Theias Anmeldelser 

Based on the previous reviews I decided not to appeal as it’s quite obvious all they’re interested in is taking the money. The parking company GS4 also state, if the appeal is declined the full amount and not the discounted amount will have to be paid. Scaremongering to put you off appealing to a so-called independent authority who clearly are affiliated with these companies, who have no other intention other than taking your money, even though in a lot of cases there is genuine mitigation.
Parking mafia.
Shame on you!

Waste of time. A valid ticket was purchased for a pay and display carpark that also has ANPR but only the first 2 letters of the registration was inputted. PCN issues for £100. The IAS have upheld the PCN stating because the full registration wasn’t inputted. Waste of time do not bother going through the process.

The independent body that looks after their mates the parasite parking companies don’t waste your time they are useless. Probably on a cut of the earnings of these parasites who are no better than grotty drug dealers.

Don’t waste your time, terrible service, poor communication and overall no logic. This supposedly independent party do not appropriately consider representations made. Let the cowboys operators make unreasonable demands. The reviews speak for themselves…pathetic

Nasty company - nothing independent about this appeal. Sounded like they copied the response from the nasty Private Parking company PCM Ltd. Just work together to scam honest hard working people out of our money. I have a disabled daughter and a Motability vehicle i did a vehicle booking with a building manager when visiting my niece - the appeals said it was my responsibility to check i had valid parking - i couldn't as it was a Saturday and the building manager don't work Saturday's, i trusted he had done his job properly and booked the space - on the Monday after i was fine with a parking ticket, he just said he had forgot as he was too busy - never felt so caught in the incapability of others and i got stung for £100...i am so angry, when do the little people get help in this country. I am so angry and disappointed.

After providing photographic evidence of a faulty parking machine, that didn’t provide a ticket, they still took the side of the parking company. If photographic evidence isn’t enough then what is? I do not believe that this company is Independent at all and have reported them (and Napier Parking Limited) to Trading Standards, and my local MP and Horsham District Council

I wish there was a zero star. The are useless, their decision is senseless and has no basis. You better go to court

Completely pointless appeals process. The IAS claims to be independent, but decisions feel pre-determined and one-sided. Evidence is ignored, responses are generic, and there’s zero transparency.

If a PCN issuer sends you to the IAS, assume you’ve already lost. They are clearly biased and almost always side with the issuer, no matter how strong your evidence is.

They are not independent, they are just scammers.

This organisation is not independent. They dismissed my appeal because the parking service was able to evidence multiple signage. They had no evidence of duration, or overstaying, only that I entered the area, I turned the car round and left when I saw how packed it was. The ‘independent adjudicator still found in favour of the parking service. This is process is stacked in favour of the parking company.

If I could give a minus review I would, absolute waste of time, Parking enforcement companies will advise you to contact "The independent adjudicator" because they are on their side.
Don't waste your time, if you feel your case is strong enough, let the Parking enforcement company take you to small claims court and let an "proper impartial" legal judge hear your case.

I wanted to share my experience in case it helps someone else.

I’m a nurse and initially thought that the nature of my visit would win my appeal, but that wasn’t what decided it.

The adjudicator only focused on whether the signage clearly communicated the parking restrictions. In my case, a “Visitor Parking” sign pointed to a section of the car park that appeared separate from the permit-only area, which made the restrictions unclear at the point I parked.

Although my visit was for work, the decision didn’t seem to hinge on that at all. It came down to what a driver would reasonably understand from the signs at the time.

If you’re appealing, it may help to concentrate less on the reason you were there and more on whether the signage itself was misleading or contradictory, as that’s what ultimately made the difference for me. What I thought was one of my weakest arguments won my case, even though it was what mislead me in the first place.

Companies like this are absolute scum. Was sent a pcn after going to a pub for lunch. The machine wasn’t working to input the reg and staff said it would be fine. 2 weeks later a pcn comes through the post.
Sent over an appeal to explain with proof of receipt of my lunch at said pub. Rejected. I expected this of course so appealed to IAS (independent appeals service) thinking they would be unbiased - only to have the appeal dismissed. Later found out IAS is funded by the parking operators who are members of the International Parking Community (IPC) trade association, so rather than be genuinely independent it’s more of a "rubber stamp". This makes complete sense when you look at 94% rejection rate of appeals.

