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

kryten3000

Grok = pretend AI controlled by Elon

IAS = actual AI controlled by Will H?

LoneStarState

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81808044/#Comment_81808044

Original adjudication outcome image in comment linked above.  Verbatim text for searchability as below:

Boilerplate guff that many regulars will have seen ad nauseam on the forum with IAS dismissals.

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"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 failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment or ticket on this occasion 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. Due to the nature of the terms, whether the vehicle was left unattended at any point is largely irrelevant to this appeal.

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.
"

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

IAS: an informed, reasonable opinion:

- not fit for purpose as an 'appeals service; should never have been allowed to do this (let alone obtained CTSI certification which seems to be a tick box exercise)

and

- it's as blatantly hobbled by ownership conflicts of interest as you could ever see, in plain sight.

Come on MHCLG! Open your eyes. See it for what it is...stop being swayed by plausible snake oil salesmen.

LoneStarState said:

...just thought I'd add some additional media people can use in their submissions, particularly with respect to the IPC and its "independent" appeals service as compelling evidence for why nothing short of a truly independent external appeals service with truly impartial qualified adjudicators will suffice.

It also helps to evidence that competing appeals services has created a race to the bottom where the IPC is happy to fill the void and provide a pro-operator model that funnels second stage appeals to a dismissal enabling the debt recovery wheeze and the additional £70 out of thin air to be tacked onto PCNs, all to the detriment of consumers.

First, the laughable ownership structure of the IAS with regards to the IPC, UNITI and Will Hurley:



Second, the embarrassing adjudication outcome stats for the IAS vs POPLA (which time and again also makes fundamental errors).  The numbers below are all taken from the respective annual activity reports for those years.  The IAS now actually has all its activity reports online but only the years below actually include the relevant stats for adjudication outcomes for the IAS.  

Important note for these numbers:
For 2018, the IAS only listed the percentage outcome and not the absolute numbers so the ones shown here were backcalculated and may differ slightly from the true value (whatever they might be).



Also something else to include is the embarrassing IPC corporate slide deck from 2016 likely made to woo operators over to the IPC from the BPA.  Of particular note is slide 7 where the IPC slide deck proudly states how the IAS has a 95% average "success" rate for operators vs POPLA's lower "success" rate in adjudicating PCN appeals.  

The slideshow is available at:
https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx

If that link magically stops working, I've made sure it is logged on the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250805234205/https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx

You might note the slide deck's author is John Davies of Gladstones.

Castle said:

Following on from LoneStarState's research here are the average appeal results over the 5 year period to 2022. The "others" figure is generally non-contests by the Parking Company/Local authority.

(Please note that the BPA and IPC figures are for the 5 years to 30th September 2022 whilst the London Tribunals and Outside London figures are for the 5 year period to 31st March 2022 because they have a different year end).

                               
BPA:-                        16% won
55% lost
29% others
                               
IPC:-                           5% won
70% lost
25% others
                               
London Tribunals:-   22% won
49% lost
29% others
                               
Outside London:-     36% won
36% lost
28% others

Taken from another thread.