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:

Jinger_sparky

My Appeal

You completed the appeal on xx/xx/2025.
 
IAS Appeal Submission - PCN for Alleged Breach at XXXX
Appellant: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
PCN Reference: XXXX
Date of Alleged Contravention: XXX
Location: John Howard Centre, XXXX
Operator: UK Car Park Management (UK CPM)
Grounds for Appeal
1. No Contract Formed - Inadequate and Uncommunicated Terms
There was no clear signage at the entrance or within the car park that communicated the requirement to register on an e-permit system. Upon arrival at xxx, I checked in at reception and had my identity verified. At no point was I informed of any parking registration requirement. The hospital's website also makes no mention of such a system, only that parking is “limited.”
 
This fails the legal requirement for a contract to be formed. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Lord Denning held that terms must be brought to the attention of the motorist before or at the time of contracting. Hidden or inadequately communicated terms are not binding.
2. Legitimate Expectation - Change in Parking System Not Communicated
Previously, this car park operated a barrier system managed by reception. I had parked here under that system without issue. There was no notice or signage indicating a change to an ANPR-based e-permit system. The principle of legitimate expectation, as established in R v North and East Devon Health Authority, exp Coughlan [2001] QB 213, applies. I had a reasonable expectation that the previous system remained in place.
3. Unfair Terms - Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015
The signage and terms (if any) were not transparent or prominent, violating the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that contractual terms be fair and transparent. A term that is not brought to the attention of the consumer cannot be enforced.
4. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss - Disproportionate Charge
The charge of £100 (or £60 discounted) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the charge was upheld only because it served a legitimate interest and was clearly communicated. Neither condition is met here. I was attending a meeting - a legitimate, pre-arranged visit to NHS premises.
5. Failure to Mitigate - No On-Site Registration Support
Reception staff failed to inform me of any requirement to register my vehicle. There was no tablet, sign-in sheet, or verbal instruction. This is a failure to mitigate and a procedural unfairness, especially in a healthcare setting where visitors are often under stress or attending sensitive appointments.
6. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
Under the IPC Code of Practice, the operator must have written authority from the landowner to issue PCNs. I request that UK CPM provide a redacted copy of the landowner contract, including the clause authorising them to issue charges at this location.
7. Incorrect Location on PCN
The PCN states the location as XXXX Road (postal address of the premises). However, the actual car park used is located on xxxx Lane (same postcode as the premises). This discrepancy undermines the validity of the PCN and raises questions about the accuracy of the enforcement process.
8. Previous Parking System
Evidence from April 2022 shows Ward Lane with no visible signage or infrastructure indicating an ANPR or e-permit system. There were double yellow lines but no signs or barriers suggesting a managed private car park. This supports the claim that the previous parking system did not involve ANPR or e-permit registration, and that parking was either restricted or managed differently. possibly via reception or physical barriers.
9. Signage at Entrance to Ward Lane
The signage at the entrance to XXX Lane from XXX Road, as shown in the uploaded evidence, states: 'Permit Holders Only' and mentions 'Mobile patrols/camera enforcement in operation at all times'. It also states that 'Terms and Conditions apply - See signs in the car park for details'. However, it does not mention the requirement to register on an e-permit system or provide any clear instructions for visitors. This lack of clarity and absence of specific instructions further supports the argument that the signage was insufficient to form a binding contract, particularly for first-time or infrequent visitors to the site.
10. Signage Within the Car Park
The signage located within the car park, as shown in the uploaded image, includes detailed terms and conditions under the heading 'PARKING CONDITIONS'. It outlines that the car park is ANPR camera controlled and that enforcement is active at all times. It also states that all vehicles must hold a valid UK CPM e-Permit and that a £100 Parking Charge applies for any breach of the terms. However, this signage is not positioned at the entrance and may not be visible or legible from a vehicle upon entry. This supports the argument that the terms were not clearly communicated at the point of contract formation, and therefore, no binding agreement was established.
Conclusion
This PCN is invalid due to:
- Lack of clear and communicated contractual terms
- No signage or notification of a change in parking system
- Procedural unfairness and failure to mitigate
- Disproportionate and punitive charge
- Breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
- Absence of landowner authority
- Incorrect location stated on the PCN
- Inadequate signage at the entrance
 
I respectfully request that the IAS uphold this appeal and cancel the PCN.

Jinger_sparky

Night Report

Operator's Prima Facie Case

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on xx/xx/2025.

 The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.

The appellant was the keeper.

ANPR/CCTV was used.

The Notice to Keeper was sent on xx/xx/2025.

A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.

The ticket was issued on xx/xx/2025.

The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.

The charge is based in Contract.

 

The operator made the following comments...

The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.

The vehicle was at the car park for xx hours and xx minutes, evidence of this can be seen in the 'PCN Information'.

The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.

Signage clearly states “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT. VEHICLES HOLDING A VALID E-PERMIT FOR AN ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA MUST PARK WITHIN THE ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA”.

Our records indicate that vehicle registration xxxx was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the 'PCN INFO'.

The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.

xxxx is an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) operated site which captures vehicles entering and exiting the car park. The cameras determine length of stay and are linked to our system which determines whether a vehicle has adhered to the stipulated terms & conditions.

1. Requirement for a Valid e-Permit

This location operates a permit-only system, clearly stated on multiple signs located at the entrance and throughout the site. The signage explicitly outlines that all vehicles must hold a valid UK CPM e-Permit and that ANPR enforcement is in operation at all times. This system is in place to ensure that limited parking spaces are available exclusively to authorised users.

 On the date in question, the appellant's vehicle remained on site for xx hours and xx minutes, as recorded by our ANPR cameras. A search of our permit database confirmed that no valid e-permit was registered for vehicle xxxx on that date. As such, the PCN was issued correctly in accordance with the site's clearly stated terms and conditions.

 

 2. Signage and Contractual Clarity

The signage at the site complies with the IPC Code of Practice, including requirements for visibility, clarity, and content. Signs are prominently displayed at the entrance and within the car park, detailing the parking conditions, the need for a valid e-permit, and the consequences of non-compliance.

 The site in question has been audited and approved by our governing body; therefore, it meets the requirements of their Code of Practice. Our signage on site is at industry standard and contains full and legible terms and conditions of parking; these are also clearly positioned so that they are obvious to the motorist. The Code clearly states, "The IPC will audit signage to ensure that the Terms and Conditions are suitable to form the basis of a contract and to make certain that they are clear, concise, unambiguous, and not misleading".

 While we acknowledge that they may not have noticed or understood the signage upon entry, under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971], terms displayed on signage form the basis of a contract when entering private land. The presence of clear signage indicating that a valid permit is required negates the argument that no contract was formed.

 3. Previous Parking System & Change in Operation

It is the responsibility of drivers to check signage on each visit, as terms of parking may change over time. The site has transitioned from a reception-based access system to an ANPR-controlled permit system. Signage reflecting this change has been in place for a considerable period, and the operator is not required to notify individuals of system changes beyond appropriate on-site notices.

 4. Consumer Rights & Fairness

We do not accept that the charge is unfair or non-transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The signage is visible and detailed, and the charge is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], which upheld the legality of charges used to manage land and ensure compliance with clearly stated rules.

 5. Landowner Authority

We can confirm that UK CPM has a valid contract in place with the landowner authorising the management and enforcement of parking conditions at this location, in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice.

 6. Location Accuracy

The site is commonly known and registered in our systems under the address xxxx Road. This location encompasses the areas accessed from Ward Lane and associated parking spaces. This does not invalidate the PCN, as the vehicle was within the bounds of land covered by our management contract and enforcement signage.

 By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.

Jinger_sparky

Appellant's Response

 

The appellant made their response on xx/xx/2025

 

Response to operator Prima Facie:

 

Having carefully reviewed the Prima Facie submission from the operator. I find their case to be devoid of both legal merit and evidential sufficiency. It is incumbent upon the adjudicator to apply the law with unyielding rigour and dismiss claims unsupported by foundational principles of contract and statutory protections.

 

1. Absence of Evidence of Actual Breach

UK CPM's reliance on mere ANPR timestamps as evidence of a breach is fundamentally flawed. No photographic or other submitted evidence demonstrated that the vehicle was stationary, parked in a bay, parked improperly, or obstructed access. Mere presence, unaccompanied by proof of contravention, cannot satisfy the burden of proof.

The operator's failure to prove an actual breach renders the PNC inherently unenforceable.

 

2. Non-Formation of Contract: Deficient and Concealed Terms

Contractual obligation arise only where terms are presented clearly and contemporaneously with acceptance. UK CPM's signage fails this elementary test. No clear, legible notification of charges or conditions was provide prior to or upon entry.

The law, grounded in Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971], is unequivocal: terms hidden, deferred as in this case, or requiring investigation post entry as per UK CPM signage do not form binding contracts.

Further, the absence of information on e-permit registration, visitor options, or breach consequences amounts to unconscionable ambiguity, violating Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015's mandates on fairness and transparency.

 

3. The Charge is a Prohibited Penalty.

Without demonstrable loss or obstruction, the £100 charge is punitive, lacking justification as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Unlike ParkingEye v Beavis, no legitimate interest or commercial rationale exists here.

