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

Umkomaas

James_Poisson said:

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?

….. and the reality:

“I created the model of 'admin fees' for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money.”
G Osner - founder and CEO of the debt recovery firm ZZPS Limited.

patient_dream

James_Poisson said:

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?

James_Poisson said:

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?

Totally AGREE

"The International Parking Community’s Will Hurley looks to the future"

The only future  for the IPC and HURLEY must be closure.  

The IPC and IAS are simply not fit for purpse and dangerous to the general piblic

Coupon-mad

James_Poisson said:

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?

The only conclusion is that someone (policy team and/or the responsible Minister) in this current MHCLG must have done, because they went right down this rabbit hole in the Options Assessment (no option of a ban in it). They even gave the extortion its own acronym (DRF) and said in principle they were not against an added fee.

Sigh...my goodness, why did I bother?

Astonishingly naive ... and plain wrong based on two binding case law authorities and four statute laws:

- ParkingEye v Beavis

- ParkingEye v Somerfield

- The POFA 2012, schedule 4

- The CRA 2015

- The DMCC Act 2024

- And the policy decisions that led to the Late Fee Regulations add-ons being deemed 'inappropriate' for consumer contracts.

Flipping heck. You cannot have a £100 PCN (private invoice) that "has to" (Supreme Court) cover the cost of enforcement, then on day 29 let this horrific industry add a fake 'fee' to "cover the cost of enforcement".

Counting the same minor costs twice.

Inventing a 'Late Fee' especially for this industry is not just a dangerous precedent but it breaches several laws and is plain stupid.

Every bit as naive as ring fencing 'debt recovery' only to the parking industry's mates who invented this false fee.

Come off it MHCLG! On MSE we could get our MPs to block the Code if you try this.

Right now they are sharing the 'DRF' spoils £35/£35 when duped consumers sadly get bullied into paying £170 and the industry is laughing at this Government.

patient_dream

The MHCLG is just a farce

Right now they are sharing the spoils when duped consumers pay £170 and the industry is laughing at this Government

Just like the rest of the population ??

ChirpyChicken

The lead Ajudicator can also be reached at david.finney@theias.org

DMSDiver

It is important to note before reading the below decision that I provided both the PCC and the IAS, with photographic evidence that the signs the PCC was claiming existed, did not. They helpfully provided a site-map as evidence with all the "signage locations." I just responded with photographs of these locations not containing the supposed entrance sign and asked the PCC to provide the appeal (ie me and the IAS) with evidence of the sign, existing. They didn't respond to this comment. Furthermore in the photographic evidence they did provide at the beginning, not once did they show one of the two necessary entrance signs, only the one that was actually on site. When I raised these points, the PCC that had be replying before, stopped and just sent it to the IAS adjudicator.

How can an "Independent adjudicator" find that a contract existed when I provided evidence that no contract could have been formed due to the defendant not being aware they were entering a contract due the missing entrance sign, and the PCC not providing evidence on the sign in question, and also not providing a comment on the question put to them…

The adjudicator made their decision

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 allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area 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. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.

I am again 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.

Coupon-mad

It's all template crap (did you read the other ones posted here? Same wording!) and the IAS is not independent.

It's owned by Will Hurley Ltd, as is the IPC Trade Body. And he was personally connected for years, to a parking debt crawler law firm, Gladstones. It is a complete conflict of interests.

There was no point in appealing. It's futile.

We gave up trying IAS years ago when we saw from the bizarre 'decisions' that it bears all the hallmarks of a scam and is the epitome of a 'kangaroo court'.

doubledotcom

The only genuinely independent arbiter in these matters is a county court judge. The IAS ‘adjudicator’ is anonymous, unaccountable and highly unlikely to be trained in legal matters. Calling that independent is like calling a state‑appointed judge in North Korea impartial.

patient_dream

The IAS is simply a SHAM who side with their members

Government should wind up the IAS and Hurley as it's not fit for purpose

thefunkaygibbon

As requested, my appeal rejection from IAS for parking for 10 minutes:

"The adjudicator made their decision on 11/05/2026 15:29:07.

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 to 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 signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In consideration for parking they agree to pay for the time they park display or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.

I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map, exhibits and images.

The Appellant should note that the grace period is a period of ten minutes at the end of a permitted period of parking. Consequently, it does not apply at the start of the parking event. The driver is entitled to a reasonable time to read the terms and comply with the requirements. However, the time allowed is for this purpose only and the driver must read the terms and attempt to comply immediately. If the driver chooses not to read the sign or uses the time for their own purpose, as here, leaves the site the period is at an end and they are deemed to have accepted the terms of parking by their actions.

If they cannot comply they must leave. There is no set time limit I must apply, although there are guidelines and the Operator may have a policy not to charge within a set time. The longer the vehicle is on site the less likely it is to be reasonable. The Appellant provides no evidence as to why the time they took was reasonable.

The consumer contract legislation was not breached because the amount being sought by the parking operator was clearly communicated by the signage on site. If the Appellant considered the charges to be unfair they had the option to reject it by parking elsewhere or by parking on this site in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. The balance of power is with the Appellant. The Appellant chose not to park in accordance with those terms and therefore is deemed to have agreed to pay a charge if any breach occurred. In this respect, the Appellant should be aware that:

"A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."

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, and they exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable to pay the full charge."

Thankfully, I have their sympathy, so there is that.

Please note that they have specifically mentioned a grace period, something in my appeal I specifically mentioned was not the defence in use, but that I was referring to the consideration period. Quote from my appeal:

"For clarity, this case is taking the consideration period into account, and not the grace period."

The following line is also of great interest:

"If they cannot comply they must leave. There is no set time limit I must apply, although there are guidelines and the Operator may have a policy not to charge within a set time. The longer the vehicle is on site the less likely it is to be reasonable. The Appellant provides no evidence as to why the time they took was reasonable."

The specifically mentioned "there is no time limit" is interesting, although I am aware that 5 minutes is referenced in the materials they adhere to.