Theias Bewertungen 

I recently used the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) to appeal a private parking charge and was very disappointed with the outcome and the way my evidence was considered.

I had genuinely attempted to comply with the parking arrangements and had made payments using the payment machine at the site. The operator accepted that I had paid, but argued that payment applied only to the Visitor Parking area and that the area where I parked required an e-permit.

My appeal specifically raised concerns about the clarity of the signage, the site layout, the location of the payment machine and the clarity of the bay markings. However, the final decision largely accepted the operator's assertion that the signage was "prominent throughout the site" and concluded that I "should have realised" that I was in a permit-only area.

I found this particularly disappointing because the purpose of an appeals process should be to objectively consider whether the parking terms were sufficiently clear to a motorist before parking, rather than simply accepting the operator's interpretation after the event.

The IAS also states that the operator bears the burden of establishing that the charge was properly issued. Nevertheless, I felt that the operator's evidence and interpretation were given considerably more weight than the practical circumstances and evidence I presented.

I appreciate that an appeal will not always be successful, but I expected a more thorough and balanced consideration of the evidence, particularly regarding signage, bay markings and the distinction between the payment and permit parking arrangements.

Based on my experience, I would not recommend the IAS to motorists seeking what they believe will be an independent and genuinely balanced review of a private parking dispute.

Would be no stars but that option isn't available.

As with many people here I have had a very poor experience with the IAS where they clearly showed bias towards the parking operator and based their decision on insisting on ignoring facts which the parking operator had already accepted as true.

I stayed at a Premier Inn (free parking for guests) and put my numberplate into the terminal in the reception. A month later Smart Parking sends me a PCN claiming I had not validated my parking. I sent them my hotel invoice saying I had put my car registration number in and here is my proof of right to park. They replied accepting that I was a guest but saying that as they didn't have a record of my car registration number I was still liable - but they would give me a discount - obviously I said no thanks and appealed to IAS.
In the appeal I pointed out my right to park under the hotel contract and asked for Smart parking to prove their terminal was working. Smart parking replied with signage and photos of the car and claimed I had accepted I had not registered my car numberplate. I replied with their own paperwork showing that the parking signage said "for hotel guests only" and that they had already accepted I was a guest, and that they were well aware I had already said I registered my numberplate and they had therefore lied to IAS.
IAS found for Smart Parking on the basis that I hadn't proved I had put my numberplate in (an impossible ask as only Smart Parking has access to the information and did not provide it) and that there was no proof that Premier Inn contract was for the carpark (despite Smart Parking having already accepted it was in their own paperwork) - final insult was they said Parking Smart's lie about me saying I hadn't put my registration in was "just an error" and they couldn't consider it in their ajudication and I should take that up with the appropriate Parking Trade association.

The IAS are clearly not independent and did not find on the basis of facts. The only good thing in the process is that I now have is a cast iron paper trail of Smart Parking admitting I was a guest with the right to park and then them lying in an official arbitration process - all good ammunition if they are foolish enough to try and take me to court ;-)

I rarely leave negative reviews, but my experience with the IAS appeals process has left me extremely disappointed.
Like many other reviewers, I am left with the impression that the system is heavily weighted in favour of parking companies rather than motorists. I submitted my appeal in good faith, only to discover that once it had been lodged, there was no meaningful opportunity to provide additional evidence or update my case.
After submitting my appeal, BaySentry themselves acknowledged that a clerical error had occurred. They informed me that they could see the mistake and indicated that they would pass this information on. Despite this, I was still expected to pay an additional £20 'administration charge' on top of the parking fee I had already paid for using the car park.
I was unable to access the payment link provided and therefore waited for the IAS decision. What is most frustrating is that BaySentry had already admitted that the issue resulted from a clerical error, yet this appeared to carry little or no weight in the appeal outcome. Instead of considering the admitted mistake, the IAS upheld the charge and required me to pay £100.
Faced with the threat of escalating costs and potential court action, I felt I had no realistic option but to pay immediately. Only afterwards did I discover that once payment has been made, there is effectively no route to continue challenging the decision.
The entire process felt unfair, inflexible, and predetermined. An admitted clerical error should have been a significant factor in the appeal, yet it seemingly made no difference whatsoever. The result was a great deal of unnecessary stress, wasted time, and additional expense.
Based on my experience, I have little confidence that the IAS provides an independent or balanced review of cases, and I would not recommend relying on the appeals process if you expect all relevant evidence to be given proper consideration.

