DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100248--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Kbr1 Date: November 28, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey all!
Just wanted to give the latest update. I finally received a
reply from the IAS and seems like they've just dismissed it as
expected.
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 and seemingly visible in the
vicinity of the vehicle, 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 stop otherwise than in accordance with the
displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. 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 stopped at the time suggested in the images
provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I note the
Appellant's comments with regards to service however the
Operator's code of conduct states that where notification of a
parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the
driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide
postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper. On
the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been
served correctly using the postal system.
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
#Post#: 100282--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: b789 Date: November 29, 2025, 3:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing surprising there. You were advised that the IAS is.
Kangaroo court. However, it is time to start hitting back.
You can report the parent company (United Trade and Industry
Ltd, company number 08248531) to the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) under the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC) citing structural conflict, lack of
independence, and consumer harm. The IAS model is ripe for
investigation.
The DMCC gives the CMA new powers to investigate markets where
consumers are harmed by unfair practices, structural conflicts
of interest, or lack of meaningful redress. The private parking
sector ticks all those boxes.
If a Keeper appeals a ticket issued by an IPC member, they are
forced to use the IAS — a so‑called “independent” appeals
service that is owned and operated by the same company as the
IPC. That company is United Trade and Industry Ltd (company
number 08248531). This means the trade body representing the
parking operator also controls the appeals process. That is a
textbook conflict of interest.
The IAS has an uphold rate of less than 5 percent. Motorists
almost never successful. The process is opaque, one‑sided,
and structurally hostile to consumers. There is no transparency,
no independent oversight, and no meaningful route to challenge
the outcome. The Keeper is left with a kangaroo court decision
and no further recourse.
Under the DMCC, the CMA can investigate markets where:
[indent]• Consumers are denied fair redress
• Trade bodies create structural barriers to justice
• Corporate control distorts outcomes
• The appeals process is not independent or accountable[/indent]
The IPC/IAS model meets all of these criteria. You can report
the parent company — United Trade and Industry Ltd — as the
controlling entity behind both the trade body and the appeals
service. The complaint can focus on the lack of independence,
the conflict of interest, the statistical improbability of
success, and the systemic harm to consumers.
I have just reported United Trade and Industry Ltd withe
following:
[quote] I am submitting a complaint under the DMCC Act 2024
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. 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.
I can provide further evidence on request, including proof of
added consumer frustration caused by the IAS webform, which
blocks copy‑paste and forces motorists to type long
responses manually instead of using prepared texts.[/quote]
You or anyone else can do the same. Use this official CMA
guidance page: How to make a competition or consumer law
complaint
HTML https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-best-to-make-a-competition-or-consumer-law-complaint-and-what-happens-nex
DO NOT pay. You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters that
will come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything
except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the
gullible tree to pay out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 100287--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: b789 Date: November 29, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to add, I will use this case as one of the pieces of
evidence as it is clear that the IAS adjudicator completely
ignored the single fact that the Keeper cannot be liable if the
driver is not identified because PoFA does not apply at this
location.
They were told to provide evidence of PoFA liability in the
initial IAS appeal and were specifically directed to the fact in
the response to the operators prima facie case. If that is not
evidence that the adjudicator is not legally trained and is
being mendacious, then I don’t know what is.
#Post#: 105993--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Kbr1 Date: January 15, 2026, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Didn't hear from them in a long while so I thought they dropped
it but I've just received a debt recovery letter in the post.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/bKSANC4
How do I proceed, they're saying that I owe £170 now
#Post#: 105995--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: DWMB2 Date: January 15, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=8107.msg100282#msg100282
date=1764407881]
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters that will come
your way. [...]
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
[/quote]
This advice remains true.
You'll need to use a different site for future uploads - Imgur
is no longer accessible from the UK without a VPN.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page