Here is some media people can use in their submissions, particularly with respect to the IPC and its "independent" appeals service (IAS) as compelling evidence for why nothing short of a truly independent external appeals service with truly impartial qualified adjudicators will suffice.
It also helps to evidence that competing appeals services has created a race to the bottom where the IPC is happy to fill the void and provide a pro-operator model that funnels second stage appeals to a dismissal enabling the debt recovery wheeze and the additional £70 out of thin air to be tacked onto PCNs, all to the detriment of consumers.
First, the laughable ownership structure of the IAS with regards to the IPC, UNITI and Will Hurley:
Second, the embarrassing adjudication outcome stats for the IAS vs POPLA (which time and again also makes fundamental errors). The numbers below are all taken from the respective annual activity reports for those years. The IAS now actually has all its activity reports online but only the years below actually include the relevant stats for adjudication outcomes for the IAS.
Important note for these numbers:
For 2018, the IAS only listed the percentage outcome and not the absolute numbers so the ones shown here were back-calculated and may differ slightly from the true value (whatever they might be).
Also something else to include is the embarrassing IPC corporate slide deck from 2016 likely made to woo operators over to the IPC from the BPA. Of particular note is slide 7 where the IPC slide deck proudly states how the IAS has a 95% average "success" rate for operators vs POPLA's lower "success" rate in adjudicating PCN appeals.
The slideshow is available at:
https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx
If that link magically stops working, I've made sure it is logged on the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250805234205/https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx
You might note the slide deck's author is John Davies of Gladstones.
It also helps to evidence that competing appeals services has created a race to the bottom where the IPC is happy to fill the void and provide a pro-operator model that funnels second stage appeals to a dismissal enabling the debt recovery wheeze and the additional £70 out of thin air to be tacked onto PCNs, all to the detriment of consumers.
First, the laughable ownership structure of the IAS with regards to the IPC, UNITI and Will Hurley:
Second, the embarrassing adjudication outcome stats for the IAS vs POPLA (which time and again also makes fundamental errors). The numbers below are all taken from the respective annual activity reports for those years. The IAS now actually has all its activity reports online but only the years below actually include the relevant stats for adjudication outcomes for the IAS.
Important note for these numbers:
For 2018, the IAS only listed the percentage outcome and not the absolute numbers so the ones shown here were back-calculated and may differ slightly from the true value (whatever they might be).
Also something else to include is the embarrassing IPC corporate slide deck from 2016 likely made to woo operators over to the IPC from the BPA. Of particular note is slide 7 where the IPC slide deck proudly states how the IAS has a 95% average "success" rate for operators vs POPLA's lower "success" rate in adjudicating PCN appeals.
The slideshow is available at:
https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx
If that link magically stops working, I've made sure it is logged on the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250805234205/https://www.imperial.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/IPC-membership-benefits.pptx
You might note the slide deck's author is John Davies of Gladstones.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