I have used these guys three times and so far lost all three despite providing strong evidence. Like have already been pointed out, this organisation is compromised and very corrupt. No matter the evidence you provide they will always side with the other party

This just feels like a massive waste of time and a con of an experience. Takes nearly 2 months to deal with this whole thing, considering they have already come up with their conclusion before even reading your appeal they should just automate it. Another way for these companies to pressure you into believing you should pay the fines when you do not have. The parking company even illegally told me that the IAS is binding, omitting the fact that it is only binding on them. Thankfully, I know it is not and it is just another step you have to do before you can defend your rights in court. It is a sham of a service that essentially attempts to give these crook parking companies legitimacy but it is clear that they have bias from the backhanders and funding they receive from these companies. I can't believe these are allowed in this day and age.

I provide unquestionable photo evidence of missing and illegible signs and also highlighted that one of the photo the parking company provided as evidence was not even the same area, to my astonishment my appeal was rejected by the IAS

IAS claim that their Adjudicators have no links or relationships with parking companies in any capacity. But the truth is The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is funded by the parking industry, specifically through fees paid by parking operators (£15 for successful appeals, £25 for unsuccessful ones). Please look this up yourselves. So IAS is just another parking con to trick people out of their hard earned cash. I am more than happy to go to court for this one.

The IAS sounds like an ombudsman. It isn’t.

Parking firms in the IPC set it up. They fund it. Then they send you there after they reject your appeal.

It is just a fake watchdog made to look official. If you didn’t know who pays them, it would look like a proper court. They are classed by Trading Standards as an official disputes body, and a small team of about 6 solicitors actually make the decisions.

But do not be fooled; the same people that gave you a parking ticket pay for the body that reviews it. They’re all in on it, and the fact it has “Independent” in the name is criminal.

They don’t decide if the ticket was fair. They only decide if the firm followed its own paperwork, your actual story doesn’t matter.

They used to say how often drivers won. In 2021 it was 6%, then they stopped publishing the number.

Luckily their decisions are not legally binding. If you lose, the operator still has to take you to court before they can get their grubby hands on your money.

They’ll try every bully tactic and scary letter to intimidate you first. Having a fake ombudsman is just another item in their weapons menu.

Use their process if you want a paper trail but don’t treat their “no” as the end. If your case is real, they will back off when they see you won’t roll over.

This is a well disguised scam by design. Qualified people, official badge, bully tactics, and pretend you’re legitimate. Nobody expects anything else from the UK parking industry. This is just their latest dirty trick.

The IAS claims to be independent, but it is basically an operator funded rubber stamp for companies like UK CPM. Adjudicators completely ignore basic tenancy contracts and land rights. If a parking firm puts a sign up, IAS will back them every time, even when a resident gets ticketed in their own allocated bay. They exist to protect the parking industry income, not to be fair. MPs need to look into this service properly and force them to publish full statistics on how many appeals they dismiss compared to those upheld for drivers.

It was waste of time. I paid for parking pay machine doesn't print recipients for months. But i haven't go issues with paying for parking there before UNTIL I go ticket asking for 100£ for parking thtavi already, my evidence of bank statement is not enough even that there is date and localisation of payment i have made! Apparently my car reg doesn't show on bank statement so its not a prove. And its my fault to not inform somone that pay michine doesn't print recipients as it apparently my responsibility now. so even that i paid i had to pay 100£! As IAS back up parking and said that i should of pay in different way even that i already paid. But you can't pay for parking without reg in the system... System registered my payment as it went through but not my car? It's not the matter of paper recipes if i have bank statement but IAS definitely doesn't intend to help YOU

I thought I had a cast iron case with my parking appeal but after reading reviews on this site I was not confident of success. Both the adjudicator and the operator accepted I had paid the specified parking fee for the duration of my stay but they found a technicality to dismiss my appeal. I received no answers to the points I raised and am extremely doubtful if the adjudicator visited the car park to check these. Disappointed in both the result and the process. Just like the other watchdogs, there to distance government and not for consumer protection.

This appears a biased and totally unregulated organisation , they do not apply the law correctly and abuse published parking regulations, deliberately misinterpreting the law..Despite providing evidence within IPC industry standards of a considerstion period of 5 minutes this organisation supported Euro Parking Services in a ridiculous claim of 3 49 seconds within this period. The driver never left their vehicle and drove away, they did not infringe the conditions of the signage, IAS stated the ticket still stands and this law doesn't exist. The PCN was delivered 20 days after the alleged incident breaching the 14 day rule and still the IAS stated it was valid. This organisation should be reported to the Government for improper practices, motorists should automatically disregard the IAS and challenge their tickets directly within the courts. The IAS is not independent or fair. Motorists should stand firm and routinely reject their worthless responses and make it difficult for the parking operators, Their decision is not binding on the motorist this tells you everything !

