Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to remain parked beyond the expiry of the ticket displayed in their vehicle, having been allowed an adequate grace period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued.
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled, which I struggle to see any valid reason for.
Because they are firm of scamming bar stewards. The IAS is a company with the same directors as the IPC. Judge, jury and executioner, all rolled into one.
They have deliberately made it as difficult as possible for anyone to try and appeal in any meaningful way. There is something I wouldn't do, even if they were on fire...
Zero respect for them and hopefully once the Private Parking legislation is active, it will see their demise.
On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled, which I struggle to see any valid reason for.
Response to operators Prima Facie case:
If the assessor genuinely holds legal qualifications at solicitor or barrister level — a claim for which the IAS offers no transparency or public verification — they would know that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) requires a valid Notice to Keeper (NtK) where the parking operator seeks to pursue the registered keeper, in cases where the driver is not identified. This obligation applies specifically when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued and the keeper has not admitted to being the driver. In this case, the NtD was affixed to the vehicle, and I appealed solely in my capacity as keeper without making any admission of driver identity. Therefore, absent a compliant NtK, the operator’s reliance on PoFA is not only procedurally defective — it is legally embarrassing.
The suggestion that my appeal, made solely in the capacity of registered keeper, somehow enables Armtrac to bypass the requirements of PoFA and retrospectively assign driver liability is not just legally untenable — it is desperate. Lipstick on a pig remains a pig, and the misapplication of statute does not cure a fatally defective claim.
Therefore if the IAS assessor is indeed legally qualified — as claimed but never substantiated — they will be fully aware that in cases where an NtD has been issued and the keeper has not admitted to being the driver, PoFA requires the issuance of a valid NtK to engage keeper liability. This is not discretionary. The absence of a Notice to Keeper in this case is fatal to any attempt to rely on PoFA.
Should the assessor choose to ignore this foundational requirement — which sits at the heart of Schedule 4 — it will speak volumes about the reliability and independence of this adjudication process. The consistent refusal to attribute decisions to named individuals only compounds the perception that transparency and legal rigour are lacking. If the decision rendered here genuinely reflects qualified legal reasoning, its author should be willing to put their name to it. If not, one must question why.
In summary, the absence of a valid NtK, combined with the lack of any driver identification, renders keeper liability entirely inapplicable under PoFA The operator cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper, and any attempt to do so is procedurally defective and unenforceable.
11(1)The third condition is that—
(a)the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) has made an application for the keeper's details in relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate;
(b)the application was made during the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given);
(c)the information sought by the application is provided by the Secretary of State to the applicant.
(2)The third condition only applies if the vehicle is a registered vehicle.
(3)In this paragraph “application for the keeper's details” means an application for the following information to be provided to the applicant by virtue of regulations made under section 22(1)(c) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994—
(a)the name of the registered keeper of the vehicle during the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate; and
(b)the address of that person as it appears on the register (or, if that person has ceased to be the registered keeper, as it last appeared on the register).
8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.
(6)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; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.
5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
(2)If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 10/07/2025 09:51:00.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 09/05/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The vehicle was parked with no valid parking session/permit in a Pay and Display Car Park.
Issue Reason: Expired Ticket
Photographic evidence held for this PCN: 15 Photographs.
Our photographic evidence shows the vehicle was displaying an expired ticket and as such the vehicle was legitimately issued with a Parking Charge Notice. A ticket is only valid until the expiry time printed and no longer. It is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they return on or before the expiry time. We have a duty to the landowners who contact us to carry out periodic patrols on their behalf to ensure the rules are adhered to.
Our photographic evidence clearly shows that the ticket displayed within the vehicle expired at 14.30 and the PCN was issued at 15.03, therefore your vehicle had been parked on site for 33 minutes without valid authorisation. Please see attached evidence.
It is a driver's responsibility to ensure they have purchased a ticket to cover the stay required within the car park. A motorist would be expected to consider the time they require before purchasing a pay and display ticket.
