IAS DECISIONS (2025 onwards, until - we hope - they are banned)

Coupon-mad

Post your private parking IAS Decisions here!

We had a thread of IAS Decisions last updated ten years ago, and it is closed.

Let's show the MHCLG why good people here generally stopped 'futilely going through the motions' for a decade.

Please search & find recent IAS joke decisions, good or bad (let's keep it balanced ... after all, 5% of people win!).

IAS Adjudications ONLY please.
Not 'throwing in the towel' cases.

I'll start with this one on the thread by NickyDe :

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81622376/#Comment_81622376

well my IAS Appeal was rejected so I guess I just wait for the the court letter to arrive and then go through the MCOL/court appeal process..

show us the IAS  decision' please

appeal reply is below

Short and sour.

All template words. Could be AI.

This isn't an 'adjudication'. They are getting worse each year. There is nothing in this joke adjudication' that even pays lip service to considering appeal points or the evidence from either party. Never mind that the appellant wasn't driving and POFA is impossible due to the NTK date. 

That has taken three minutes flat and could even be AI generated, it's that bad. Even the 'some sympathy' line is a template seen every time.

The IAS rejecting 95% of 'adjudicated' disputes is a big cause of IPC cases flowing to court because there is no independent or impartial ADR.

Therefore good people (who would NEVER normally risk court) are either nigh on guaranteed to lose or they just don't bother because there is no 'buffer': nobody here has any confidence in the IAS kangaroo court. 

Coupon-mad

PCM case posted by TXF_17

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81612666/#Comment_81612666

The Situation: I stopped for less than a few minutes directly outside my own ground-floor property to help my disabled mother from the car to my front door, which is less than a metre away.

Typical of this apparently 'bent' kangaroo court that it ignored the fact this was setting down a disabled passenger and they ignored PCM's admittance that the sign picture they put into evidence was false.

PCM said 'oh alright it's not the same sign but it's essentially the same' and the IAS swallowed it. Template joke decision:

IAS Decision:
It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his 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 they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also 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 satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

The Appellant may suggest that they were stopped rather than parked and therefore the PCN is incorrect. I do not agree with this point, as if they were correct this would entitle a driver to ‘stop' indefinitely so long as they did not leave their vehicle unattended. I am satisfied that the images provided prove that the vehicle was parked as alleged.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, 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.

--------------------------------------

"PCM saying the two signs are essentially alluding to the same thing:"

"Sign my car was in front of submitted as secondary evidence:"



"Sign submitted by the parking operative"

Coupon-mad

FAAC Mobility Services

Thread by @RereyMuetre

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6607350/faac-mobility-services-ntk/p2

True to form, the IAS trotted out the irrelevant Elliott v Loake (just like these solicitors and barristers do in court, funny that...) and made the PPC's case for them, ignoring the fact the Byelaws t&cs sign offers a lower discount than is on the NTK (which would always be fatal to a local authority or POPLA adjudication).

...despite the joke 'adjudicator' having seen no evidence from FAAC because no-one could, with a 404 error:

RereyMuetre said:

Byelaw 14 sign.

RereyMuetre said:

Operator Sign: These two signs are side-by-side.

Coupon-mad said:

Oooh now that is a good point and evidence to include in the IAS appeal. The PCN issued by these agents offered the wrong discount amount, therefore making it impossible to pay £50 as offered on the Byelaws sign. Thus voiding the landowner authority from LNER, whose name appears on the top right of the red & white sign and who are the principal in the alleged contract. FAAC have no standing and issued a PCN for the wrong amount.

The small print - bottom right on the red sign - also says the 'driver' is liable (I think?) which also conflicts with Railway Byelaws which say the owner is liable. 

RereyMuetre said:

Well, an update.
The Independent Appeals Service rejected my appeal. The operator did not offer any prima facie case, other than the alleged vehicle entered and exited the car park at xxx times. Literally one sentence. They did not acknowledge, challenge or counter any of the points I raised. They did upload some documentation, more on that below.

Despite no challenge from the PPC, the adjudicator decided that:
 - As I (the registered keeper) offered no conclusive evidence that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time, I was assumed to be the driver under ELLIOTT v LOAKE 1982, and therefore the PPC had the right to pursue me.
 - The signs displaying the railway byelaws, LNER as the operator and differing fines to the PPC was not sufficient evidence that railway byelaws were in place.
 - There was no response to the point I raised that the NtK did not make clear the PPC had the right to recover anything from the RK, should the driver not be identified, and therefore the NtK was non-compliant with POFA and thus improperly issued.
 - The adjudicator had seen the signage at the station and was satisfied it was sufficient. No mention of the fact it was all unlit and it was very dark and none of it was readable from the drivers seat (the driver was a blue badge holder, wheelchair user). The image of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park uploaded by the PPC illustrated that it was pitch black outside, I pointed this out but nothing in the adjudication. I could not access the signage the adjudicator saw, the links to the uploads by the PPC all led to Error 404s. I screenshot all of these links to prove they were not available to me, which I included in my response to the PPC prima facie case.

Worryingly, the PPC had uploaded a 'NtK Reminder' letter they claim to have sent. I have not received this, and to date have had zero other correspondence from them. This concerns me, I remember lots of cases from the old PePiPoo forum of motorists hearing nothing until there was a CCJ being enforced. 

Next steps, I don't know. Wait I suppose.

RereyMuetre said:

My appeal:

RereyMuetre said:

The PPC prima facie case:

RereyMuetre said:

My response to the operators prima facie case:

RereyMuetre said:

And the adjudicators decision:

RereyMuetre said:

It seems the adjudicator is putting forward the case for the PPC, as the PPC has not presented any case. My understanding was that the adjudicator was supposed to be impartial, reviewing the cases from both sides and deciding accordingly. How can they then rule in favour of a side that offers no case? 

Screenshots of the links to the operators pre-loaded signage photos. This particular link was for the signage site map, but all the links were dead, I've screenshots of all of them:

RereyMuetre said:

It didn't take too long to establish railway byelaws are in place at the station, as expected: