Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ias'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Location

Found 10 results

  1. Hey everyone, I need your help, today I received an email from IAS (Known as Independence Appeal Service) that my appeal for unfair car park charge have been dismissed after I was told that the appeal would take a week but it take them two days for them to dismissed my appeal. Here is what it said: Dear Chris, The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN. Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX Date Issued: 2015-11-10 Appeal Outcome: Dismissed The Adjudicators comments are as follows: "I cannot allow the appeal on the basis put forward. It is difficult to follow the Appellant’s submissions but I believe they are arguing that they have been given an incorrect permit, although it is not clear from whom they received this permit. In any event the contractual terms advertised on the signs make it clear that any driver parking without displaying a valid permit agrees to pay the charge. The Appellant claims to have a visitor permit, but they were not displaying this, nor have they provided any evidence that they are entitled to a permit. Even if I accept the Appellant’s submissions, it would not change the contractual terms. If the Appellant does not have a valid permit they may park as they did and pay the charge or park elsewhere. They chose the former, and the appeal is dismissed. "As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred. As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter. The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge. Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice. Yours Sincerely The Independent Appeals Service
  2. Just succeeded in getting my Parking Charge Notice cancelled - in the end without having to appeal to IAS... I had paid the correct parking fee but made an error in typing in my vehicle reg. I was grateful not to have to use IAS a) because most forum members think it a waste of time anyway and doomed to failure b) because I didn't want to do an appeal online (slow pc/hangs/freezes/slow internet) I could not find any contact details, email, phone, address for IAS - the contact button takes you a registration page - which I eventually filled in but still failed in registering and still couldn't contact them. Don't need it now but am intrigued....So let's check in Companies House - I can find the BPA, I can find my rogue parking company who shall be nameless for the moment. The only IAS (Independent Appeals Service) I can find was dissolved in 2013. (right geographical area!) I can find nothing for IPC which I understand is Independent Parking Committee. Could they be some type of organisation does not require registering with Companies House? A little more digging has revealed that IAS and IPC are one and the same thing - approved by CTSI - Trading address is 4, the Stables, Red Cow Yard, Knutsford. Email: [email protected], telephone 01565655467 - in case anyone needs it. and guess what? Something I read earlier is quite true - this is just where the solicitors Gladstones reside (the ones who pursue motorists caught by my nameless company) All a tad incestuous methinks
  3. Help please. my appeal has been decline as anticipated but i'm unclear as to what happens next. I really didn't see the sign for charges it was pitch black and when I returned to the car within 10 minutes with the change for the machine the attendant wrote the ticket and still issued the charge while I was there - this has been ignored on appeal. They IAS claim state the signs were clear but this is simply not true but will not acknowledge the photo evidence was taken after the ticket was issued - it was one of those situations when I couldn't believe what was happening - they claim I was 5 mins over - I did pay the fee which was £3 on the evening not realising the chap was in the car park - i ran to my car but he carried on anyway. Sorry for rambling, I'm devastated! any advice please?
  4. I returned from holiday to a failed IAS appeal.... My appeal; A Notice To Registered Keeper was received by myself on xx/xx/2015. The requirements to allow keeper liability under schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have not been met by this NTRK. This was made clear to PCN Parking Solutions, who subsequently 'rejected my appeal' , due to this being ' mitigation'. That is NOT mitigation but fact. There is no evidence on their website to show me, the Registered Keeper, that this event actually happened.* After visiting the site to view the signage, it is clear that it does not comply with the IPC CoP. either. To confirm, as Registered Keeper I am not liable for this charge. Operators reply; THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PRIVATE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING. BY WAY OF CONTRACTUAL WARNING SIGNAGE, WHICH IS DISPLAYED AT THE SITE, MOTORISTS ARE MADE AWARE THAT SHOULD THEY DECIDE TO PARK AT THE SITE, THEN A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES. IN THE EVENT THAT A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET IS NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYED, THEN THE MOTORIST BY WAY OF AFFIRMATION, HAS AGREED TO PAY THE OPERATOR A FIXED AGREED UPON SUM OF MONEY. IN ESSENCE THIS SUM IS A CORE CONTRACTUAL PRICE TERM. SHOULD THE MOTORIST NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARKING, THEN THEY ARE FREE TO REMOVE THEIR VEHICLE FROM THE SITE AND TO PARK AT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION. AS PER THE OPERATORS PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET AT THE TIME OF THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING EVENT. THE OPERATOR WOULD ALSO DRAW THE IAS ASSESSOR TO THE FACT THAT AT NO POINT HAS THE APPELLANT APPEALED AGAINST THE ISSUING OF THIS PCN BUT HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE "NTK IS NOT POFA COMPLIANT" FOR UNSPECIFIED REASONS. AS A RESULT OF THIS WE SAY THAT THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE. Adjudicators decision; It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. I am satisfied that as the Operator is pursuing the Appellant as the Driver of the vehicle that PoFA does not apply in this situation. 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. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has not proved that they are not the Driver as claimed. It is clear from the photographs provided by the Operator that no valid ticket or permit was on display in the vehicle at the time of the parking event, therefore I must conclude that a Parking Charge Notice has been legally issued. As no further grounds are raised by the Appellant I must dismiss this appeal.
