Friday, 4 September 2015

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has become an accredited alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider

According to TransportXtra the IAS have gained ADR status. However, as The Prankster is not a subscriber, the full report must remain a mystery.

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS), which listens to appeals against parking charge notices issued by members of the Independent Parking Committee, has become an accredited alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 come into effect on 9 October. 
The new regulations will require traders, once they fail to resolve a dispute through their own customer service efforts, to...

Ironically, according to TransportXtra the BPA have said POPLA will not go down the same route,

The IAS have not yet appeared on the list of approved bodies listed on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute site, so they may still be in the process of accreditation.

The guidance notes for gaining approval as an ADR body are here.

As the IAS fails to meet large numbers of these criteria, it is difficult to see how they can become accredited without changing the way they work. The Prankster has previously detailed their failings.

It is difficult to see how they will meet this requirement.
(e) The consumer has not submitted a complaint to you within the time period specified by you for dealing with complaints, provided that such time period is not less than 12 Months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer.
Currently the driver is only allowed 21 days to appeal to the trader, and then a further 21 days to appeal to the IAS. Where a windscreen ticket is issued, the keeper is not allowed to appeal at all because they are only notified on or after day 28, 7 days after the appeal window has closed.

The ADR guidelines make it clear that the motorist only has to attempt to resolve the matter with the trader. They do not, for instance have to follow arbitrary rules and obstacles which the trader puts in their way, such as a 21 day deadline to appeal.
The attempt made by the consumer must be a realistic one, although it is an attempt that is required and many disputes arise because a trader fails to respond to attempts from a consumer to raise problems about a transaction. 
Once the trader has refused to deal with the matter, the motorist then has one year to complain to the ADR Entity.

If the IAS does gain accreditation, no doubt the IPC companies will all be haring back to the BPA so they can use POPLA with its 28 day appeal limit.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. "It is difficult to see how they will meet this requirement."

    I would imagine they just poke enough money at the right people?

    1. £6k then...

      The following is presented as a guide to cost for a year one audit:
       Small case load, single scheme. Approximate cost of approval auditing:

  2. There are two things remarked on as "floating to the top". The first is scum and the next also starts with S but ends in T.
    I can't get my head around this. They can't possibly be serious...........

  3. Guidance notes link is broken Mr Prankster!

  4. I note that the "Ombudsman Services" is an ADR accredited body; should be interesting if POPLA is excluded!

  5. It also means, I believe, that if an IPC company takes you to court, you could request the IAS to be used as a mediation (ADR) service at that point, regardless of the original time limits. But unless they actually adhere to the ADR principles, there isn't much benefit to that.

  6. It's a shame POPLA is not going down this route. Being taken to court by an IPC company and requesting POPLA be used as the ADR service would be beyond ironic.

  7. How does that hat taste Mr P?

  8. Not sure I understand your reference. Who would want to taste that hat?

  9. It's true that IAS are now an approved ADR body however this does not mean that their parking appeals comply with the ADR regulations. Ombudsman Services are an approved ADR body but they administer POPLA which is merely an 'appeals service' & not proper ADR. In the same way the IPC/IAS can be an approved body but offer an 'appeals service'. that ignores all the principles of the ADR regulations.