The draft version of the IPC code of practice had this to say about appealing a notice to driver:
Here is the equivalent section from the notice to keeper section
As is obvious, there was never any intent to allow keepers to appeal. Even if he keeper did manage to appeal, they still needed to name the driver. This is shown by the requirements to appeal to the 'Independent' Appeals Service. Requirement (b) is that a name and address of the driver is provided, even if you are appealing as keeper.
This shows a lack of understanding of the law regarding keeper liability. As the keeper can be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no need to name the driver. The legal capabilities of Will Hurley and John Davies must therefore be called into question - either that or their morality. The question' Are you a fool or a knave?' is a perfectly valid one under the circumstances.
Following pressure from the DVLA and consumers, the code of practice was changed. Here is the (rather muddled) requirement for keeper appeals from the Code of Practice 1.3.
The requirement to name the driver at the IAS appeal stage remained, but following pressure from the DVLA this was removed, although the code of practice was not updated. Instead, on appealing the keeper was required to state whether they were the driver at the time, were not the driver at the time or did not want to state whether they were the driver.
Regardless of the keeper's statement, IAS assessors routinely ruled that the keeper was the driver, which of course calls their independence and impartiality into question.
Following the conversion of their status from provisional ATA to ATA the IPC released another code of practice.
Although it appears that keeper's should be allowed the right to appeal, this is not the case. All that is required is confirmation of appeals procedures, and it appears that notification that appeals are not allowed is condoned by the IPC. Here is a typical Notice to Keeper. It informs the keeper that no appeal is allowed as they were out of time.
As these notices are audited by the IPC, it leaves no doubt that this type of action is condoned from the very top.
This can be exploited by bottom-feeding operators. A notice to driver can be put on the windscreen, photographed and then removed. This will ensure not only that the keeper can never appeal but also that any early payment discount has been lost. This is a scam known as ghost ticketing, and a number of IPC operators have been reported to The Prankster as apparently using this scam.
It is therefore an important safeguard that keepers always be allowed to appeal. Indeed, as the right to any discount will have been lost, there is no point in the keeper not taking the parking charge all the way through the appeals system.
It appears that the IPC have successfully bamboozled the DVLA into letting them remove the right to appeal from vehicle keepers.
The Prankster believes that a reputable trade association would not act in this way and calls on the DVLA to remove ATA status from the IPC until they restore the right for keepers to appeal.
The Prankster believes this also shows the IPC cannot be trusted to behave in a fit and proper manner with regards to their code of practice, and therefore backs the call of the BPA for a single industry wide code of practice, maintained by an independent body with members from all interested parties.
As motorists do not have the right to a fair appeal, they should avoid IPC car parks like the plague.
As retailers will suffer from loss of trade, landowners should also avoid using IPC members to manage their car parks.
The Parking Prankster