tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post3175044228398632966..comments2024-02-21T09:25:42.645-08:00Comments on Parking Prankster: IPC Kangaroo court defies Government requirementsParking Pranksterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-4082297089445951712015-08-19T05:25:04.152-07:002015-08-19T05:25:04.152-07:00The DVLA were conned into allowing the IPC to be a...The DVLA were conned into allowing the IPC to be an ATA, what are the DVLA doing about this, nothing I bet.JohnHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10501153934321712472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-81080195802524388022015-08-19T05:24:44.241-07:002015-08-19T05:24:44.241-07:00The DVLA were conned into allowing the IPC to be a...The DVLA were conned into allowing the IPC to be an ATA, what are the DVLA doing about this, nothing I bet.JohnHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10501153934321712472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-75882519118341372542015-08-18T23:58:49.487-07:002015-08-18T23:58:49.487-07:00I can only imagine that it's over their copyri...I can only imagine that it's over their copyright. Lots of valuable artistic interpretation in shining a torch on an unlit sign.Colin MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01681687023913022670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-60338959899321252462015-08-18T12:41:54.174-07:002015-08-18T12:41:54.174-07:00I would be very tempted to take them up on that of...I would be very tempted to take them up on that offer if I had anything I could show.<br />That way a proper court would give a ruling that might just smack them firmly in the nuts.<br />All that aside, I wonder how long this charade will be allowed to continue before their house of cards collapses.Fractious Tarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18121510469285069560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-73501204160131258222015-08-18T12:41:14.450-07:002015-08-18T12:41:14.450-07:00On what grounds?On what grounds?Andrew Spiershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13331284155517666148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-87698076100160242112015-08-18T12:32:40.199-07:002015-08-18T12:32:40.199-07:00The IAS threaten legal proceedings if any evidence...The IAS threaten legal proceedings if any evidence is reproduced.Parking Pranksterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-91390685153514762592015-08-18T12:17:28.886-07:002015-08-18T12:17:28.886-07:00@PP Do you have access to the photos? It would be ...@PP Do you have access to the photos? It would be interesting to compare them.Andrew Spiershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13331284155517666148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-51238917596586522572015-08-18T09:29:12.893-07:002015-08-18T09:29:12.893-07:00Indeed and that confusion is furthered by POPLA...Indeed and that confusion is furthered by POPLA's description of appeals that go in the motorists favour as having been 'allowed', and those that go in the company's favour as 'refused'. It gives the impression that it is serving an appellate function, rather than a first instance independent arbitration.<br /><br />It would make more sense if the allowed/refused categorisation were reversed. Where the courts are concerned we don't speak of successful claimant's as having their claim 'refused', though we might describe unsuccessful appellant's as having their appeal refused. Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719812171607782078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-74709622060747956132015-08-18T05:57:40.162-07:002015-08-18T05:57:40.162-07:00Usually, when one appeals to a higher court, there...Usually, when one appeals to a higher court, there is an onus on the appellant to show that the lower court fell into error, whether by fault of process or omission of evidence, for instance.<br /><br />But that terminology depends on there having been an initial verdict handed down by an independent adjudication. In the PPC world, the first verdict is handled by the PPC itself. By definition this cannot be an independent verdict.<br /><br />Thus the 'appeal' would be better termed an attempt at dispute resolution via POPLA/IAS. It is the first point in the process where the PPCs evidence is weighed by someone without (apparent) connection to the PPC. Since the PPC is the one making the claim of monies due, the burden of proof must clearly lie with the PPC, not the motorist.<br /><br />Thus the perverse junk law rhetoric of the IPC/IAS can be discarded. It fails on just about every test of independence, equity and transparency which would be needed, even for a minimally adequate dispute resolution service.Neil Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11040813971258719833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-77648462537624309382015-08-18T05:49:56.829-07:002015-08-18T05:49:56.829-07:00Precisely: it's not in any meaningful sense an...Precisely: it's not in any meaningful sense an "appeal". By any reasonable interpretation it's a "court/independent tribunal of first instance" trial for both parties.<br /><br />It's perverse and abhorrent to assume and assert that the facts are proven against the driver/keeper unless they refute them. Particularly at the IPC when accusations against the driver/keeper are hidden from them, but their defence is shown to the plaintiff.<br /><br />Kafka would have been proud.Colin MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01681687023913022670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-32422652385187290612015-08-18T05:34:04.814-07:002015-08-18T05:34:04.814-07:00Regarding the charge being contractual. Have HMRC ...Regarding the charge being contractual. Have HMRC been informed?ManxRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17586016424441504769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-16599752359614115222015-08-18T05:28:49.472-07:002015-08-18T05:28:49.472-07:00I think it is not helpful that the process is call...I think it is not helpful that the process is called an 'appeal' when it is the PPC who are alleging a debt is owed and therefore they have the onus to prove it. From the goernment point of view, they have stated they want the appeals system to take the place of the court. This will clearly not be of any use unless the appeals system is modeled on the court system. Otherwise you get the IAS which is a meaningless verdict not worth the electicity the email was sent with.Parking Pranksterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15270922602703929291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-24186606054504793382015-08-18T04:31:07.181-07:002015-08-18T04:31:07.181-07:00ClassicClassicMickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719812171607782078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-6472773497828312682015-08-18T03:20:02.250-07:002015-08-18T03:20:02.250-07:00In a properly independent appeals service such as ...In a properly independent appeals service such as POPLA, the onus is on the Operator to prove their case. They are, after all, claiming that the motorist owes them money.