Printfriendly

Saturday, 3 October 2015

How the Independent Parking Committee pulled the wool over the DVLA's eyes (2)

A series of documents released under FoI show that the Independent Parking Committee never had any intention of letting keepers appeal. The full documents can be seen by requesting from the DVLA a copy of all documents released under FOIR3618 and make interesting reading.

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.



Conclusion

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.


Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster







45 comments:

  1. Please can you explain what the big issue is? If the keeper is the driver, then just say so in your appeal. If the keeper isn't the driver, just say who was.

    I am genuinely curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can the keeper say they were not the driver if they are not allowed to appeal?

      Delete
    2. > If the keeper isn't the driver, just say who was.

      Why?

      Delete
  2. The reason many cowboy parking companies do not want to allow the keeper to appeal is because they have to jump through a few hoops in order to correctly establish keeper liability.

    As many of these companies are run by knuckle dragging ex clampers, they can barely issue a windscreen PCN correctly, never mind comply with PoFA2012.

    IPC are running what would appear to be an appeals system that is clearly biased towards its members, the parking companies.

    A keeper is under no obligation to name the driver at any point, regardless of whether they were driving or not. It is the obligation of the parking company to prove who was driving if they wish to pursue the driver.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So the complaint is that this policy prevents motorists from attempting to exploit a loop hole in order to dodge a charge that they agreed to pay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should have said "agreed" which is one of the main issues

      Delete
    2. It's no loophole, they are using the part of pofa 2012 that suits them, in other words registered keeper liability, if the driver doesn't appeal for whatever reason then the registered keeper receives notice and should be given the opportunity to appeal, or to pass on liability in the case of hire/lease/company vehicles. The the way it is now is that the ones using loopholes are the scamming parking companies, and the scamming ipc and gladstones. These kind of tickets would never see a court as I would think that a district judge would see this for what it is. A scam!

      Delete
    3. Nobody agrees to pay £100 to park outside the supermarket (or wherever) while they do a bit of shopping (or whatever). These are private companies - sometimes private individuals - who are out to make a profit by setting traps for the unwary. They are not at all interested in managing parking facilities for the benefit of the landowners or the general public. Their business model is such that they only derive profit from catching people out with inadequate signage and ridiculous terms and conditions hidden in small print, then intimidating their victims with threat-o-grams and default CCJ's.

      Myself, your opinion on this matter obviously differs from most of the Pranksters readership, which begs an obvious question:

      Do you own/work for or represent in any capacity any private parking business, or have you ever done so?

      Delete
    4. C.L as I understand it it upon receipt of a notice to keeper they can still name the driver and transfer liability. If they were the driver then they should have appealed within the required time scale.

      O.M.B by Parking the driver DOES agree to pay £100, if they don't wish to agree; simply park elsewhere.

      You have a choice if you think £100 is too expensive, don't park... Simples.

      None of the above comments address the fact that the only complaint about the keeper not being able to appeal after a NTK is as it closes a loophole.

      The IPC are a trade organisation, as such it is there duty to protect their members; closing a loophole being a prime example.

      Delete
    5. Don't be ridiculous they don't have the authority to close this particular loophole because it's in pofa 2012, unless they have the ability to circumvent the law then they are breaching this particular piece of legislation. This will come back to bite them, the ipc doesn't enjoy the protection that the bpa enjoy, the ipc will be closed down shortly, and their clients will not be welcome back into the bpa. So will be the first to liquidate.

      Delete
    6. Will, this is where you show your lack of understanding of the statutes. There is no liability for the keeper to transfer if POFA 2012 requirements are not complied with.

      Delete
    7. Not Will. Your right there is no liability for the keeper to transfer, this is the loop hole that your angry you can't exploit at an early stage. If you refused to name the driver in court it would do you no favours what so ever.

      Delete
    8. Someone's angry but I doubt it's Pranky. Talking of people doing themselves no favours in court…………

      http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/gladstones-score-double-payday-from.html

      Delete
    9. But it will never go to court will it? All the defendant would have to do is show the letter saying its to late for the registered keeper to make an appeal, and basically the only choice is to pay, or face court! Plus of course the relevant part of pofa 2012 for the district judge to throw it out. All these companies use is the threat of going to court.

      Delete
    10. One should probably not really think that much of a solicitor (Mr. Myself here) whose behaviour towards the law has not been quite as shiny before...

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5291758/Solicitor-investigated-over-claims-he-tried-to-silence-murder-witness.html

      Delete
    11. According to the papers on the internet....Mr Will Hurley was found not guilty of perverting the course of justice.
      Similarly he left his previous firm and in the article says how he's looking forward to working for a firm called....GLADSTONES...what a small world.
      I'm sure he is a fine upstanding member of the legal profession.

      As an aside: Does anyone know if the SRA require a lower burden of proof than a crown court??

      Delete
  4. I'd suggest dragging you own knuckles back to the wilderness if you're incapable of seeing any wrong in the way the IPC do things. Loophole it may be, though it isn't really. It's a legal based part of PoFA that the keeper can be held liable instead of the driver so quite how that can be a "loophole" by your standards is a mystery.
    Personally I am the keeper of a vehicle that was ghost ticketed and have lost any appeals process and any early payment discount.
    I suppose a ghost ticketing exercise is OK by you then, Mr Loophole

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You still can appeal... To the judge if it gets that far.

