Printfriendly

Sunday, 17 December 2017

Is Bryn Holloway Lead Assessor of the Independent Appeals Service corrupt or incompetent?

The Prankster has been made aware of yet another bogus decision by the kangaroo court run by the the IPC, as detailed in this MSE thread.

Overview

The vehicle keeper was not the driver, and based their case on the fact that keeper liability did not apply in this situation.

Appeal

The parking company stated that they were claiming against the vehicle keeper and that keeper liability applied.


The vehicle keeper informed the IAS that they were not the driver and appealed to the IAS on the single point that keeper liability did not apply. This was because the notice to keeper failed to specify the land where the vehicle was parked and also was not delivered in the correct time.


The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 makes the keeper liable for parking charges in certain circumstances. This is a quite incredible concession which does not exist anywhere else in contract law - that someone can be liable for a contract entered into by another person which they have no real knowledge or control over. In return for this, the parking companies have to obey a few minor rules.

It is completely fair they they need to tell the keeper where the vehicle was parked. Without this information, the keeper is completely in the dark. Clearly 'ONE STOP' does not fulfil this requirement. If this is perhaps a shop, then there are over 770 of these in England, Scotland and Wales.

The notice also has to be served within a specific time frame. The parking company claim they posted it within the time frame, but this is not the requirement. The requirement is that it arrives in the timeframe. The parking company also failed to provide any evidence of posting.

As there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that the letter arrived out of time, and the parking company are not disputing this, then clearly keeper liability does not apply.

So how then does the assessor deal with this minor irritation which blows the parking company case out of the water? Simple. They rule the late delivery as an inadmissible appeal point and tell the keeper to refer any complaints to the IPC. As for the relevant land point, this is silently ignored.


The appeal was dismissed

Prankster Notes

The assessor claims to be a barrister or solicitor (although they apparently do not know which they are).


It is therefore ludicrous that they are unaware of the basic law surrounding keeper liability and they also demonstrate a beginners failing to understand the law of contract.

It is also bizarre that a person who claims to be legally qualified is unable to deal with both points of a two point appeal.

Bryn Holloway

Bryn Holloway is the lead assessor of the Independent Appeals Service and the buck stops with him.

This is not an isolated incident. Pretty much EVERY appeal to the IAS which the Prankster has been made aware of is not dealt with correctly by the assessors.

When complaints are made, the IAS does not investigate them but instead send back a template reply stating that it cannot investigate the complaint because this would affect the impartiality of the service.

Therefore, in the Prankster's opinion, this is clear and unambiguous evidence that the process is not fair, but is biased against the motorist.

  • Assessors have little or no knowledge of the legal issues surrounding parking
  • Assessors fail to consider relevant appeal points
  • Assessors put different weight on evidence from parking companies than they do from motorists
  • Assessors make rulings which are out of line with those being made by real judges
  • The service is set up to be difficult to use by the motorist - for instance, they cannot paste into online entry fields, but must type everything out.
  • The service claims to be an ADR Entity, but fails to comply with the requirements for being an ADR Entity.
  • The service fails to investigate complaints or make meaningful changes


Bryn Holloway should be ashamed of his disgraceful behaviour in the way he runs this service.

If he is running the appeals service in this way knowingly, then The Prankster believes that the man on the street can only class this corrupt behaviour - Bryn is essentially colluding with parking companies to defraud motorists out of money they do not owe. If he is running the service in this way unknowingly, then by definition he is incompetent.

A fair appeals service needs a strong character who can stand up to the parking companies and the trade association, and run it in an impartial way. The position of lead assessor is vitally important in an industry staffed by chancers, fraudsters, bullies and incompetents. There are good people in this industry, but they are disadvantaged by having to compete with bottom feeders allowed to get away with anything.

It does not need someone like Bryn Holloway who appears on the available evidence to be a weak character, and no more than a lapdog for Will Hurley and John Davies.

So Mr Holloway, which is it? Are you corrupt or are you incompetent?

Either way The Prankster calls on you to resign and make way for someone who can do the job in a fair and impartial manner.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster

8 comments:

  1. Well, at least now we know what Bryn needs for Christmas.

    A Dictionary!

    That way, he'll be able to work out that "Sent" and "Received" do not mean the same.

    We know that the English language can be a bit of a complicated beast, but this is pretty basic so even a beginners "Janet & John" type dictionary should be able to help him out with this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be fair, it took a high court appeal to convince the Police and Magistrates courts that sent and received were not the same thing.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An obscure high court appeal in some obscure country? Or a high profile case which competent solicitors and barristers (acting in an area where the definitions or send and received are crucial) would be expected to be familiar with?

      Delete
    2. Competent solicitors should know about it, it related to serving a speeding NIP within 14 days, Gideon v Chief Constable of North Humberside http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. It was a Pepipoo case, Peter came to the forums for the initial advice and was supported right through tonthe HC appeal. At that time even the PNLD stated posting in 14 days despite the self evident wording of the statute. Much like the relevant part of PoFA, and it's surely no coincidence that the same 14 days is used.

    ReplyDelete
  4. He sits in the same office as the ajduicators who in turn share the same office with the IPC who in turn share the same offices with Gladstone Solicitors. Will Hurley and John Davies also reside at the same offices despite them stating they are independent. No Independance with this operation

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting blog. Have to say that POPLA are no better. Just had an appeal refused. Appeal detailed operators failings and relevant case law that upholds the arguments. You guessed it no relevant case law commented on. Even worse I have seen a similar decision in nother blog here.

    ReplyDelete