<br /><br />So if, for example, the Appellant states that the Operator has not demonstrated that they have the necessary authority from the landowner, under POPLA the Operator needs to provide a copy of the contract as evidence that they do have authority. But the IAS adjudicators will say something like 'the onus is on the Appellant to prove that the Operator has no authority', thus setting the Appellant the impossible task of proving a negative.<br /><br />In one case I helped with, involving residential permits, all of the letters from the Operator were sent to the Appellant at his residential address, and were contained in the Operator's evidence pack. Yet the IAS legal hotshot managed to come up with this priceless gem: "... the Appellant has not provided evidence that they are a resident at the location, therefore there is no evidential basis to allow the appeal on this ground"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17677271750226834302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-28539747032385195412015-08-18T03:06:49.754-07:002015-08-18T03:06:49.754-07:00Surely the Parking Company is the claimant, and in...Surely the Parking Company is the claimant, and in a court the burden of proof of the cause of action lies with the claimant. No?ManxRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17586016424441504769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-58132187663959106452015-08-18T02:57:42.004-07:002015-08-18T02:57:42.004-07:00My point is that in that case it wouldn't be r...My point is that in that case it wouldn't be reversed? If the burden of proof on appeal lies with the appellant in an appellate court, then the position is not 'reversed' where the burden of proof is with the appellant as it is at the IPC.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719812171607782078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-12614180926774017622015-08-18T02:08:02.181-07:002015-08-18T02:08:02.181-07:00In a court, yes. But this isn't in a court. It...In a court, yes. But this isn't in a court. It's in IPCLand, where everything is reversed. Of course, if it wasn't reversed, the parking companies wouldn't make anywhere near as much money, but I think that's just a coincidence.ManxRedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17586016424441504769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-18460591736698134572015-08-18T01:47:53.146-07:002015-08-18T01:47:53.146-07:00Obvious incompetence of the IPC aside, on appeal d...Obvious incompetence of the IPC aside, on appeal does the burden of proof not lie with the appellant rather than the respondent?Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719812171607782078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3050188067980163727.post-15626566311099292982015-08-17T15:28:26.414-07:002015-08-17T15:28:26.414-07:00Who writes this stuff?
<<2. Private land an...Who writes this stuff?<br /><br /><<2. Private land and car parks 2.1 Legal position since 1 October 2012<br />Section 56 and Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 represented a significant change to the law on parking on private land. It enables private landowners to recover parking charges from the keepers of vehicles parked on their land where they have in effect entered a contract regarding the conditions upon which they have come onto that land to park.34 What this means is that where one owns a car park on private land, maintained by a member of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), and abiding by the requirements of that Association (i.e. erecting the proper signs, applying maximum charging rules, having a proper complaints and appeals procedure), once can recover parking charges from the owner (‘keeper’) of an illegally parked vehicle, if the driver does not pay.35<br />Where this marks a change from previous practice is that formerly a landowner only had recourse to the courts if they made a charge for parking on their land but did not enforce it with clamping. The changes outlined in the 2012 Act allow landowners to recover parking charges and drivers and vehicle owners to challenge fines without having to go to court, a process which can be time consuming and costly.<br />As mentioned in section 1.3, above, in March 2015 CLG issued a consultation on further changes to the rules on parking on private land. It sought views on whether there are problems with how parking on private land is regulated and/or the behaviour of private parking companies and what steps the Government should take to rectify these problems. In particular it was thinking of things like:<br />• Practices which could be in breach of consumer protection laws, such as companies setting excessive parking charges, or levying excessive penalties for overstaying which are dressed up as official “parking fines”.<br />• Practices that undermine the principle underlying the formation of a contract, including unclear or missing signage, or a lack of transparency on charges and/or fines.<br />• Failure to treat drivers fairly when they have incurred a penalty, including the failure to provide information, consider appeals fairly and the aggressive use of bailiffs.36<br />The consultation closed in May 2015, at time of writing the outcome has yet to be published.>><br /><br />'Illegally parked', 'Fines', 'Penalties'. Looks a right amateur job by a wannabe high flying civil servant youth! No wonder the struggle is uphill !Patrick Trouserfirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072329038078687489noreply@blogger.com