Let's enrich the IAS...

doubledotcom

Considering that it is never advisable to make an appeal to the incestuous and useless IAS, I have started advising on another private parking forum that we may as well cost these IPC members some of their hard earned scammed dosh by ALWAYS submitting an IAS appeal as it will cost them whether they are successful or not. The only way it won't cost an IPC member anything, is if they concede the appeal.

Remember, it costs an IPC member £15 if they win the appeal and £25 if they lose it. The only way it does not cost an IPC member anything is if they concede the appeal.

So, here is a generic IAS appeal that we should advise every recipient of an IPC member, initial appeal rejection (all of them), to use for their IAS appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.

2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.

Of course, should anyone honestly think they have a really great argument that even the IAS will submit to, then they can amend accordingly!

So, they either start conceding more appeals or the IAS gets a bit richer of the IPC members backs.

ChirpyChicken

But these are tiny amounts and wont affect them at all.

troublemaker22

IAS is owned by Will Hurley who owns the IPC. What is achieved by assisting in the transfer of wealth from individual scammers to the head scammer?

Castle

troublemaker22 said:

IAS is owned by Will Hurley who owns the IPC. What is achieved by assisting in the transfer of wealth from individual scammers to the head scammer?

Not quite; IAS and IPC are trading names of the same company, United Trade & Industry Limited.

Coupon-mad

But UNITI is fully owned/controlled by Will Hurley Ltd (100% shareholding).

And Will Hurley is the sole Director of this company that he launched in July 2023 but which shows as a dormant company at the moment (there must be a reason; it seems to be in waiting for an opportunity):

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14994806/officers

THE INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE LIMITED

Company number 14994806

doubledotcom

It's still a 'buggerance factor' that the operators have to comply with if they don't concede the appeal. Who cares which pig-trough the money that swirls around this corrupt alliance of organisations ends up? It may also force a few operators to reveal their landowner contracts... who knows?

ChirpyChicken

doubledotcom said:

It's still a 'buggerance factor' that the operators have to comply with if they don't concede the appeal. Who cares which pig-trough the money that swirls around this corrupt alliance of organisations ends up? It may also force a few operators to reveal their landowner contracts... who knows?

It wont.
Trust me.

h2g2

I think we should be making IAS appeals, but for different reasons. Currently we don't have any idea what their appeal rejection rate is (though we assume it's 90%-95% based on old data).

At the very least appealing to the IAS will give us some understanding of how many many appeals are rejected, what reasoning is given, and we may even be able to get evidence for other issues where there are clear and obvious breaches of the law. By not appealing we make it harder to gather any evidence that could be presented to our MPs or the DVLA.

LoneStarState

h2g2 said:

I think we should be making IAS appeals, but for different reasons. Currently we don't have any idea what their appeal rejection rate is (though we assume it's 90%-95% based on old data).

At the very least appealing to the IAS will give us some understanding of how many many appeals are rejected, what reasoning is given, and we may even be able to get evidence for other issues where there are clear and obvious breaches of the law. By not appealing we make it harder to gather any evidence that could be presented to our MPs or the DVLA.

Out of the activity reports I have, they do break down the adjudication rate in a couple.  By complete coincidence and in keeping with forum beliefs both those reports mention an adjudication rate in favour of the motorist of about 4%. 

Then there is of course the slideshow found online where the IPC touts the IAS's 95% "success rate".  I'm currently engaging an operator in the process with the hope of launching a complaint to the CTSI after the fact with the evidence above with respect to outcome rates and also the questionable ownership structure.  In this instance, the transparency of POPLA in its ownership and annual reports with outcomes is very useful.

ChirpyChicken

IAS appeal results are like elections in russia

h2g2

ChirpyChicken said:

IAS appeal results are like elections in russia

And so we should make appeals to gather enough evidence to demonstrate a systematic failing.