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

Fruitcake

Always request the details of an ADR assessor irrespective of an IAS appeal result. Refusal to provide it is a breach of the ADR regulations 2015. The body referred to below is the appeals body, the IAS.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

SCHEDULE 3

Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets

Transparency

5.  The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—

(a)its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;

(b)a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;

(c)its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;

doubledotcom

Anyone can raise a complaint with the CMA and this is what I have submitted in my complaint about the cabal that is the IPC/IAS and their anonymous, supposed "solicitors" and their retired "barista"  . Feel free to adapt and add in the ADR breaches too.

I am submitting a complaint under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) about structural unfairness and consumer harm in the private parking appeals system run by the International Parking Community (IPC) and the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

Both the IPC and IAS are owned and operated by the same private company, United Trade and Industry Ltd. The trade association representing parking operators and the “independent” appeals body sit under one corporate owner. This is a direct, embedded conflict of interest: the body that sets rules for operators also controls the appeals outcome on those operators’ tickets.

In 2023/24, IPC members issued around 2.8 million private parking charge notices (PCNs). A motorist must first appeal to the operator; if refused, they may escalate to the IAS. The IAS upholds fewer than 5% of appeals. Motorists are rarely successful. The process is opaque, lacks transparency, and offers no meaningful route to challenge outcomes. There is no independent oversight or external accountability.

The IAS claims its adjudicators are legally trained (solicitor or barrister level), yet adjudicators are anonymous. Consumers cannot verify qualifications or professional standing. Anonymity undermines transparency and accountability. The IAS cites a retired barrister on its board, which does not prove individual adjudicators are legally qualified. Anonymous decisions purporting to rely on legal training are impossible to verify, and many decisions show weak legal reasoning, making the qualifications claim misleading.

These practices deceive consumers. Anonymous “legally trained” decisions lead motorists to believe they have no further recourse except to pay or instruct a solicitor. In reality, the IAS is not a statutory tribunal, adjudicators are not publicly accountable, and decisions have no binding legal authority. Consumers are misled into thinking they have exhausted their rights when they have been denied independent redress.

By contrast, the British Parking Association outsources its second‑stage appeals to POPLA, which is structurally separate and upholds about 38% of appeals. The IPC/IAS model lacks any separation because both are owned by United Trade and Industry Ltd. This single‑owner structure is uniquely conflicted and amplifies consumer harm.

I am not the direct recipient of any PCN or IAS decision. I act as an independent advisor to motorists. I run gullibletree.com, where motorists report PCNs, and I advise daily on the Free Traffic Legal Advice forum (FTLA.uk), assisting on hundreds of cases every month. My evidence is anonymised but includes narratives and case histories showing consistent patterns of unfairness across operators and sites.

This setup causes systemic consumer harm: denial of fair redress, an appeals process structurally biased by single‑owner conflict of interest, an implausibly low uphold rate, anonymity and unverifiable qualifications that mislead consumers, and a lack of independent oversight.

I request that the CMA investigate United Trade and Industry Ltd under the DMCC for operating a structurally unfair, deceptive appeals system that denies consumers meaningful redress and misleads them into believing they have no further rights.

VolcanicSunblush

IAS DECISION 23/11/25

i am convinced this is written by AI!

—


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): [redacted]
Vehicle Registration: [redacted]
Date Issued: 04/09/2025

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.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their stay will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that they had a medical emergency for their dog. However, they provide only images of a beautiful dog as evidence to support the claims. As explained above, at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied. 

Even if I accept this it does not explain why the Appellant could not have paid for the additional time on their return. The terms make clear that payment is from the point of entry to exit. As this is an ANPR site, and provided the driver pays for the time they spend on site, before leaving the site, any charge is unlikely to be upheld. They are entitled to a grace period but again from the point of entry. Therefore, having paid for two hours, had they left within two hours and ten minutes of entering, or paid for another hour before leaving, the charge would not likely be lawful.

Loss is not relevant. The amount of the charge is that which the driver agrees to pay. 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 they 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 recent 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.

At this stage it is for the Appellant to show the notice failed to comply with POFA. If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, but they are unlikely to exercise it in the Appellant's favour, in the absence of evidence to support the claim.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, more than two hours and twenty minutes after it arrived, and with a payment of only two hours . The 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

—


END

Umkomaas

At this stage it is for the Appellant to show the notice failed to comply with POFA. If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my sympathy

i am convinced this is written by AI!

Nah, they’ve been expressing their ‘sympathy’ for eons, long before AI was little more than a twinkle in its technological father’s eye. It’s a copy & paste template response, best they can manage.

You do know not to pay this, don’t you?

Ignore anything further unless/until you receive a Letter Of/Before Claim from the PPC’s solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back on your own thread then for further advice. To get ahead of the curve, you could prepare yourself with a bit of gentle reading of the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, both situated near the top of the forum thread list. 

patient_dream

 In addition the recent 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.

WHAT THEY FAIL TO SAY ..... is that the SUPREME COURT NEVER SAIS THAT FAKE ADD-ONS CAN APPLY

WAKE UP IAS ?

Humdinger1

'Images of beautiful dog'?! Wait, what? AI at least is paying lip service to what it means to be human.  Many schemes may have something to learn here...

rainbird1

Pertaining to the case in here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81638220/#Comment_81638220

I have received IAS rejection letter after 5-6 round of to and fro comments.

Date of rejection: 03/10/2025

Half_way

Going forward, all IAS "appeals" should include a picture of a dog, a baby or something else completely unrelated that may be considered "cute" by AI to see if it gets a "beautiful dog" reply/response

Coupon-mad

rainbird1 said:

Pertaining to the case in here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81638220/#Comment_81638220

I have received IAS rejection letter after 5-6 round of to and fro comments.

Date of rejection: 03/10/2025

Absolute bot-style joke appeals. Nobody appears to have 'considered' anything at all.

And the so-called adjudicators are believed to be the same rookie solicitors who argue cases for rogue PPCs in court.

From the LPC Law pool of rookies, IMHO. Apparently they are paid £15 a pop to churn out the 95% rejections that the IPC promised in a presentation trying to entice PPCs over to them.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad said:

rainbird1 said:

Pertaining to the case in here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81638220/#Comment_81638220

I have received IAS rejection letter after 5-6 round of to and fro comments.

Date of rejection: 03/10/2025

Absolute bot-style joke appeals. Nobody appears to have 'considered' anything at all.

And the so-called adjudicators are believed to be the same rookie solicitors who argue cases for rogue PPCs in court.

From the LPC Law pool of rookies, IMHO. Apparently they are paid £15 a pop to churn out the 95% rejections that the IPC promised in a presentation trying to entice PPCs over to them.

Upholding the basics of British justice. What a start to a fledgling legal career. Besmirched by the private parking sector, before it even started. ⚖️