[/quote]
Your letter refers to a “contract” yet provides no evidence of the terms relied upon
Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [Insert Reference]
Dear Sirs,
I write in response to your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date]. The letter lacks sufficient detail of the alleged claim and fails to include the key documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, particularly paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2, and also CPR Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a)–(c).
These requirements exist to enable parties to understand and properly respond to claims, and to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Your letter refers to a “contract” yet provides no evidence of the terms relied upon, no copy of the original Notice to Keeper, and no documents substantiating your legal right to enforce or litigate. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence while you fail to disclose the documents you purport to rely on.
To comply with the Protocol and CPR Practice Direction, please provide the following:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and any subsequent correspondence relied upon to establish Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between the Claimant and the driver, specifically an actual photograph of the signage displayed on the date of the alleged contravention, along with a site plan showing the locations of the signs.
3. The exact wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. A copy of the contract or agreement between the Claimant and the landowner or lawful occupier, evidencing the Claimant’s authority to manage the land and take legal action in their own name.
5. A breakdown of the amount claimed, including a justification for any additional charges beyond the original parking charge, and a clarification of whether VAT is applicable.
I am entitled to this information under the PAPDC and require it to discharge my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
Until such time as you provide a Letter Before Claim that fully complies with the PAPDC, I am unable to provide a substantive response. Should you proceed with court action prematurely, I will bring this correspondence to the attention of the court and seek appropriate relief and costs under CPR 3.1(2)(m) and CPR 27.14(2)(g), including a stay and/or sanctions for unreasonable conduct.
Please also note that I will not respond via any third-party debt collection portal. All future correspondence must be sent directly to my postal or email address.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper
A lie!Not necessarily... They said the adjudicator assesses the case based on their understanding of the law, they never claimed their understanding of the law was any good ;)
However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.
Dear xxx,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxx
Date Issued: 17/05/2025
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 failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered on this occasion as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration 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. The Appellant may suggest that they were stopped rather than parked and therefore the PCN is incorrect. I do not agree with this point, as if they were correct this would entitle a driver to ‘stop' indefinitely so long as they did not leave their vehicle unattended. I am satisfied that the images provided prove that the vehicle was parked as alleged. 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
Appellant's Final Rebuttal to Operator's Prima Facie Case:
If the IAS assessor is genuinely legally qualified, then they will, without hesitation, be aware of the persuasive relevance of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), Claim No. B9GF0A9E, heard before HHJ Harris QC in Oxford County Court. In that judgment, the court clarified that temporary stopping for the purposes of collection or delivery is not “parking” in the contractual sense contemplated by private parking schemes.
In this case, the contemporaneous photographic evidence clearly shows the vehicle with its boot open, in the process of loading a large item of furniture from a resident—a task confirmed by a supporting witness statement. The total duration on site was under 17 minutes. That is not, by any stretch, “parking” in the sense envisaged by the ParkingEye v Beavis framework, and nor does it support any finding of contractual liability. It is entirely analogous to the facts in Jopson.
If this appeal is denied despite (a) clear legal authority supporting the appellant's position, (b) failure by the operator to strictly prove landowner authority under Section 14 of the PPC Code of Practice, and (c) no rebuttal to the argument regarding insufficient signage and lack of contractual offer, then I will welcome the opportunity to contest this matter in court—where procedural fairness, evidential standards, and binding precedent do apply.
A dismissal in the face of Jopson and the absence of a material rebuttal by the operator will speak for itself: it will confirm that the IAS is neither independent nor operating in accordance with basic legal standards, and will inform future public commentary and reporting on this scheme.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 17/06/2025 10:49:10.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 22/05/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 17/05/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The land on which this vehicle was parked is private land, where Terms and Conditions apply. The Terms and Conditions are communicated to the motorist by way of prominent signage located throughout the site. All signage and the overall site have been independently audited and approved by our Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the International Parking Community (IPC). The signage states “All vehicles must be registered on the NPE database for this car park” going on to state that “Breach of any term or condition will result in the driver being liable for a Parking Charge of £100 (if paid within 28 days) By entering or remaining on this private land you agree to abide by all the terms and conditions.”.
Whilst we understand the nature of the appeal, however, signage is displayed near to the vehicle, which explains the terms and conditions for parking on private land. It is the motorist's responsibility to make sure that they have parked correctly. A reasonable consideration period is provided to all motorists to allow sufficient time to read and consider the contractual terms. Should a motorist choose to reject this opportunity, however, by entering or remaining on this private land without reading the Terms and Conditions and walking off-site, then they are deemed to have accepted them immediately.
The courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant.
The vehicle was observed from 13:24:01, with the Parking Charge being issued at 13:40:30. This constitutes a parking period of 16 minutes and 29 seconds; during which time the vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions. As the vehicle remained parked on-site after ample opportunity to consider the contractual terms had been provided, the driver has fully accepted the Terms and Conditions. Should the driver have wished to reject the contractual terms, they were required to immediately remove the vehicle from the site.
As we have demonstrated that the vehicle was parked in breach of the advertised Terms and conditions, after the driver had accepted these terms; we contend that this Parking Charge has been issued correctly.
Dear xxxx,
Attention! You need to log back into the system and upload your response to the operators information and evidence or refer it straight to an Adjudicator.
Please read the following carefully.
The Parking Operator has now uploaded the evidence in respect of the parking charge which is detailed below.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): 62033284
Vehicle Registration: BL71JXM
Issued On: 17/05/2025
Issued By: National Parking Enforcement Ltd
What do I need to do?
You now have until 24/06/25 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.
You need to log into the IAS system at portal.theias.org and view the information that the Parking Operator has uploaded.
The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.
You will then 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.
- 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.
IMPORTANT: If you are unsure as to which option to choose, you will need to seek your own independent legal advice. The IAS is not able to comment on the evidence or assist you in making this decision.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
You reported that you were the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued.
You reported that you are being held 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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
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.
To Whom It May Concern,
I confirm that on 17 May 2025, a visitor came to my residence at [full address] to collect a dismantled desk. The item was large, heavy, and required multiple trips to the vehicle to load safely.
The vehicle was parked near the property for around 15 minutes solely for the purpose of loading the item. The driver remained either with the vehicle or within view of it at all times, and the vehicle was not left unattended for any prolonged period.
This was a one-off visit. The vehicle was not parked for leisure or to visit any other premises.
I hope this statement clarifies the reason for the vehicle’s presence and assists in cancelling the parking charge.
Yours sincerely,
[Full Name]
[Date]
Subject: Challenge to Parking Charge Notice No. [INSERT PCN NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [INSERT VRM]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle and am writing to challenge the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice dated 22 May 2025 for an alleged incident on 17 May 2025.
The vehicle was present at the location for a short period solely for the purpose of loading a large and heavy piece of furniture from a resident’s property. The item, although dismantled, required several trips to load safely and necessitated the vehicle being positioned close to the property for approximately 15–16 minutes. The photographic evidence you rely on shows the boot open and part of the item being loaded.
A written statement from the resident confirms that the vehicle was present for the sole purpose of collecting this item and was not parked for any other reason. The driver remained with or near the vehicle at all times.
The signage at the site makes no reference to any prohibition on brief loading or unloading activity, nor does it define “parking” in such a way that would make short-term, necessary loading a contravention. As such, no contractual breach occurred, and no legitimate interest is served by issuing a charge in these circumstances.
I therefore request that this charge be cancelled. If you do not agree, please confirm that your internal appeals process is complete and provide a copy of all evidence on which you rely.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
Registered Keeper
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to confirm that on 17/05/2025, the driver visited my property at [address], to collect a large and heavy piece of furniture. The piece of furniture was already dismantled but required several trips to and from the vehicle.
The item was bulky and required careful loading, which necessitated the vehicle being parked close to the building for a short time. The vehicle was parked for approximately 15-20 minutes solely for the purpose of loading, and the driver remained with the vehicle or nearby during this time.
This was a one-off visit, and the vehicle was not left parked for any longer than necessary.
I hope this statement supports the explanation given and helps resolve the matter. The registered keeper has contacted me to request this statement to validate the events of the day, which I have stated above. I hope this will be sufficient to cancel the parking charge.
Yours sincerely,
[Resident’s Full Name]
[Date]
Dear DPO
I am the registered keeper for the vehicle in relation to the notice to keeper you sent reference: 62033284.
Please take this email as an instruction to update the current address for service on file to
xxxx
xxxx
And to erase my previous address from your records.
Regards
xxxx
I will email NPE - cannot find the specific DPO email address so I can email them on their generic contact email? office@parkingprotection.co.uk or the complaints email: complaints@parkingprotection.co.uk