08-18-2026, 05:53 PM
@onFourWheels, excellent result. The IAS appeal has been allowed. I'd suggest you buy a lottery ticket as your luck is in. Less than 5% of IAS appeals are successful.
It is also a very useful IAS decision. The appeal was allowed, but not on the "customer/non-customer" absurdity or PoFA point. It was allowed on signage evidence failure.
The key passage is this:
And then:
That is a very usable point for future IAS appeals. The adjudicator accepted the "inequality of arms" argument and said the operator should counter a signage challenge with photographic evidence of the signage in situ, not just a plan.
There is also one very stupid part:
That is the adjudicator simply repeating the operator's allegation. However, since the appeal was allowed, there is no tactical need to argue about it now, but this was a registered keeper appeal, no driver was identified, and the decision should not be read as any finding that the keeper/appellant was the driver.
The important point is that UKPS failed to prove that the charge was properly issued. The adjudicator accepted that, once signage is challenged, the operator cannot simply rely on a site map. A site map only shows where signs were supposed to be located when the operator took over the site. It does not prove what signage was actually in place, visible, prominent, readable, or capable of forming a contract on the material date.
The adjudicator also accepted the "inequality of arms" point: the operator is in the better position to produce proper evidence of the signs in situ. If they want to rely on contractual signage, they need to produce proper photographic evidence of that signage, not just a plan.
There is some careless wording in the decision where it refers to the appellant allegedly walking offsite. This was a keeper appeal and no driver was identified, so that should not be read as any admission or finding that the keeper was the driver. The decisive point is that the operator failed to establish that the PCN was properly issued.
Good result: appeal allowed, charge cancelled.
This is also useful for future UKPS/IAS cases where operators try to rely on generic maps rather than proving the actual signage on site.
It is also a very useful IAS decision. The appeal was allowed, but not on the "customer/non-customer" absurdity or PoFA point. It was allowed on signage evidence failure.
The key passage is this:
Quote:"Although the operator's prima facie case includes the site map, once an Appellant raises an issue with the signage on site, the operator cannot simply rely on the site map."
And then:
Quote:"The site map is simply an indication as to where the signage should have been located when the operator took over the site. It is not always an accurate representation of the current state of the signage on site."
That is a very usable point for future IAS appeals. The adjudicator accepted the "inequality of arms" argument and said the operator should counter a signage challenge with photographic evidence of the signage in situ, not just a plan.
There is also one very stupid part:
Quote:"However the Appellant walked off site without being a customer."
That is the adjudicator simply repeating the operator's allegation. However, since the appeal was allowed, there is no tactical need to argue about it now, but this was a registered keeper appeal, no driver was identified, and the decision should not be read as any finding that the keeper/appellant was the driver.
The important point is that UKPS failed to prove that the charge was properly issued. The adjudicator accepted that, once signage is challenged, the operator cannot simply rely on a site map. A site map only shows where signs were supposed to be located when the operator took over the site. It does not prove what signage was actually in place, visible, prominent, readable, or capable of forming a contract on the material date.
The adjudicator also accepted the "inequality of arms" point: the operator is in the better position to produce proper evidence of the signs in situ. If they want to rely on contractual signage, they need to produce proper photographic evidence of that signage, not just a plan.
There is some careless wording in the decision where it refers to the appellant allegedly walking offsite. This was a keeper appeal and no driver was identified, so that should not be read as any admission or finding that the keeper was the driver. The decisive point is that the operator failed to establish that the PCN was properly issued.
Good result: appeal allowed, charge cancelled.
This is also useful for future UKPS/IAS cases where operators try to rely on generic maps rather than proving the actual signage on site.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
