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

Jesty999

My Appeal

You completed the appeal on

Dear Sir/Madam,

I entered the car park on Friday 19th June at approximately 16.30 after I had finished work (Rare that I finish that early) as it was a very sunny day. The normal part of the car park was full, however a car came out of the space that I was ended up parking in on a Gravel bit at the back.

Once Parked I loaded up the paybyphone app on my phone and proceeded to pay for the parking as I always do.. Once I loaded the app I clicked the only one that was showing in the nearby section and I paid for the parking (Same amount I pay on the many occasions I have visited at the weekend and proceeded down to the beach.

I firstly appealed the parking ticket on the basis I had paid for my ticket and that the ground was still part of the same car park. thinking that because I was Gravel it may have not been the same car park. The only time I became aware of the Parking restrictions Times that I had broken was once I received a reply back from my original appeal.

There is defiantly not clear signage stating the Hours that you can or Can't Park there and around where I had parked there was no signage at all.

Whilst I agree that I had purchased a ticket for the wrong location (One purchased was for Aldrington Marine a good few miles away and probably should not be showing Nearby on App) which is still operated by GSX Services It was completely a mistake that would not have happen If I was aware of these parking restriction. (GOOD CLEAR SIGNAGE)

I have live in Brighton all my life and have never heard of this car park being Part Time.

If you require any further Info regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Appellant's Response

The appellant made their response on

As you can see from the photos showing Entrance to Car Park that the sign is tiny and does not clearly show the hours of operation.

It does however it does show a pay and display car park (Which I assumed I paid for) and that is even without the graffiti on it. Along side this when driving through a tight car park I am looking at the other car and not signs.

Once I arrived in the space where I parked shown on Site Map Showing Where I Parked.jpg there were no signs to be seen. Again please see Area Where Parked 1,2 & 3 photo's to show what I would have seen when parked.

Again no site signage was near to where I park and defiantly none on the route from car park to beach.

As I mentioned I used the App on my phone which I always use the Nearest Place and pay for it, If I knew I couldn't park there why would I buy a ticket for another location?????

So there I again ask that this ticket be Deleted.

Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator made their decision on 07/08/2025 08:02:37.

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.

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.

The correct location code for this car park is clearly advertised and the signage.

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 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.

Jesty999

Jesty999 said:

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 Images the PO sent to them are very old and out dated...  The photos I took clearly show blank walls where signs used to be but the ones they have show them in place 

doubledotcom

I always add this para into any IAS appeal:

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.

You've got to giggle at this IAS muppets response to that para in their rejection:

"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.

I note the Appellant's comments with regards to the Adjudicator's identity however there is no requirement for me to be named and I would further point out to them that it is a criminal offence to impersonate a solicitor."

I think that in itself is confirmation that the IAS 'adjudicator' that penned it is not legally trained at all!

Sweetpea1611

A positive to share:

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver parking on the roadway will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they were unaware they had entered private land and provides evidence to support the claims. The Operator contends they could have read the sign at any time, but this is based on the supposition they were aware of the need to do so. 

There is a yellow line, but there is also a yellow line on the main road. Whilst there is a break it is only a short one and not one the driver could necessarily expect to see in a moving vehicle. There are no signs facing traffic as it enters, only on the wall next to it. If there were any evidence the driver left the vehicle the Operator would be able to argue that the driver ought to have read the sign, but there is no evidence for this. 

Consequently, I am not satisfied it was sufficiently clear to the driver they entered private land and the appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Coupon-mad

Woohoo - you are the one in twenty!

Buy a lottery ticket, you are clearly lucky. 

DE_612183

Sweetpea1611 said:

A positive to share:

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver parking on the roadway will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they were unaware they had entered private land and provides evidence to support the claims. The Operator contends they could have read the sign at any time, but this is based on the supposition they were aware of the need to do so. 

There is a yellow line, but there is also a yellow line on the main road. Whilst there is a break it is only a short one and not one the driver could necessarily expect to see in a moving vehicle. There are no signs facing traffic as it enters, only on the wall next to it. If there were any evidence the driver left the vehicle the Operator would be able to argue that the driver ought to have read the sign, but there is no evidence for this. 

Consequently, I am not satisfied it was sufficiently clear to the driver they entered private land and the appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Where was this?

Sweetpea1611

DE_612183 said:

Sweetpea1611 said:

A positive to share:

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver parking on the roadway will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they were unaware they had entered private land and provides evidence to support the claims. The Operator contends they could have read the sign at any time, but this is based on the supposition they were aware of the need to do so. 

There is a yellow line, but there is also a yellow line on the main road. Whilst there is a break it is only a short one and not one the driver could necessarily expect to see in a moving vehicle. There are no signs facing traffic as it enters, only on the wall next to it. If there were any evidence the driver left the vehicle the Operator would be able to argue that the driver ought to have read the sign, but there is no evidence for this. 

Consequently, I am not satisfied it was sufficiently clear to the driver they entered private land and the appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Where was this?

It is a road off a public road -Wellingborough road in Northampton… between the Tesco express and former St Edmond’s hospital. 

The Parking operator may now put an entrance sign that would negate my basis of appeal… not sure.

It genuinely is poorly signposted as private land.. I understand they have a right to use a deterrent yet they fail to notify people in the first instance and it felt like entrapment rather than a deterrent.

kryten3000

Sweetpea1611 said:

DE_612183 said:

Sweetpea1611 said:

A positive to share:

Appeal Outcome: Accepted

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver parking on the roadway will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they were unaware they had entered private land and provides evidence to support the claims. The Operator contends they could have read the sign at any time, but this is based on the supposition they were aware of the need to do so. 

There is a yellow line, but there is also a yellow line on the main road. Whilst there is a break it is only a short one and not one the driver could necessarily expect to see in a moving vehicle. There are no signs facing traffic as it enters, only on the wall next to it. If there were any evidence the driver left the vehicle the Operator would be able to argue that the driver ought to have read the sign, but there is no evidence for this. 

Consequently, I am not satisfied it was sufficiently clear to the driver they entered private land and the appeal is allowed. "

As your appeal has been accepted, the charge has been cancelled by the operator and you do not need to take any further action.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Where was this?

It is a road off a public road -Wellingborough road in Northampton… between the Tesco express and former St Edmond’s hospital. 

The Parking operator may now put an entrance sign that would negate my basis of appeal… not sure.

It genuinely is poorly signposted as private land.. I understand they have a right to use a deterrent yet they fail to notify people in the first instance and it felt like entrapment rather than a deterrent.

A notorious trap location operated by NPM.  It looks like a public road.