(Not so) Smart Parking now an IPC member

doubledotcom

POPLA itself does not hold any formal ADR accreditation under the ADR Regulations. Instead, POPLA is operated on behalf of the BPA by an outsourcing company. As of 2024–2025, the contract for managing POPLA is held by Ombudsman Services, operating under the trading name Flexible Resolution Services (FRS).

Accreditation status breakdown:

• POPLA is a branded service, not a legal entity and not itself an ADR body.

• Flexible Resolution Services (FRS) is the approved ADR entity (under CTSI oversight) that delivers POPLA appeals on behalf of the BPA.

• FRS appears on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) list of approved ADR providers under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

However:

When acting in its POPLA capacity, FRS operates under a bespoke framework tied to parking on private land, governed by the BPA’s Code of Practice and now the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). In this context:

• CTSI may not treat FRS's POPLA function as being within their normal regulatory oversight, as confirmed by the contradictory messages you received from CTSI (initially acknowledging oversight, then retracting it) elsewhere, over on FTLA forum.

• POPLA/FRS does not appear on the Ministry of Justice or DBT’s list of mandatory ADR schemes used in regulated sectors (e.g. financial services, energy, telecommunications).

In summary:

• POPLA: Not ADR accredited itself.

• FRS: CTSI-approved ADR body (but CTSI disputes whether this applies to its POPLA work).

• Result: POPLA operates in a regulatory grey area — not subject to the same standards or recourse mechanisms as other ADR schemes (like Ombudsman Services, Resolver, or Financial Ombudsman Service), yet still presented to the public as an “independent appeals service.”

kryten3000

The IAS is certified by The Chartered Trading Standards Institute which is in itself a membership organisation for Trading Standards Professionals (oh the irony). Quite how they have been persuaded that the IAS is a fit and proper ADR service is beyond me.

Also their reporting requirements are woefully inadequate, unlike POPLA which publishes detailed statistics split up by AOS member so you can see how many appeals each company contested, won, lost and "withdrew",

Until the IAS actually publishes proper outcomes I see no reason not to assume that they will dismiss 95% of appeals as promised in the IPC recruitment slide.

Coupon-mad

doubledotcom said:

kryten3000 said:

My understanding is that the IPC is slightly cheaper but the real attraction must be the 95% guaranteed win IAS with no proper statistical reporting.

They even advertise their rotten appeal success rate as a selling point:



Although I'd dispute their claim that they use "Solicitor/Barrister" adjudicators.

I think they are: I'm convinced these are the same LPC Law pool of legals who later represent the same cases in court.

Not just a conclusion gleaned from decisions that trot out the same tired Elliott v Loake crap, but also some people in court have chatted to the legal reps who have said they are paid £15 a pop for IAS template rubbish (some even have the grace to be embarrassed). 

Massive conflict of interests, if this is right.

Nellymoser

The IAS website carries The Chartered Trading Standards Institute logo and says it is listed by CTSI as a certified Alternative Dispute Resolution organisation. Has been assessed as being competent. It also states their appeals service is approved by Government under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes.

Fruitcake

Irrespective of whether or not the IAS is ADR accredited, by not naming the assessor (if requested), the IAS is in breach of the ADR regulations 2015, para 5 (c).

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

SCHEDULE 3

Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets

Transparency

5.  The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—

(a)its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;

(b)a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;

(c)its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;

Coupon-mad

Yep but when I complained to the CTSI about that they said "nothing to see here".

kryten3000

Coupon-mad said:

Yep but when I complained to the CTSI about that they said "nothing to see here".

Which is probably exactly why they were chosen as a certification body. Fake credibility.

Half_way

Coupon-mad said:

Yep but when I complained to the CTSI about that they said "nothing to see here".

can it be taken further to remove the ctsi completely

Car1980

Well, if you had a spare £50k you could bring a private prosecution for fraud.

bluewilly101

I've just received a PCN from Smart Parking which of course I'm going to contest (overstaying in a disabled bay) but wondering if the fact the car-park signage has them as a BPA member and yet my PCN has them down as IPC, can I use this against them as misleading information? 

Thanks in advance