vehicle control services JLA

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

thanks- will keep you updated

@mystery1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

@mystery1

Below is the reply from IAS received today which is totally the opposite to what we appealed on:


Dear Danielle,

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): VC0465187A
Vehicle Registration: MF*******
Date Issued: 25/03/2015

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"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. In this appeal procedure the onus this is on the Appellant to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.

The Operator has provided various images showing the movements of the Appellant’s vehicle at all relevant times and the significant amount of signage that exists on the site. From the evidence provided I am content that the Appellant was indeed on private property, as demonstrated by site plan and the CCTV image showing the location of the Appellant’s vehicle. I am further satisfied that there is a significant amount of ‘No Stopping’ signage which the Appellant will driven passed and also in the immediate vicinity of the Appellant’s vehicle. In entering into private property the Appellant agreed to be bound by the terms of that property. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has prov ed her case regarding the ‘no contract’ argument.

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 its driver. The photographs provided show two people, in my opinion, one male, female. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has not proved that she is not the driver as claimed. The Operator pursues the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle and therefore the ‘no keeper liability’ argument fails.

The evidence provided by the Operator demonstrates that the Appellant, in all the circumstances was made reasonably aware of the Parking Charge and therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that the Parking Charge was properly issued.

For the reasons explained above, the appeal must be 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 1 ^st 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 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

- - - Updated - - -

The response from IAS was as a results of an email and they replied the same

@mystery1

[mystery1]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

To be honest it's not a shock and proves that they are not even independent as the name suggests.

I would complain to trading standards.

https://www.theias.org/about

The Adjudicators are all independent, practicing solicitors or barristers. They are duty bound by their own professional standards bodies to uphold the rule of law and to maintain independence. This duty is expressly retained in the terms and conditions of their appointment.

"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 its driver. The photographs provided show two people, in my opinion, one male, female. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has not proved that she is not the driver as claimed. The Operator pursues the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle and therefore the ‘no keeper liability’ argument fails. "

How can they assume you are telling lies with no evidence to the contrary ? They assume you were driving with no proof and assume you were telling lies with no proof ?

Their claim of independence is demonstrably wrong and should be investigated by trading standards.


http://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/business/trading_standards/trading_standards.aspx


Keep all paperwork and only deal with a proper letter before claim or court claim.

Utter disgrace but even worse is it's commonplace.

M1

[arwelmwilliams]

Re: vehicle control services JLA

Hi

Thanks for your advice we will see what develops

Regards