      Delete
    2. Ghost ticketing is a myth, it make no odds to the person who issues the ticket how much they pay; so why would they bother.

      Delete
    3. Will, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend your members aren't ghost ticketing all you like. Meanwhile, back in the real world ghost ticketing is alive and well and brought to you by a bottom-feeding IPC member.

      Delete
    4. Again.. Not Will. Where's your evidence???? if it was so prolific, there would evidence or at least it would be easy to obtain if there's s company that you have in mind. A straw man tactic if ever I saw one.

      Delete
    5. Straw man? You ignored the points I raised in much the same way that the IPC/IAS and PPC SCAMMERS ignore valid appeals, and singularly avoided answering the very direct question I asked you regarding your interests in this business, and you have the cheek to accuse the Prankster of using straw man tactics.

      Delete
    6. My business interest is irrelevant

      Delete
    7. Then we shall proceed under the "reasonable assumption" that you are a PPC knuckle dragger.

      Delete
    8. .......along with your stupid comments.

      Delete
    9. You can sling mud all you like.

      The fact of the matter is that the ONLY reason for opposition to the keeper not being able to appeal post NTK is as it closes a loophole that has been exploited to date.

      There is no requirement under POFA to allow a keeper to appeal, they just need to be informed of any appeals process; there are duly informed that if they were the driver they have had their chance to appeal and opted not to utilise it; if they were not the driver... Identify them and stop moaning and let the driver deal with it.

      If the driver is not named it is more probable than not that the keeper was the driver.

      Delete
    10. You keep banging on about a loophole which has been exploited, but without saying what it is. There does not appear to be any way a keeper can exploit any loophole. If the charge is not valid, then it does not matter who appeals, driver or keeper, then the appeal will be lost by the appellant. If the charge is valid, then the same applies; whoever appeals, the appeal will be won by the appellant. So what is this mysterious loophole that nobody here seems to be aware of?

      Delete
    11. If the charge isn't valid they what have you got to lose by being open and honest by naming the driver?

      Delete
    12. Myself, "You should be more open and honest".

      Pranky, "Can you even hear yourself".

      Delete
    13. Ah, so now we get to the nub of the matter. You want to enforce charges which are not valid by denying the right to appeal. Thanks for the clarification, Will.

      Delete
    14. Nope, the driver can appeal upon receipt of the PCN

      Delete
    15. I take your refusal to answer as admitting that I am correct. You want to enforce charges which are not valid by denying the keeper the right to appeal. Thanks for the clarification, Will.

      Delete
    16. The keeper had there chance to appeal if they were the driver, if they were not the driver they can name them and be done with it.

      They have a choice, provide the drivers details or accept that if they don't they will be pursued for payment; a perfectly reasonable scenario.

      Delete
    17. As long as you accept that no payment will be forthcoming and any court action will be vigorously defended by M'learned Prankster. An even more reasonable scenario :)

      Delete
    18. You keep dodging the issue. So according to you, there is no loophole, and the only reason you don;t want the keeper to appeal is because you want to enforce charges for which the keeper is not liable? I refer you to the current criminal case in Aberdeen where CEL are being prosecuted for asserting the keeper is liable when they are not.

      Delete
    19. How can it be justified that the Keeper be denied an appeal when they cannot name the driver? The Keeper may not know the identity of the driver either because the car is used by several members of the household & none of them owned up to receiving a windscreen ticket or because the windscreen ticket was a ghost ticket & because it was a month or two previously none of the possible drivers can actually remember who was the driver on the day in question.

      Delete
  5. You should be calling for the dvla to remove ATA status full stop, there is no hope for these people as they cannot be trusted to redeem themselves, the ipc and gladstones are liars, they deliberately condone the actions of their members, even when it's unlawful. The SRA should be striking these so called solicitors off, they should be prosecuted as anyone defrauding people should serve time. I invite gladstones again to contact me :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadstones are pathetic litigators, I helped with a PPC scam case, they folded just before hearing.

      Delete
    2. I helped with one that actually went to court. The PPC 'evidence' was rubbish, and the Judge threw it out. Another well-prepared case by a solicitor's office that looks like a kebab shop.

      Delete
    3. @User Name. In my opinion 'Sadstones ' notched up another win for themselves that day, successfully gouging their client for maximum fees right up to hearing date (they don't actually turn up to hearings themselves, farming that out to LPC Law, so no money to be made there)

      Delete
  6. Pranky, the 2nd quotation box doesn't display anything for me :/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. There was nothing in the keeper requirements to give appeal status

      Delete
  7. surely if a car is parked, there is no driver?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a number of questions to ask Gladstones Solicitors Ltd before I refer them to the SRA but I can't find the address of their registered office anywhere on their website to write to them. As a 'highly rated' solicitor Mr Hurley should surely know better.

    Perhaps I can direct him to the relevant legislation:

    The Companies (Registrar, Language and Trading Disclosure) Regulations 2006

    1.—(1) Section 349(1) of the 1985 Act (company’s name to appear in its correspondence etc) is amended as follows.

    (2) In subsection (1)—

    (a)in paragraph (a), after “business letters” insert “and order forms”;

    (b)after paragraph (b) insert—

    “(ba) on all its websites,”.

    ReplyDelete