I recently submitted a detailed appeal to the IAS (UKPPO) concerning a charge issued against a commercial vehicle engaged in essential loading/unloading activity. My appeal was dismissed, and I found the process to be fundamentally flawed and unreliable for motorists with genuine, fact-based defences.

The IAS adjudicator stated they could not consider "mitigating circumstances," which is precisely where my strong evidence—covering Health and Safety necessity, operational demands, and commercial activity—sits. This confirms that the IAS is not equipped to handle complex consumer contract disputes where the activity (delivery) is permitted but the time limit is unreasonable.

Key Issues Noted:

Bias towards Operators: The adjudicator focused only on the time overstay shown by ANPR, ignoring the Operator's own admission that they had no evidence to refute my claim of continuous loading/unloading.

Failure to Address Contractual Flaws: The adjudicator dismissed the argument that the charge is a punitive penalty (GPEOL failure) and failed to adequately address the Operator's sign explicitly violating industry codes (e.g., the "No Grace Period Applies" term).

Procedural Barrier: The dismissal confirms that the IAS acts primarily as a procedural filter, forcing motorists with strong, substantive defences to abandon the claim or incur the expense and risk of County Court litigation, where my defense will now be properly heard by a Judge.

The IAS appears ineffective as an independent arbiter, predictably dismissing cases that fall outside a narrow scope, regardless of the strong evidence provided by the motorist. I would advise all drivers to save their time and resources and prepare for court if they have verifiable evidence of operational necessity or commercial loading.

I had my appeal accepted today after waiting 5 weeks. I wanted to share a positive review as I had lost hope after reading the many poor reviews. It’s worth going to the IAS after the parking company reject your initial appeal.

Did not review half of my appeal the fact that I never recieved the first 2 letters and meanwhile the parking company increased amount owed and sent me the 3rd letter. There is not telephone number or Home Screen not working either so I suspect work with the parking companies

This has been one of the most disappointing and frustrating services I have ever experienced. The organisation operates with a lack of fairness, compassion, and consistency and does not seem to fulfill the purpose for which it was established.

In my recent experience, decisions appeared to be made without proper consideration of the evidence provided and without any sense of empathy or accountability. The process felt subjective and dismissive, and it has left me feeling unheard and undervalued as a customer.

This service requires urgent review and improvement to ensure it operates with transparency, impartiality, and genuine professionalism.

After almost a month of waiting for my decision the ias backed me and accepted my appeal against these evil parking companies. Thank you to the ias

I got empathy from the adjudicator for the fact that it wasn't my fault that I didn't pay the parking cost correctly (two providers adjacent to each other with confusing signage). However, they also dismissed my appeal and made no effort to encourage the parking operator to either mediate with me to resolve the issue in a non-punitive way, and also no effort to encourage the operator to work with their neighbour to resolve the misleading signage situation. This is in fact incentivising the operator to make the signage situation worse so that they can get paid £100 pounds for an hour of parking quite regularly.

The so-called Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is anything but independent. They are a disgrace to the idea of fairness and justice. No matter how much solid, irrefutable evidence you provide, they will ignore it completely. It’s painfully obvious that they exist solely to serve the parking management companies that fund them.

Their decisions are robotic, cold, and blatantly one-sided. There’s no trace of humanity, reason, or integrity in how they operate. It’s as if they’ve never actually read the appeals — they simply rubber-stamp whatever benefits their paying clients.

The IAS is a morally bankrupt organization, a pit of hypocrisy pretending to uphold “justice.” In reality, they’re nothing more than a money-driven racket designed to keep ordinary people powerless. A truly shameful, inhuman setup that undermines any notion of due process.

If you expect fairness, honesty, or any trace of decency, don’t waste your time — the IAS is an insult to all three.