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:
• Consumers are denied fair redress
• Trade bodies create structural barriers to justice
• Corporate control distorts outcomes
• The appeals process is not independent or accountable
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:
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.
You or anyone else can do the same. Use this official CMA guidance page:
How to make a competition or consumer law complaintDO 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).
