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.

Coupon-mad

Seems like a good place to add this case as an example of how the IAS isn't fit for purpose and what happens when a case then steamrolls onwards and finally reaches a hearing with a real law-upholder (judge):

https://contestorlegal.co.uk/vehicle-control-services-ordered-by-to-803-for-unreasonable-conduct/

"At Contestor Legal Services, we’re proud to share a story of resilience, accountability, and justice. Yesterday, we secured a landmark victory for our client, Mrs. Paulina Doyle, at the County Court in South Shields. This case wasn’t just about parking charges it was about challenging an unfair system and standing up for what’s right. 

Mrs. Doyle’s vehicle was parked in a public area outside the boundaries of Melbourne House Overflow Car Park in Newcastle (NE12JQ).

Despite this, she received 8 parking charges from Vehicle Control Services (VCS). Astonishingly, her vehicle wasn’t even parked in their car park. When Mrs. Doyle appealed, both VCS and the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) dismissed her case, raising serious concerns about the fairness and independence of the appeals process. 

 Taking a Stand    

Refusing to be intimidated, Mrs. Doyle decided to fight back. She defended her case by submitting a   strong defence,   two witness statements  , and sought legal representation. At the first hearing, the claimant’s representative claimed they hadn’t received key documents, leading to an adjournment. However, yesterday, we turned the tide in her favour. 

 The Turning Point    

During the hearing, we demonstrated to the court that the vehicle was   parked outside the car park boundaries, as clearly shown on the provided map. This alone should have been enough to dismiss the claim. We also highlighted that the   particulars of the claim were defective and contained false information. While the court didn’t rule on this point, the claimant’s representative conceded the first argument, and we urged the court to dismiss the claim. 

 The Outcome    

The court ruled in our favour, stating that VCS had acted unreasonably. They were ordered to pay over £800 in costs. This victory isn’t just for Mrs. Doyle it’s a win for anyone who has ever felt powerless against unjust parking practices. 

 What’s Next?    

This is just the beginning. Mrs. Doyle is now preparing to issue further claims against Vehicle Control Services Ltd for: 

1.   Misusing her personal data   – by pursuing her for charges when her vehicle wasn’t even parked in their car park. 

2.   Harassment   – for the relentless and unjustified pursuit of these charges. 

3.   Tort of abuse of process   – for their unreasonable conduct and concession made during the court proceedings. 

Why This Matters    

This case is a powerful reminder that individuals have the right to challenge unfair systems and demand accountability.

It also sheds light on the questionable independence of parking appeals services and the conduct of some parking companies."

Coupon-mad

IAS joke 'decision' from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81212910/#Comment_81212910

@estevenin said:

PCM scam at High Point Village with lurking person taking phone pictures but not issuing a PCN:



Update after response from IAS, as expected, dismissed.  It's actually quite funny, they have written "It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary". It is actually not allowed to get out of the vehicle.

So I suppose the next step is to ignore every communication that I receive from the Parking Company (or should I politely decline - or refer them to the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971) - to pay ?), until there is a potential small claim for this case ? So I should be in peace for a couple of months or so. 

Here's the answer for entertainment purposes :

"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 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's contention that the signage is insufficient, which is not supported by any evidence is not accepted. It is the driver's responsibility to read the signage, including exiting the vehicle to do so if necessary.

The signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice. In the photographs provided I can see that the Appellant's vehicle was not parked wholly within a marked bay/was parked across two bays. 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. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The courts have interpreted vehicles that are stationary on private land as being parked within the meaning of the signage, irrespective of the period parked and factors such as whether the driver remained with the vehicle, the engine remained running etc. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the Appellant was parked on this occasion and the Appellant's assertion to the contrary is not accepted. Grace periods only apply to a period of permitted parking and therefore are not applicable in these circumstances and no parking outside marked bays is permitted. The Appellant is also quoting the incorrect code of practice (the Operator being a member of the IAS not BPA). 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.

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"

Arkell v Pressdram indeed...

Coupon-mad

Interesting article perfectly illustrating the (complete waste of consumer time) farce of the IAS even though Napier report their stats as if it's a good thing!

https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/is-this-private-parking-ticket-company-the-most-unpopular-business-in-milton-keynes-5343471

Napier said:

"In respect of appeals being allowed, the truth is we overturn very few on appeal, the reason being that they are issued correctly in the first place so there are no grounds to cancel them.

In 2024 we had 584 appeal go to the Independent Appeals Service, which is the second appeal stage. This is a tiny number given we will probably issue around 115,000 Parking Charges this coming year.

Four of the appeals were found in favour of the motorist, another 11 were conceded by Napier, and 569 were declined and found in favour of Napier.

From these statistics you can tell that we take the operation of our car parks extremely seriously and ensure that we pursue correctly issued PCN's,” said the spokesperson."

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

Well there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.

JUST FOUR APPEALS 'ALLOWED' BY THE IAS OUT OF 584!

FOUR!!!

0.68% of consumer appeals upheld!

If this is indicative of 2024 IAS stats no wonder they stopped publishing that stat in their useless Annual Report that year.

Thanks for those statistics, Napier.

jd576

Be interesting to contrast that number with how many cases won at a hearing and reported on this forum during the course of 2024 went through an IAS appeal!

patient_dream

jd576 said:

Be interesting to contrast that number with how many cases won at a hearing and reported on this forum during the course of 2024 went through an IAS appeal!

The IAS has had such bad publicity for their sham operation that even court judges know about it so doubt judges will take any notice of this kangaroo court sham, some say it's a scam

IPC members are led into a sense of false security thinking that id the IAS rules in their favour, it's money in their pockets but far from it and out comes the filth of the industry, money scam debt collectors and very dodgy legals adding their fakes and their favourite stupid language to mislead the courts.

Government should take more notice of the great parking scam and clamp down on the money scam.

That means getting rid of the IPC/IAS/HURLEY SHAM

Jesty999

My Appeal

You completed the appeal on 

I received this ticket though the post regarding the PCN Received at Quay Side House but was never Issued to the van.

At the time of parking there were several other vehicles around (Car Park Full on a SUNNY DAY) which to the Drivers Side was a Camper Van, Behind was a Car that was parked in Front of their Bay Lines and on the Passenger Side was a Small car parked close to the Right Hand Side of Their Bay.. (See attached Area Where Parked 4 and Site Map showing where they were parked)

Whilst I understand that in an ideal world I should be parked between the Lines, It was not possible due to the other Cars/Camper Van and there were no other space that I could safely and Considerately park,

I parked the Van in a Position that was not CAUSING ANY OBSTRUCTION OR DANGER to any other users of the car park... (Again see Pics Attached)
Not realising that (I don't take a Magnifying glass with my to read your signs) I would be fined for PARKING a LONG WHEEL BASE VAN 16" in front of a Line when not causing any obstructions or hazards!

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator made their decision on

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 am 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 signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on private land and that vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked parking bay and that a failure to comply with that term and condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice.

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.