Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Odogwu69 on September 02, 2026, 10:38:43 am
-
At face value, your assertion is still your assertion - adding a signature does not automatically add credibility.
The starting point under PoFA is "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted". The difficult part is proving something didn't happen. The issue is that if all that was needed to "prove the contrary" was for you to say you didn't receive something, then everyone would do that.
The interesting part in your case would seem to be that the operator themselves have offered evidence that the service they use can take longer than the two days presumed by the legislation. This could be used to try and tip the balance of probability.
So that we can explore the case more thoroughly, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/). Let's explore all options rather than putting all our eggs in a 14 day basket.
Thank you for your response.
This is the parking charge letter, I have redacted personal identifiable information.
https://ibb.co/pBYBwXNM (https://ibb.co/pBYBwXNM)
This is the certificate of postage for the parking charge letter
https://ibb.co/XfKCXPrY (https://ibb.co/XfKCXPrY)
This is the screenshot they presented to show a partial payment was made.
https://ibb.co/kgL5R5Pk (https://ibb.co/kgL5R5Pk)
This is the site map they provided.
https://ibb.co/RpYttt5B (https://ibb.co/RpYttt5B)
https://ibb.co/fYRY2h4M (https://ibb.co/fYRY2h4M)
These are the signages they presented as posted around the car park.
https://ibb.co/J6d3S9J (https://ibb.co/J6d3S9J)
https://ibb.co/0pfCYv4h (https://ibb.co/0pfCYv4h)
https://ibb.co/5X8WjcxT (https://ibb.co/5X8WjcxT)
https://ibb.co/FkFdvp1x (https://ibb.co/FkFdvp1x)
https://ibb.co/N6hMBhmS (https://ibb.co/N6hMBhmS)
https://ibb.co/BHsCH3B1 (https://ibb.co/BHsCH3B1)
This is my original appeal directly to bank park.
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice solely in my capacity as the registered keeper. I make no admission regarding the identity of the driver, and the driver will not be identified.
The alleged parking event was recorded using ANPR. No Notice to Driver was placed on the vehicle or otherwise given at the time. Consequently, if Bank Park intends to hold the registered keeper liable, the Notice to Keeper must comply fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The relevant dates are:
Date of alleged parking event: 23 June 2026
Final date for delivery under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4: 7 July 2026
Date the Notice to Keeper was actually delivered: 14 July 2026
Paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5) of Schedule 4 require the Notice to Keeper to be delivered within the period of 14 days beginning with the day after the specified period of parking ended.
The Notice to Keeper was not delivered to my address until 14 July 2026, seven days after the statutory deadline. I confirm that 14 July 2026 was the date on which the notice was first received at my address.
Although the notice is dated 4 July 2026, the date printed on the notice does not establish when it was actually handed to the postal service. The statutory presumption concerning postal delivery is rebuttable where the contrary is proved. In this case, the notice was actually delivered on 14 July 2026.
Should Bank Park maintain that the notice was delivered within the relevant period, please provide contemporaneous evidence showing:
The date on which the notice was handed to the postal provider;
The class or method of postage used;
The relevant certificate of posting, postal manifest or mailing records; and
Any tracking, processing or audit records relied upon.
As the Notice to Keeper was not delivered within the relevant period, Bank Park has failed to satisfy the statutory conditions necessary to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
There is no legal obligation on me to identify the driver, and I decline to do so. In the absence of keeper liability, there is no lawful basis on which Bank Park may recover this charge from me as the registered keeper.
Please cancel the Parking Charge Notice and confirm the cancellation in writing.
Should this appeal be rejected, please provide a fully reasoned response addressing the failure to deliver the Notice to Keeper within the statutory period, together with all evidence relied upon and the necessary information to refer the matter to the Independent Appeals Service.
This is their response to my appeal.
(https://ibb.co/0RDQgPxx)
After this, I decided to take the matter to the IAS.
My appeal to the IAS.
I appeal solely in my capacity as the Registered Keeper. I do not admit or disclose the identity of the driver.
This was an ANPR-issued postal notice. No Notice to Driver was placed on the vehicle or otherwise issued at the time. Accordingly, for Bank Park to rely upon statutory keeper liability, it was required to comply fully with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The alleged parking event occurred on 23 June 2026. Under paragraphs 9(4) and 9(5), the Notice to Keeper had to be delivered within the period of 14 days beginning with the day after the specified period of parking ended. The final date for delivery was therefore 7 July 2026.