The charge is thus an unlawful penalty, void under established contract law.

 

4. ANPR Data Does Not Equate to Parking.

The ANPR system merely timestamps entry and exit; it does not establish parking. The time recorded may reflect lawful behaviour - searching for bays, reading signage, or safe navigation. UK CPM fails to show any grace period was applied, violating IPC standards.

 

5. Defective Signage and Post-Entry Notice Cannot Cure Initial Defects.

Entrance signage submitted omits critical information including charge amount, e-permit registration instructions, visitor options, and ANPR enforcement notice. Deferring essential contractual terms to post-entry signage contravenes Thornton and Interfoto v Stiletto.

Post-entry signage cannot retrospectively bind the driver.

 

6. Breach of UK GDPR Through Omission of Data Collection Notice.

By failing to notify the driver of ANPR surveillance at data capture, UK CPM breaches Articles 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR. No lawful basis for data processing is established, invalidating the use of such data.

 

7. No Proof of Landowner Authority

Claims of landowner authority are unsupported by evidence, particularly in this case were PNC location is questioned. The IPC Code of Practice (Clauses 7.1-7.2) and authorities such as Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] and Excel Parking v Smith [2017] required documented, valid contracts authorising enforcement. Bare assertions are insufficient.

 

8. Location Misidentification.

The Prima Facie and PNC's stated breach location is materially incorrect. The car park is on xxxx lane as shown on the operator's site map , not "xxxx Road," raising serious doubts over jurisdiction and the PNC validity.

Failure to accurately identify the location materially affects the validity of the PNC and further undermines the claim.

 

9. Failure to Notify of System Change.

The shift from manual permits to an ANPR e-permit system was not communicated with requisite clarity or formality, nor is there signage of the changes, and the involvement of UK CPM, in the reception where manual permission was granted. This omission contravenes fairness principles under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and renders any alleged contract void.

 

10. IPC Compliance Does Not Supersede Legal Standards.

The operator being IPC complaint is not immunity from statutory or common law contract requirements. Enforcement authority rests solely with the courts.

 

Conclusion

UK CPM's Prima Facie case and submitted evidence collapses under legal scrutiny: no breach proven, no contract formed, signage defective, charge punitive, data collection unlawful, authority unproven, and location misstated.

The adjudicator must apply the law without hesitation and allow this appeal in full. The Parking Charge Notice is hereby demonstrably unenforceable and must be cancelled.

Jinger_sparky

Adjudicator's Decision

 

The adjudicator made their decision on xx/xx/2025

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

 

 

 

I am satisfied from the Landowner Agreement document provided to me that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map and site photographs have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his case that the signage is insufficient. The entrance signage is entirely clear and directs drivers to read the other signage on the site. There is no requirement for specific terms such as the requirement for an e-permit to be stated on the entrance signage. It is the responsibility of the driver to read the signage and it is not a valid defence for a driver to say that they did not do so or did not see it. It is also not the responsibility of third parties, including staff on the site to advise drivers of the terms and conditions of parking.

 The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that all vehicles must be registered for a valid UK CPM e-permit. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the Appellant remained on the site for xx hours and xx minutes. The PCN was issued on the basis that no e-permit was held for the Appellant's VRN, which the Appellant accepts. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, including his reasons for parking on the site, mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant's argument that there is insufficient evidence of the contravention is not accepted. ANPR images are a standard form of evidence of the period that a vehicle spends on a site and it is an entirely reasonable assumption that a vehicle present on a site for in excess of xx hours is parked on the site. The Appellant's argument regarding the previous parking arrangements on the site is also not a valid defence. The Appellant refers to a scheme in place some 3 years prior, which is of no relevance. An Operator has no obligation to inform drivers of changes that were put in place a number of years ago. The Appellant's scattergun approach whereby numerous well-rehearsed arguments are raised in an appeal, gives the overall appeal less weight. The pertinent point is that there was clear signage, which it would appear the Appellant did not read, which resulted in him parking on a site without an e-permit. I am satisfied with the Operator's explanation of the name of the site on the PCN, which is consistent with the documentation I have regarding the site and therefore the Appellant's argument that this invalidates the PCN is not accepted. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

The signage at this location clearly indicated to motorists the level of charges that were in force and the Appellant had the option to go elsewhere to park if he felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. In view of the fact that the Appellant chose to park there it confirms that the Appellant agreed to park in accordance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions including the level of the parking charge if it arose. In addition, the case in the Supreme Court of Parking Eye and Beavis dealt in part with this issue and decided that that the amount of the parking charge was justified in view of the Operator's overheads and expenses as well as by comparing the charges with those made in the public sector. Therefore the Appellant's arguments regarding loss and the amount of the charge are not accepted.