They have taken 3 weeks to complete the appeal and took nothing I provided into account. The parking fine company that issued the ticket took 2 weeks to upload the pcn to the appeal company and then the parking company and this company are clearly working together to take peoples money! Absolute scam of a company! I think I might take this further and raise an inquiry into the legality of this business!

Same as all other negative reviews they are a scam company, they get paid from parking companies to close all appeal cases in the company’s favour not the appellant.
I told them to go F yourself , do not waste your time even doing the appeal , private parking charge notices can’t do anything just empty threats and BS.

Spent about a day uploading picture evidence and written testimony for the website portal to keep crashing and saying please wait.Once i finally managed to upload everything and try to submit my defense I got the spinning wheel and please wait again message.
Ive been trying for two days now and will be out of time to file my defense.
Ive emailed theias.org twice and had no reply, ive also tried to call the contact number but everytime it connects it says that the mailbox is full and i cant leave a message.
For the Independant Parking service to have such a bad system to offer the public is letting us down.

Disgraceful service, not independent at all, in bed with the scum bag car park operators! Great to see we've gone back to the wild west of parking charges, backed up by their mates at the 'independant' appeals service!

Agree with many others here, I genuinely don't think that they read a word of my appeal. Most frustrating.

Absolutely Disappointed – My Experience with the IAS

I found the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) appeal process to be extremely disappointing and, in my experience, far from independent.

I received a Parking Charge Notice after using a petrol station. I briefly left the site to use a nearby toilet because there were no toilet facilities available at the petrol station. I explained in my appeal that I had no reasonable alternative, as urinating in public is an offence. Despite providing this explanation, my appeal was rejected.

The outcome left me feeling that my circumstances were not properly considered and that the process heavily favoured the parking company. It seemed there was little or no consideration of the lack of toilet facilities or the practical situation I faced.

I was also disappointed that the IAS states its decisions are not legal advice. That made me question what value the appeal process provides to motorists who are looking for a genuinely impartial review.

My experience has left me questioning whether appellants receive equal and fair treatment. As someone with a foreign or Asian name, I personally came away feeling that I had not been treated fairly. Whether that was the case or not, that was the impression the process gave me.

Overall, I found the IAS appeal process to be ineffective, frustrating, and lacking the independence I expected. Based on my experience, I would not recommend relying on it if you are hoping for a genuinely fair and impartial assessment of your appeal.

My car stalled while finding the correct car park in Bristol airport for about 3 minutes..I got a £100 fine..I appealed and obviously this was turned down..I was going to appeal but on reading the comments on "ais.org" I feel without prejudice "too frightened to appeal "as this will cost me another £40..as a pensioner I cannot afford this so I have had to pay the £60 fine..I now feel too frightened to book parking at the airport again because it's their rules or no rules..

Complete waste of time, don’t bother.

My experience gave the impression that the adjudicators had already decided in favour of the parking operator before considering the circumstances of the appeal.

In my case, I was parked correctly in my allocated bay, which I pay for. I was not over any lines and was fully entitled to park there. However, due to extremely hot weather, the plastic backing on my permit curled slightly, obscuring part of the permit number, and I was issued with a parking charge solely for that reason.

It seems obvious that there is a design flaw with permits that use plastic backing, particularly during periods of hot weather, yet this was not taken into consideration at all.

The decision appeared to focus solely on the wording of the parking terms and conditions, specifically that permits must be clearly displayed. Because part of my permit number was obscured, the appeal was effectively dismissed without any consideration of why it had happened. Realistically, what is a permit holder expected to do, sit outside all day monitoring their permit to ensure it does not curl in the heat?

While I appreciate that I am speaking from my own experience, anyone considering an appeal should be aware that it may feel as though the circumstances of the case are largely ignored. Despite presenting what I believed to be a reasonable explanation and clear evidence that I was authorised to park in my own bay, the process felt rigid, inflexible and unwilling to apply any common sense.

The adjudicators came across as though they were simply applying the rules mechanically, with little regard for the specific facts of the case.

And remember, if you get dismissed, you have to pay the full charge so just be careful…