  5. After asking for info on a new IPC member here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?435832-New-member-of-the-IPC. They've only gone and sent me a letter via their UCS front. They have obviously used the Poxburghe/PCN Parking services database, and are carrying on where Poxburghe left off. I suspect we shall see a few more cases resurrected... I shall post up the letter later, but they are claiming keeper liability where none exists ,and of course I have the paper trail to prove it. Now I could ignore them, but I think I shall be asking them for their proof that the POFA was followed correctly to enable keeper liability...
  6. Hello all I recently received a parking charge notice from G24. I had recently had one from parking eye where by browsing these forums I was not the driver on either occasion and was able to understand how to appeal to them at the stage I was at and was successful overturned within days. I made the mistake of thinking the same process would work this time and my appeal was rejected. I was invited to appeal to the IAS and conducted my appeal based on their code of practice. They seemed reputable and that the charge was groundless as there own code of practice was in my opinion not adhered to. I have received an email today that this appeal has been dismissed with the below response: Dear xxxxxxx, The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal. Please see below for the full details. Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxxx Date Issued: 19/08/2015 Appeal Outcome: Dismissed The Adjudicators comments are as follows: "It is important that the appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am also only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. On considering images provided it is clear that sufficient amounts of signage existed on the site at the time of issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). The Operator shows evidence that the maximum amount of time allowed is 120 minutes and that the Appellant’s vehicle was on site for a total of 152 minutes. As it appears to be accepted that the Appellant was on site in excess of the maximum parking period I am satisfied that the PCN has a basis in law. Various documents have been provided by both the Operator and the Appellant, all of which I have considered. I am satisfied to the required standard that the signage on site complies with currently regulations. I am satisfied that the Appellant has been made reasonably aware of the terms contained within these signs. The Operator is able to show their signage at the entrance and throughout the site. By staying on the site for longer than the 120 minute maximum period the Appellant agreed to pay a charge. The Appellant queries the level of the charge. The Operator does not pursue the Parking Charge following a breach of contract. The Parking Charge has been issued pursuant to a specific contractual term and therefore the question of loss is not a relevant consideration for this appeal. In my view the parking charge is not excessive for two reasons. First, because the amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed by the Operator is in my view justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402 I note the Appellant’s comments regarding the driver of the vehicle at the time of issue however it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the te rms of parking are complied with and whilst sympathizing with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. " As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred. As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter. The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge. Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice. IMPORTANT: The following information relates to appeals which were submitted on or after the 1st April 2015: If you wish to view the evidence that was relied upon by the operator then you may log back into the IAS system and view it, but by doing so you agree to the following terms: You agree that the operator’s evidence, including any comments, documents or photo’s are made available to you in strict confidence. YOU MUST NOT DUPLICATE, PUBLISH, SHARE OR REPRODUCE THE INFORMATION IN ANY WAY without the prior written permission of the parking operator. Without prejudice to any other right arising from breach of this agreement, you agree to indemnify the parking operator and the Independent Parking Committee Limited in respect of any costs or other expenses howsoever caused for any breach, by you or any others with whom you provide this information, of this confidentiality agreement. You can log in at http://www.theIAS.org by entering your email address and the password that you created when you first registered the appeal. Yours sincerely The Independent Appeals Service Independent Appeals Service 4 The Stables Red Cow Yard Knutsford Cheshire WA16 6DG w: http://www.theias.org e: [email protected] The Independent Appeals Service is a trading style of the Independent Parking Committee Limited, Registered address: 4 The Stables Red Cow Yard, Knutsford Cheshire, WA16 6DG. Registered in England and Wales (08248531). The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this email transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith. The Independent Appeals Service does not accept service of documents by email. Any advice anybody can provide about how to proceed with this would be appreciated. I have attached my initial appeal to G24 and the one I sent to IAS I also have good photos of the car park etc. Can anyone advise whether or not credit reports etc can be affected by these fines?
  7. Hi, We parked in an SIP car park in Manchester but, because we parked in a really narrow spot, I put the parking ticket in the back window (the one facing outwards) so the attendant would be able to see it properly but they gave me a PCN anyway and said it was because my ticket was not displayed. I wrote and complained that I had a valid ticket (which I sent them as proof) and that I had displayed it in the back of my car (and told them why) but they rejected my claims and still want me to pay the fine. What should I do? The PCN was also issued at 7.52pm and the car park became free at 8.00pm so a £100 fine seems a little extortionate too! Thanks
  8. Hi everyone, new to all this so hoping to get some advice, hopefully I'm not just repeating old threads... Long story short I got a PCN from VCS for dropping off on a red zone at Liverpool Airport. I appealed using the standard template and no surprises was rejected by VCS. I was expecting to be given a POPLA code but was instead told to appeal to IAS. I'm assuming VCS has recently moved from POPLA to IAS as all the information I've read up on this, people have always been told to appeal to POPLA. From what I can gather, appealing to IAS is nowhere near as successful as appealing to POPLA. What should I do? I stand to be corrected but I'm under the impression that the roads around Liverpool Airport are governed by byelaws and as such VCS should not have been allowed to obtain my details through DVLA (I intend to submit a complaint to DVLA regarding this) Is it worth submitting this legislation as part of my appeal to IAS? I've not admitted to being the driver. Should I just ignore any future correspondence etc? Very confused as to what my next step is so any help would be greatly appreciated thanks!
