The motorist alleges that the parking company fabricated evidence by submitting a ticket with a written note on the back stating they were not parked between the white lines. However the motorists original copy of the ticket does not have this writing. Additionally the warden claims the motorist returned to their vehicle and refused the ticket. The motorist states this is not true.
The motorist reported the fabricated evidence to the IPC who washed their hands of the affair with a template reply they use in these circumstances.
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is unable to interfere with the decisions made by the Adjudicator, as this would compromise the independence of the service. Once a decision has been made, the decision is final and cannot be altered.
It is now a matter for you and the operator, please contact them for further information.
If you wish to contest the charge further, you should seek legal advice, if you need a solicitor please visit the Law Society website.
Unfortunately the IAS will be unable to provide any further information as the appeal has been completed and closed.
I should add that the IAS appeal decision is not binding on The Motorist. You always have the option to contest the case in Court should VCS opt to issue proceedings.
The Prankster can confirm that Vehicle Control Services have sent false evidence to previous IAS appeals. Despite this John Davies and Will Hurley, directors of the IPC, refuse to investigate this apparent fraudulent behaviour of their operators.
Should VCS choose to issue proceedings then The Prankster notes that many IPC operators use Gladstones Solicitors to issue proceedings on their behalf. Gladstones Solicitors has two directors, John Davies and Will Hurley. There does appear to be a clear conflict of interest if the IPC refuse to investigate allegations of corruption, and the directors then financially benefit should the operator use their solicitor firm to issue proceedings.
It should also be noted that the ability to comment on evidence is a requirement for ADR Entities. For some reason the IAS was granted ADR Entity status even though they did not meet this requirement. This case illustrates why this protection is necessary for consumer protection, and how the ADR Entity status can potentially be abused if this protection is missing.
For completeness, The Prankster quotes another IAS ruling, this time from moneysavingexpert. The appeal was sent in by the vehicle keeper who was not the driver. The keeper was required to electronically sign a statement of truth confirming this. Despite this the IAS assessor chose not to believe them.
The Appellant claims they have evidence they were not the driver but they have failed to provide the same. The case of Elliot v Loake is clear that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper is assumed to be the driver.If the motorists are to be believed in these two cases it appears that the assessors will swallow any old guff from the parking company, while not believing a statement of truth from the motorist.
This ruling is also particularly worrying as the assessor states that Elliot v Loake provides that the keeper is the driver without evidence to the contrary. The Prankster asserts that no properly qualified assessor would make this basic mistake. In Elliot v Loake all the evidence pointed to the fact that the owner was the driver; the car was forensically placed at the crash site and the owner stated he was the only driver and had the keys with him all night. The owner denied the car was at the crash site and that he had driven it. Having found that he lied with the first statement, he was also found to have lied with the second.
The Prankster asserts that no properly qualified independent assessor would use Elliot v Loake in a situation where there is no evidence to suggest the keeper is lying and no evidence submitted by the operator that the keeper was the driver . In this particular case all the submitted evidence is that the keeper was not the driver - what more evidence would the assessor want than a signed statement from the keeper?
The Prankster believes that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute should remove ADR Entity status from the IAS until statutory requirements for ADR Entity certification are met. The Prankster also backs the BPA call for a single appeals body and a single code of practice.
The Parking Prankster