 I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

Jinger_sparky

The Landowner Agreement referred to by the adjudicator was not shared in the operator's evidence.

The entrance signage evidence from the Operator   has written on it -  Private Land, Permit Holders Only, Terms and conditions apply, See signs in the car park for  details.

Coupon-mad

Jinger_sparky said:

The Landowner Agreement referred to by the adjudicator was not shared in the operator's evidence.

The entrance signage evidence from the Operator   has written on it -  Private Land, Permit Holders Only, Terms and conditions apply, See signs in the car park for  details.

Thanks for this example.

And even worse, it is your case that the Assessor U-turned on these decisions after initially showing “Appeal Allowed,” with timestamps of 11:04 and 11:05 ish.  You saw these and you said to us:

"The decision stated something to the effect that the prima facie evidence did not demonstrate liability. It also had a paragraph something to the effect that the ‘the decision was not based on what the appellant wrote'."

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627962/ias-reversed-decisions

It sounds like UKCPM either objected, or supplied the missing evidence later on and the Assessor then did a U-turn to bend over backwards for their paying member.

Neither scenario is allowed or acceptable.

Try to get proof, two SARs are needed.

LoneStarState

I would recommend including the adjudication text separate to any images of the adjudication decision.  Makes it much easier for search engines/AI to locate and identify based on a search for matching decision text.  Given these adjudications are generic and brief that shouldn't bloat the thread too much.

I will post some decisions not included here when I have some time.  

It might be worth another user using these and some of the accompanying data to make a further formal complaint to the CTSI in time.  The CTSI obviously won't overturn individual decisions but sending mass information about multiple crooked decisions may actually kick them into some sort of gear with regards to their consumer protection role.  I've already done so with a very comprehensive complaint.  CTSI gave a very underwhelming response and have stated that any non-conformances with respect to the IAS and ADR legislation will be treated as confidential but will be fed back to the Department for Business and Trade and it seems I will get no further response from them. 

However I now plan to escalate with the DfBT, both with regards to the CTSI's lacklustre response and to also bring to their attention in conjunction with the consultation.

Coupon-mad

Thread showing conflicting IAS 'decisions' re mirror image cases with exact same appeals:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6622115/parking-charge-advice-independent-adjudicator-gave-different-outcomes/p1

SpacemanPaul said:

Recently myself and a friend each received a parking ticket in a car par at the same time. the had changed the parking times but it was not well sign posted for someone regularly using the car park to notice. 

parking signs here. the main one (which isn't at the entrance has  hours of operation on) as we were regular users we never looked at it - just would go on Ringo and pay.

We both appealed the tickets to the IAS stating the reason below and providing evidence of tickets bought on the day and on numerous previous days before. 

I am a regular user of this car park, typically parking most Friday mornings for the past few years. I have consistently paid for two hours of parking via the Ringo app (and previously the machine) and can provide receipts to confirm this (some of which I have attached).

Historically, parking charges have applied from 9:00 AM, and although I pay for two hours, we usually depart by 9:45 AM.

I have attached receipts to show this.It appears that the enforcement period has recently been amended to start at 8:00 AM.

However, I was not made aware of this change, and I have not seen any appropriate notice at the entrance to the site. Though searching at a notice board in the site it is present on one but on another no time is indicated and has been blanked out (photo attached).

As a regular and long-term user, I believe this change has not been properly communicated.This lack of notification of this type contravenes Section 3.4 of the Code of Practice National Parking Control follows which requires temporary signage to be clearly displayed for a minimum of four months to alert users of such changes.

Given this oversight, I respectfully request that this PCN, along with the two others issued to my friends at the same time, be cancelled.

The adjudicator found in my friends favour and upheld his appeal so nothing to pay. However, The adjudicator dismissed mine so i have to pay the full amount as the grace period has passed.
Seem strange two different results.
Also the Parking Operator in one of statement has said "Whilst we understand the appellant states the issuing time is 9am - 6pm, this is not correct. The charges apply 24 hours a day, payment is required on site within the 10 minute grace period after arriving on site" 

this is factually incorrect - parking charges are only due from 8am now - previously it was 9am. They are not due 24 hours a day like they are saying here. 
Make the whole IAS a farce as they now state they can do nothing further. 

The little ones had the hours of operations blanked out for some reason... so the adjustor and the operator seems to think it is 24 hours. . 
my point is that as part of their policy they should; have made it clearer that there was a change. Which they did not.