Friday, 30 January 2015

Independent Parking Committee assessor fails basic English test

A recent judgment shows that the assessors the Independent Parking Committee are using fail to have a basic grasp of English.

The sign shows the conditions of parking. One of these is that pre-authorised vehicles are allowed to park.

Here is the assessors decision:

There is no dispute that the Appellant holds the licence agreement and is authorised to use the parking space in question. However the Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not clearly displaying a valid parking permit. Therefore any points raised as to whether the Appellant was an ‘authorised’ user are irrelevant.
Obviously, serious doubts as to the assessors competency arise if the assessor does not know the meaning of the common English word 'or'.

Just to make it clear to the assessor, here is the wording of the sign he should have considered.

This clearly states that authorised users can park, and that there is no requirement to display a ticket.

The POPLA IAS board recently highlighted the dangers of a 'race-to the bottom' if operators are allowed to choose to use competing appeals service.

In The Prankster's opinion, decisions of this quality highlight the fact the the appeals service offered by the IPC is not fit for purpose and should be replaced as soon as possible. The Prankster hopes that the 'barrister' the IPC used for this appeal is quietly retired and replaced by one who understands English.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Seriously??? They use a barrister?? How do we complaint about said barristers competence??

    1. Write to Oliver Morely of the DVLA and raise a complaint that the IPC appeals process lacks credibility

  2. Here is another stupid ruling by an IAS assessor:-

    "In the context of private parking cases, loss has been held to include the commercial and operational costs of running a parking scheme."

    I would like to know where this assessor gets the information. Certainly their counterparts over at POPLA regularly rule that day-to-day business running costs can't be classed as a "loss" caused by a particular parking event.

    1. That's interesting because in other appeals they have rejected them because the appellant has not provided case references and/or transcripts. Obviously it seems they are happy to make up their own information without providing case references or transcripts.

      Equally, it appears this assessor cannot do basic maths, and has no industry knowledge because even if those costs were allowed, they would never come to (say) £100 as the average cost across the industry per ticket issues is under £20

  3. As for complaining about the barristers involved in this farce, first you have to know the name of the person. IAS assessments do not give this information. So there is nobody to complain about.

    1. It's also not a barrister who does this sort of bollox. It's one of the Cow Yard brigade who is sitting there and playing nasty little child. The only sad thing is that the DVLA is letting this whole sham continue unchallenged.

    2. Good point. In their original submission to the DVLA, the IPC stated appeals would be heard by barristers. I think this has now been watered down somewhat.

    3. I guess they know what grounds to use :/