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: in my informed, reasonable opinion:

- IAS is 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.

Coupon-mad

Taken from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6641479/ukcpm-invoice-for-non-display-of-permit-before-arriving-in-post/p2

...where the head lease of the freehold landowner grants rights to park, so this new tenant never needed a UKCPM 'permit' and isn't bound by their 'terms'.

But in IAS non-impartial cloud cuckoo land, PPC scam permit schemes apparently rip up lease rights & easements and a resident's primacy of contract means nothing:

Smearington said:

Thank you to everyone who assisted me with this case.

Unsurprisingly, the IAS dismissed my appeal (copy below for info), but I managed to get the freeholder to overturn it following escalation and persistence.

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give 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.

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.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that the vehicle did not have a valid permit or e-permit at the time of the parking event. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit or e-permit in accordance with the terms. 

The Appellant has claimed that the operator has provided the wrong address however from the Appellant's own evidence it can be seen that permits are issued for the whole estate known as Brooks Dye Works and therefore the parking charge has been correctly issued.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to have a valid e-permit and by not displaying such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have displayed a valid permit for the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere, only returning at such a time as they were able to comply. 

Whilst the Appellant maintains that as a resident they have a right to park, this does not override the terms and conditions that the driver accepts by choosing to park on the site. Only the driver and the Operator can vary the terms of the contract by mutual agreement.

The Appellant claims they have a right to park under their tenancy agreement. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their tenancy agreement, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is correct that a right in a tenancy agreement would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. However, this is not unilateral, as the Appellant has consented to it. By agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has agreed to waive any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not.

The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to have registered their vehicle and have a valid permit or e-permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver does not have a valid permit or e-permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option. 

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear and sets out the parking tariffs that apply. 

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." 

doubledotcom

I always advise that any IAS appeal contains the following point:

Procedural fairness and the asserted legal competence of the IAS assessor. The IAS states that appeals are determined by legally qualified assessors, typically solicitors or barristers. Decisions are anonymous, unsigned, and provide no verifiable indication of the assessor’s qualification, practising status, or independence. Where an ADR scheme relies on claimed legal expertise as a marker of credibility, it is reasonable to expect decisions to demonstrate that expertise through structured legal analysis rather than assertion.

I therefore invite the IAS to confirm in its decision, without disclosing personal data, whether the assessor determining this appeal is a practising solicitor of England and Wales, a barrister holding a practising certificate, or another legally qualified person, and to confirm that no conflict of interest exists. If the IAS declines to provide even this minimal confirmation, I request that it explains how that position is compatible with transparency and consumer confidence in ADR.

This request is directly relevant. The present dispute involves core legal issues: contract formation, the distinction between prohibition and contractual offer, evidential proof of parking as opposed to momentary presence, locus and landowner authority, and compliance with mandatory Code requirements. A legally trained decision-maker will recognise that these are determinative questions and will address them by reasoned analysis. If the IAS intends to dismiss the appeal, I request that it does so by engaging with those legal elements rather than by conclusory statements such as “signage was present” or that the charge was “issued correctly”.

It gives them the willies and some of them simply respond with "it's illegal to falsely claim to be a solicitor", without expanding further.  

ChirpyChicken

The lead adjudicator appointed in October works at the CPS and at the same time of his appointment set up a dispute resolution firm

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

The lead adjudicator appointed in October works at the CPS and at the same time of his appointment set up a dispute resolution firm

Tell us more.

ChirpyChicken

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

The lead adjudicator appointed in October works at the CPS and at the same time of his appointment set up a dispute resolution firm

Tell us more.

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/228889/david-gareth-finney
And his email address is current and valid(not the one thats on that site and removing the GSI)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/H2rQJTh6U3GaUTY0KIvpb4bWa2c/appointments

Coupon-mad

Oh yes.

Mentioned in this load of plausible corporate-speak 'we aren't the problem' drivel from Will Hurley:

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/transit/news/79770/the-ipc-laying-the-foundations/

James_Poisson

Coupon-mad said:

Oh yes.

Mentioned in this load of plausible corporate-speak 'we aren't the problem' drivel from Will Hurley:

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/transit/news/79770/the-ipc-laying-the-foundations/

What a load of utter garbage that is, their intransigent hassling of the motorist with escalating costs is apparently just to be fair to other motorists:

"The escalation stage isn’t about punishment. It’s about maintaining fairness for the motorists who do the right thing. It’s part of the deterrent structure that encourages compliance and keeps the system balanced".

Do people actually sit listening to this drivel nodding their heads in agreement?