Independent Appeals Service (IAS) Appeal Submission
Appellant: [Your Name]
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Reference]
Grounds for Appeal
I am appealing as the Hirer of the vehicle and dispute the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:1. Non-Compliance with Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):The Notice to Hirer (NtH) issued by the parking operator does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of PoFA. Specifically:• The operator failed to include a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) as required under Paragraph 14(2)(a).
• The operator failed to include copies of the documents as required under Paragraph 13(2)(b).
These omissions mean that the operator cannot transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to me as the Hirer of the vehicle.
2. Rejection of Initial Appeal Fails to Address the Core Issue:The operator’s rejection of my initial appeal failed to address the fundamental issue of non-compliance with PoFA. Instead, their response merely reiterated the alleged contravention without recognising that liability cannot be imposed on the Hirer in the absence of compliance with statutory requirements.
3. No Evidence of Contractual Breach by the Hirer:Even if the operator’s NtH were PoFA-compliant (which it is not), they have provided no evidence that I, as the Hirer, personally entered into any contract with the operator or that I was responsible for any alleged contravention.
4. Failure to Establish Hirer Liability:As liability has not been properly established in accordance with PoFA, the operator cannot hold the Hirer liable for the charge. Any attempt to do so is a misrepresentation of the law and unenforceable.
Summary
The NtH issued to me as the Hirer is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the operator has failed to establish liability. As such, I request that the IAS allows my appeal and cancels this PCN.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Most of their response will be generic but it would be useful to see it in full if you can upload a copy.
The IAS appeal if you're submitting one should ideally be more detailed, showing exactly why you are not liable. We can provide some help with this.
Please also confirm that when you received the Notice to Hirer (NtH) in the Hirers name, did they include copies of the following documents:(a) a copy of a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
Also, please confirm that you only appealed using the wording I advised earlier in this thread and that you did not select any option that said the Hirer was the driver.
8.4. Process for appealing a parking charge
8.4.1. Where a parking operator accepts payment of a parking charge, they do not need to offer the ability to appeal providing this is clear in the notice. Parking operators must provide a process for motorists to appeal against a Parking Charge (including unpaid parking tariff) in accordance with Annex C,
which:
a) allows that the parking charge may be appealed within 28 days;
b) requires the parking operator to respond to appeals within 28 days or, where a decision on the appeal is not concluded within 28 days, requires the parking operator to acknowledge the appeal and confirm the timeframe for concluding it, including the supply of additional information;
c) requires the parking operator to consider appeals received outside of the normal 28-day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes.
I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Park Watch has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtHK can only hold the driver liable. Park Watch have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.