Monday, 20 June 2016

New optical illusion sweeps internet. Bryn Holloway noticable by his abscence

In the past several optical illusions have puzzled web users. Is the dress black and blue or gold and white? Can you see the panda? Where is the hidden ipad? Now a new illusion is sweeping the globe. Where are the double red lines?

In a parking notice from Vehicle Control Services the parking company claim the vehicle is parked on double red lines. But where are they? Here are their CCTV images, reproduced at the original quality.

So far, only one person in the entire world has managed to see the double red lines; an assessor (who wishes to remain anonymous) who works for the "Independent" Appeals Service owned by Will Hurley and John Davies of the IPC, a trade association for the parking charges industry.

Here is the assessors verdict:
I am also shown evidence that ’No Stopping’ signs exist adjacent to the Appellant’s vehicle and that the vehicle is parked on double red lines.
Amazingly, not only can the assessor see the invisible double red lines, but they can also see an invisible sign 'adjacent to the Appellant's vehicle'. However, despite this description of the signs from Vehicle Control Services, The Prankster remains unable to see them. "To put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door" On the other hand, perhaps English is not The Prankster's first language after all, and the sign which says 'Beware Pedestrian Crossing' actually reads 'No Stopping'

The Prankster understands the duties that disability legislation places on employers, but considers that employing blind people to examine photographs is not best practice. Perhaps the IPC are employing them for their clairvoyant capabilities?

Here is the Assessors verdict on a contract they have never seen:
The Appellant appears to suggest that the Operator has no legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices on this site.
The Assessor appears to be blissfully unaware of the dubious competence of the IPC audit process, and that large numbers of IPC companies have found this out to their cost in the courts, where real judges have ruled that the company does not have the right to issue charges after all. In several cases the IPC have been so incompetent they did not even realise the signage at the car park was in the name of a different operator altogether.

Amazingly, the Assessor's clairvoyant properties let them down later. In this case the registered keeper was at home cooking at the time of the incident, and produced witness statements both from herself and a vehicle passenger,  together with phone logs to prove this. As well as this, the operator identified the driver as male, whereas the keeper is female. Even with this overwhelming weight of evidence, the assessor choose to believe that the keeper was driving.
As the Appellant provides no documentary proof as to their whereabouts I am not satisfied that the Appellant has proved that they are not the Driver as appears to be claimed.
Finally, although the assessor claims to be either a barrister or solicitor, it is clear to The Prankster that one of the IAS's infamous baristas must have sneaked in and assessed the case instead.
In the case of Elliot v Loake (1982) the legal principle is established, that, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the Driver
Any competent legal professional would know that Elliot v Loake establishes nothing of the sort.

  1. The case was concerned with the vehicle owner, not the keeper
  2. Instead of ruling there was 'absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary' the magistrates actually ruled the other way and that there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant was the driver
  3. In any case, any competent legal professional would know from reading the transcript that no legal principle is established. The case is simply a finding on the facts.

The motorist did complain to the Lead Assessor of the IAS , former judge Bryn Holloway. However they only received a generic reply refusing to investigate.

So, the IAS appears to be employing blind, incompetent assessors who are institutionally biased in that they believe operators statements without any supporting evidence, but disbelieve motorists statements even with overwhelming evidence, with a lead assessor notable only for his inability to take meaningful action in the many cases where miscarriages of justice have been reported to him.

The Prankster calls on the government to shut down the IPC until they provide a fair and impartial appeals service. Until this happens, The Prankster calls on Bryn Holloway to step up to the plate, do his job properly and ensure that the assessors are competent and impartial, rather than the disgraceful assessments he is allowing on his watch.

As for the assessor, no wonder they want to remain anonymous with a judgment like that. Where's Wally?

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Hilarious!

    You might be interested in the fun we're having in Canterbury with UKPC -

    1. "When we came out he'd slapped a ticket on the car. I went up and had a word and told him we'd been in Beds 4 Us.

      "The warden then took the ticket off the windscreen and said 'Ok, that'll be cancelled."

      Yeah, right!

      Well that motorist will almost certainly be getting a surprise in the post. All part of the scam, tell them it's cancelled, whip the ticket off the windscreen, avoid immediate face to face conflict. But the ticket will be processed. The 'warden' meets his target, gets his bonus .... and the motorist will soon get a PCN in the post to deal with!

  2. How long can DVLA pretend this shower are suitable to be an approved trade association, as a minimum they should have made IAS had an oversight panel like POPLA has.

    1. As long as the IAS keep the money rolling into the DeViousLA I reckon.

  3. However, when considering incidents of NMoP or an offence of MOWP, prosecutors should remember that the court is entitled to draw a prima facie inference from evidence as to the registered owner or keeper of the vehicle that that person was using it at any particular time, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36).

    1. Quoting guidance for Payment Evasion Offences with regard to Petrol Stations seems a little off topic to me. I don't think this is either No Means of Payment nor Making Off Without Payment as I would be surprised if they had provided a payment mechanism for parking on double red lines.
      Of course, the point of this blog was the lack of evidence that there were such lines, etc. never mind that the operator gave a description at odds with the registered keeper...

    2. Are you an IAS barrista by any chance?

    3. Who were you asking? I'm not, I just take an interest in rip off PPCs and how to fend them off when they are trying to treat reasonable people as a source of easy cash.

  4. If ever there were a case begging to end up in front of a county court judge......

    1. Fat chance of them risking court for a JLA case. They wouldn't want to risk their money making house of cards come tumbling down.

  5. is jla private land, if so then a double red line means nothing?