In this case there is no requirement to issue a Notice To Keeper. The PCN was affixed to the vehicle at the time of contravention that the appellant admits has been received. The PCN states that a parking charge of £100 is due from the driver within 28 days of the date of issue of this notice. Had the appellant not been the driver at the time of contravention, then they should have transferred liability to the driver. They have however, appealed the PCN themselves, we will pursue the PCN holding the appellant liable as the Registered Keeper. Had no correspondence been received from the appellant then after 28 days, we would obtain the Registered Keeper details from the DVLA. There is no need in this instance as the appellant has provided their details. No Notice to Keeper is required.
There is clear and concise signage displayed at the site. All our sites and signage is audited by our governing body, the IPC. The terms and conditions of parking are very clear at the site, there are numerous terms and conditions signs throughout the site and also the tariff board contains this information.
This PCN was legitimately issued for an Expired Ticket.
We also note that the appellant's appeal is considerably different to their initial appeal to Armtrac Security Services.
The signage at the site states that:
• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit.
• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.
The appellant's vehicle was not covered for the entire parking period where it remained parked on private land. The terms and conditions signs at the site make this requirement very clear to motorists.
We, Armtrac Security Services, are contracted by the landowner to patrol this site ensuring that the terms of parking are adhered to. The signage here states that:
• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit
• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.
• No overnight parking/camping between the hours of 1100pm - 0800am.
• All vehicles must be parked in accordance with all other signage located throughout the site.
Please see tariff board located at entrance for payment information. In the event of a faulty payment terminal, please either use an alternative terminal, pay via the cashless payment facility, or leave the car park without using the facilities. Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted.
By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions.
Breach of ANY terms or conditions will result in the driver being liable for a
PARKING CHARGE of £100
We have followed the guidelines correctly and these rules are put in place by the land owner(s), not ourselves and our officers are instructed to enforce them. When entering a private car park it is for the motorist to consider the rules of parking in order to determine whether parking is suitable for their requirement's; the appellant chose to park their vehicle here at Maenporth Beach Private Pay and Display Car Park and by parking here they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of parking. By Failing to display a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or have a valid cashless payment session covering the entire parking period; the rules of parking were breached and therefore they were legitimately issued with this PCN in accordance with the terms of parking displayed on the signage as a contractual term.
This PCN was correctly issued to the appellant.
We have enclosed Notice to Keeper, all correspondence between Armtrac and the appellant and all photographic evidence held for the PCN.
Please refer to uploads for Site Map, Site Photographs, Signs and Landowner Authority.
The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.
You now have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 16/07/2025 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof that the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if it is attempting to rely on keeper liability. In this case, a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 09/05/2025. I, the registered keeper, submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27). As of the date of this appeal, no Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been served.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, where a NtD has been issued, a compliant NtK must be served between day 28 and day 56 following the alleged contravention in order to establish keeper liability. The operator has failed to do so. Therefore, there is no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. Any attempt to hold me liable in the absence of a valid NtK is a clear breach of PoFA and renders this charge unenforceable against me.
2. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
3. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
4. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” If that is true, then the assessor reading this will know that without a valid Notice to Keeper served in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there can be no keeper liability. That alone is fatal to the operator’s case.
They will also know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that the burden of proof lies squarely with the operator.
Yet the IAS process provides no transparency. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
There is no keeper liability in this case. Here’s why:1. Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the vehicle on 09/05/2025, which constitutes a Notice to Driver under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
2. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued
Since the Keeper (assuming they did not identify as the driver) submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27 after the NtD), and the rejection letter dated 30/06/2025 makes no mention of a Notice to Keeper being issued, the operator has not complied with PoFA requirements to establish Keeper liability.
Under PoFA Schedule 4, if a NtD is issued, the operator must serve a compliant NtK between day 28 and day 56 after the date of the NtD to hold the Keeper liable. Since no NtK has been served, the keeper cannot be held liable.
3. Only the driver can be pursued
Without a valid NtK served in accordance with PoFA, the operator can only pursue the driver, not the keeper. If the keeper has not identified the driver, and no NtK has been issued, the operator has no lawful basis to enforce the charge against the keeper.
Did you identify as the driver? You were supposed to appeal ONLY as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Any reference to the driver should have been in the third person. NO "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
So, has the driver been identified or not?
Don't respond yet as they still have few days in which to issue an NtK. What did you put in as your appeal? You never showed us.