You can appeal with the following but don't hold your breath for a positive outcome. You are dealing with an ex-clamper member of the IPC. This will eventually be won when they issue a claim and it is defended with our assistance. It will never reach a hearing as it will be either struck out or discontinued.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in your Notice to Keeper (NtK), and I am formally disputing your purported 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be raising a complaint about your predatory practices with your client, the landowner.
1. Your NtK Fails to Comply with PoFA 2012 No Keeper Liability
Your NtK does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore you cannot hold me, as the registered keeper, liable. PoFA 9(2)(a) explicitly requires that the NtK must specify the period of parking. Your NtK only states a single moment in time rather than a defined parking period.
This was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court held that failing to specify a parking period renders PoFA unenforceable against a keeper. Since you have not complied with PoFA, you cannot transfer liability to me. No inference or assumption may be made about the identity of the driver, and I have no obligation to name them.
2. Non-Compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) No Contract Formed
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Section 5.1 requires operators to allow a minimum 5-minute consideration period for drivers to review the terms and conditions before deciding whether to stay.
Your NtK alleges Driver Observed Leaving Site, but you have provided no evidence that the driver exceeded this mandatory consideration period. The driver was merely reading the signage and promptly left. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, and I put you to strict proof that the vehicle remained beyond this 5-minute allowance.
3. No Further Engagement
As for the IAS, they are well known to be a waste of time. They are a kangaroo court and their biased decision, should the PCN not be cancelled at this appeal, will not be binding and so won't be engaged with. Debt collectors are powerless time wasters and as they are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver, they cannot do anything and will be ignored.
I will not respond to debt recovery letters.
I will not entertain IAS as it is demonstrably biased in favour of operators.
If you proceed with a claim, I will robustly defend it in court, where you will have to justify your predatory and baseless charge in front of a judge.
You will be wasting your money paying for claims fees, hearing fees, and legal costs, only to have your case torn apart for failing to comply with PoFA and the PPSCoP.
Cancel the PCN
Given the above, I strongly suggest you cancel this charge now rather than waste your resources pursuing an unwinnable claim.