  9. Received an email from a friend earlier detailing another success against a PPC at appeal - this time with the IAS rather than POPLA The young lady in question parked in a residential car park managed by Sussex Security Solutions trading as Parking Enforcement. Received a ticket for £100 (reduced to £60 blah blah blah) for a 'breach of terms and conditions meaning that a contractual fee was now due' (parked in a contractor bay due to building work temporarily removing all of the legitimate spaces). Appealed to the PPC at an early stage and (unsurprisingly) this was rejected - rejection letter was mumbo jumbo and insisted that the contractual amount was payable, no GPEOL was required as the PPC was managing the car park in line with their contract with the landowner, which was a service at no cost to the landowner and that the contractual payment contributed to the costs of managing the business and running the parking service. Two types of signs in the car park - one by where the vehicle was parked stated 'Contractors Only' but had no warning of any payment being claimed in the event of a breach, and others elsewhere did notify of a contractual payment being due in the event of a breach. Incredibly the signs also claimed AOS as a BPA Approved Operator despite them having ditched the BPA in favour of IPC several months ago! The driver received the IAS code for independent appeal along with the initial rejection so put forward a case based on 1. Inadequate signage - PPC had claimed a contractual payment but stated a breach on the ticket. Insufficient detail on teh contractor bay sign to form a contract and even the ones elsewhere (which had not been seen due to the font size and height) were insufficiently detailed to form a binding contract. 2. PPC had claimed that no GPEOL was required, but the appellant held that GPEOL was crucial in this case as a payment on a breach must be deemed a penalty in the absence of GPEOL as this was the basis of the ticket wording and the signage. 3. The PPC had not provided more than vague details of the contract with the landowner and the appellant was unable to adequately assess whether the PPC had lawful authority to issue tickets in their own name or to enforce those tickets. 4. The PPC was falsely and misleadingly claiming membership of a trade body (the BPA) IAS considered the case and responded within just three days that the appeal was upheld and the ticket would be cancelled. The grounds were that on the first point - the inadequate signage was insufficient to bind the appellant to a contractual obligation - as the signs stating a 'contractual payment' would become due only said that a payment 'MAY' be payable, this was insufficient and therefore the appeal must succeed. Annoyingly for the appellant the adjudicator stated that there was no need to rule on the other grounds as the first was successful in itself, but nevertheless the win was sufficient. No doubt Parking Enforcement will be replacing the signs as quickly as possible, however the appellant has already notified Trading Standards of the misleading claim of BPA membership on the signs and is asking questions of the local authority as to whether the property is subject to business rates - after all, by their own admission, the PPC is given a free hand to run their business independently of the landowner and is charging amounts in excess of any GPEOL and is therefore presumably generating some amount of profit in the process!
  10. I am currently dealing with IRCAS/IAS, regarding an Unpaid Fare Notice. Anyone who has had dealings with them will be aware that they choose to hide behind a PO Box number, rather than have us know their actual address. Why they choose to be so cowardly, I do not know. Also, sending out mail with a return address in Buckinghamshire is a little suspicious. A little research on the Net reveals that IRCAS and IAS are trading names for Independent Transport Associates Limited or ITAL. Under this name, they have a website that lists their actual address as the following: Unit 2-3, First Floor, Petersfield Office Park Bedford Road Petersfield Hampshire GU32 3QF In my last letter to them, I have sent it to this address, pointing out to them that I am aware of the details, in spite of their cowardliness. Another great resource on the Net is the SayNoTo0870 site, which will provide the actual telephone numbers for ITAL/IRCAS/IAS. Just a search for "IRCAS" will bear fruit. For your information, this is what I put in my last letter to them: Please be aware that this Notice has been addressed to your actual address, and not the PO Box number that you like to hide behind. I will be sharing these details with the many “Consumer Action” forums that are kind enough to devote much time and effort in dealing with troublesome companies such as yourself. This shall also include the disclosure of your various telephone numbers beginning with 01730. Do bear in mind that the information I have obtained about your company is readily available on the Internet. It is not exactly hidden from public view, and will therefore be of great benefit to those who find themselves troubled and/or distressed by your practices. The practice of sending mail to a company's real address, as opposed to their preferred PO Box address is a great way of repaying the fear-factor that these companies tend to dish out. It has certainly helped me in dealing with debt collection agencies, that's for certain! When they know that you know of their true whereabouts, they are not so sure of themselves, and will tend to back off a little sooner!
×
×
  • Create New...