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

Bobthethird

Below is the outcome from my IAS appeal. The original parking company One Parking Services refused to answer any of the questions I raised in my initial appeal to them and just passed it on. The adjudicator has equally failed to address any of my questions and from their response I feel you would be hard pressed to know what the claimed parking offence was (using a disabled bay without a badge) My wife was mortified to find she had done this and despite raising our concerns about the poor signage, the bays being no bigger than any neighboring bay, the only disabled sign was on the floor with nothing at eye level. Also the alleged offence lasted only 183 seconds but they've won't answer questions about any minimum period to read the signage etc before "agreeing" to the parking terms before they come into effect

Dear *******,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): OPS*******
Vehicle Registration: *******
Date Issued: 01/06/2025

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"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.

A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O 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.

I would expect any driver to look around the vicinity of their car once they have parked and be able to see a sign. The Appellant parked directly in front of a sign and the CCTV evidence shows they made no attempt to read it.

It can never be a defence to a claim in contract law to say "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they comply with the terms of the contract entered into when parking on private land. If they fail to do so they agree to pay the parking charge in accordance with the terms of the contract.

I am also satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Landowner Agreement clearly demonstrates that the Operator is authorised to provide parking management services and to enforce them displayed terms and conditions of parking on the private land in question.

The Operator has supplied a copy of the Notice to Keeper and there is no evidence to suggest that the provisions of POFA have not been complied with.

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

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge. 

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Coupon-mad

Hasn't even addressed the lack of surface markings. Ignore this non-impartial trash.

patient_dream

Government should practice what they preach .....

ONE IN AND ONE OUT

IN .... A FULLY INDEPENENT APPEALS SERVICE

OUT ...
THE IAS AND POPLA

Bazarius

Another success appeal at IAS

The Notice to the Keeper failed Paragraph 11.1(b) for making an application to the DVLA too early. 

If the Notice to Keeper (served under Para 9)  was issued on the same day or the day after the parking event, the operator likely made an application to the DVLA before the start of the 14-day relevant period which begins the day after the specified parking period ended . 

Since DVLA responses aren’t instant (usually returned the next day or later), this timing usuallysuggests a breach of the third condition for keeper liability under POFA. 

Confirm it with a Vehicle Subject Request to the DVLA - ask for the date the operator applied and the date your data was released.

If Confirmed - it’s a breach of the third condition for keeper liability under POFA.

Early DVLA access = POFA fail = no keeper liability.