The Notice to Keeper was not delivered to my address until 14 July 2026. I confirm that this was the date on which it was first received.
Although the notice is dated 4 July 2026, the printed date does not establish when it was actually posted or handed to the postal provider. The presumption of delivery under paragraph 9(6) is expressly rebuttable where the contrary is proved.
As explained in my signed statement, post at my address is delivered through a mail slot in the front door. On the morning of 14 July 2026, I passed the inside of the door and observed that no Bank Park letter was present in or beneath the mail slot. Later that day, I found the envelope containing the Notice to Keeper lodged halfway through the mail slot and personally removed it. This evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the notice was delivered on 14 July 2026, after the statutory deadline.
Bank Park's rejection letter supplied no certificate of posting, postal manifest, mailing audit trail or other contemporaneous evidence establishing when the Notice to Keeper was handed to the postal provider. If Bank Park now asserts that the notice was delivered within the relevant period, it should be required to provide such evidence.
My original appeal specifically raised Bank Park's failure to deliver the Notice to Keeper within the statutory period. Its rejection did not address that ground. Instead, it stated that a parking payment had been made but was insufficient to cover the duration of the stay.
That assertion may concern whether the parking terms were allegedly breached, but it does not establish the identity of the driver and does not remedy Bank Park's failure to comply with Schedule 4. The fact that a payment was made is not, by itself, evidence that the Registered Keeper was driving.
Bank Park has not provided evidence establishing that I was the driver. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and decline to do so.
Bank Park has therefore failed to satisfy the statutory conditions required to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the Registered Keeper. I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
Their response to my IAS appeal.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 04/07/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 23/06/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The Regent Centre - Green/Brown Car Park is privately owned land and has contractual terms and conditions of entry and to remain. The terms and conditions are performed to the driver through numerous signage across the site. To enter and remain otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions results in liability to the PCN issued.
On the day in question, the appellant entered the Regent Centre - Green/Brown Car Park and remained on private land otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of entry. The vehicle, RJ21BXC, was captured entering and exiting the facility, through ANPR camera capture stills, for a complete duration of stay of 3 hours and 18 minutes.
One of the terms and conditions is to ensure that a valid pay and display ticket or electronic parking session is purchased from the payment methods employed on site. The payment data on site corroborate motorist purchases with vehicle entries to determine whether a valid payment has been made. If a valid payment has not been made for the vehicle that entered onto site, a PCN is issued.
Whilst we appreciate a payment was made the payment was not sufficient to cover the duration of stay.
The terms and conditions are made clear to the driver on the day through the signage across the site. As the appellant did not purchase a valid parking ticket, their remainder on private land was in contravention. By remaining on private land otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions, the appellant agreed to pay the charge stated. This PCN has been issued correctly.
My response to their prima facie case at the IAS.
I acknowlege that the operator has now produced a document headed "Certificate of Postage" from postworks. However, this document does not establish that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the statutory period.
The certificate states that the document was "sent through hybrid mail" on 4 July 2026 at 02:22:47 and identifies the delivery class as "3 - 4 day delivery". It does not record when the physical letter was printed, placed into an envelope or handed to Royal Mail. Nor does it contain a Royal Mail acceptance scan, network-entry timestamp, tracking event or proof of delivery.
Hybrid mail involves an electronic document being sent to a provider, which subsequently prints, envelopes and posts it. The date on which a document was entered into a hybrid-mail system is not necessarily the date on which the physical notice was posted for the purposes of paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 4.
The operator has therefore still not provided clear evidence of the date on which the physical Notice to Keeper entered the postal system.
In any event, paragraph 9(6) provides only a rebuttable presumption of delivery. I have supplied direct evidence establishing the contrary.
Post at my address is delivered through a mail slot in the front door. On the morning of 14 July 2026, I passed the inside of the door and observed that no Bank Park envelope was present in or beneath the mail slot. Later that day, I found the envelope containing the Notice to Keeper lodged halfway through the mail slot and personally removed it.
This was the first occasion on which the notice was received. My signed statement is based on my direct personal observations and supports, on the balance of probabilities, that the notice was delivered on 14 July 2026 rather than by the statutory deadline of 7 July 2026.
If the certificate is nevertheless treated as evidence of posting on 4 July 2026, that would only engage the rebuttable presumption under paragraph 9(6). It would not conclusively determine the actual delivery date or displace my evidence of actual delivery on 14 July 2026.
The operator's remaining evidence establishes only that vehicle RJ21BXC entered and exited the site and that two hours of parking were purchased. The ANPR photographs do not identify the driver, and the payment summary contains no evidence establishing that the Registered Keeper was driving.
Indeed, the Notice to Keeper expressly states that the operator does not know the driver's name and address. The operator cannot convert evidence relating to the vehicle or an alleged underpayment into evidence that the Registered Keeper personally entered into the parking contract.
Consequently, even if an underlying charge arose against the unidentified driver, the operator has not established that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the relevant period or that liability was validly transferred to me as Registered Keeper. I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed.
The IAS adjudicators decision.
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity to consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In consideration for entering the site they agree to pay for the time parked or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.
I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map, exhibits and images.
The Appellant claims that they paid to park. This has been accepted as a payment for an incorrect amount. The Operator has correctly followed the code of practice and agreed to accept a reduced payment. This marks the fact the Appellant has paid, but with insufficient funds in breach of the terms and conditions. However, the Operator has suffered costs due to the Appellant's error.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must pay for parking their vehicle, which entitles them to park at the site. In the evidence provided to me it is clear that an insufficient payment was made and therefore that a Parking Charge Notice was lawfully issued. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they pay for the entirety of their parking and that it conforms with the tariff, terms and conditions of the parking operator's signage displayed at this site. The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.
Turning to the identity of the driver, POFA 2012 and case law permits the Operator to hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge regardless as to whether they are the driver or not. The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
The Notice to Keeper is considered in time unless there is evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was received after the second working day. In the absence of such evidence I cannot consider the matter further.
The Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, and they exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable to pay the full charge.
-
Elliot v Loake is nonsense so ignore that - Court's have dismissed it consistently.
Please post up the original PCN.
-
At face value, your assertion is still your assertion - adding a signature does not automatically add credibility.
The starting point under PoFA is "A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted". The difficult part is proving something didn't happen. The issue is that if all that was needed to "prove the contrary" was for you to say you didn't receive something, then everyone would do that.
The interesting part in your case would seem to be that the operator themselves have offered evidence that the service they use can take longer than the two days presumed by the legislation. This could be used to try and tip the balance of probability.
So that we can explore the case more thoroughly, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/). Let's explore all options rather than putting all our eggs in a 14 day basket.
-
**TL;DR:** Parking company says its Notice to Keeper was sent on 4 July by “3–4 day delivery”; POFA deadline was 7 July, but I received it on 14 July and gave signed evidence of this. IAS rejected my appeal. **Pay £100 now or defend if they sue?**
**Full post below**
I’m looking for a practical view on whether this is worth defending if the parking company issues a County Court claim, or whether I should just pay the £100.
This is an ANPR private parking charge in England. No windscreen ticket was issued.
The parking event was on **23 June 2026**. For keeper liability under Schedule 4 POFA, the Notice to Keeper needed to be delivered by **7 July 2026**.
The notice is dated **4 July 2026**, but I received it on **14 July 2026**.
I appealed as the registered keeper and did not identify the driver.
At IAS, the operator produced a Postworks “Certificate of Postage” stating that the notice was sent through hybrid mail on **4 July at 02:22** using a **“3–4 day delivery”** service.
I submitted a signed statement saying that on the morning of 14 July there was no Bank Park letter at my door, but later that day I found the envelope lodged halfway through the mail slot and personally removed it.
The IAS rejected my appeal. The adjudicator said:
“The Notice to Keeper is considered in time unless there is evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was received after the second working day.”
My concern is that I did provide a signed first-hand statement, and the operator’s own evidence says the delivery service was 3–4 days. If counted from 4 July, that delivery window potentially extends beyond the 7 July POFA deadline.
The adjudicator also incorrectly stated that I **denied being the driver**. I actually selected **“I’m not prepared to say”**. They then relied on *Elliott v Loake* and said I had failed to prove I was not driving.
The operator’s original Notice to Keeper itself says it **did not know the name and address of the driver** and was seeking to rely on POFA keeper liability.
The operator also claimed that the registered keeper was the driver, and they have CCTV footage. However, they didn’t provide any CCTV footage as evidence during the IAS appeal. They solely relied on ANPR showing vehicle entry and exit times.
The IAS decision is not binding on me. Bank Park now wants **£100**.
So the practical question is: **would you pay the £100 now, or is this a sufficiently arguable defence that you would let Bank Park issue a County Court claim and defend it?**
I’m particularly interested in views on whether my evidence is realistically capable of rebutting the POFA delivery presumption on the balance of probabilities.