The NtK is was not given within the relevant period and therefore is not compliant with PoFA.
It's an easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper 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. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart have no hope should you refuse this appeal, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
When they reject that, you can appeal to the IAS with the following:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
1. The driver has not been identified. The parking operator has chosen not to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) or has failed to comply with its strict requirements—specifically, the Notice to Keeper was issued on 5 August 2025—17 days after the alleged contravention on 19 July 2025. This means that the notice cannot have been "given" within the relevant period defined in Schedule 4. As such, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.
As this appeal is made solely in the capacity of the registered keeper, no admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences may be drawn. Smart Parking has alleged a contractual breach by the driver only.
The keeper cannot be presumed to be the driver, nor pursued under any misapplication of agency law. The IAS is not a court and cannot override statutory limitations with speculation. The persuasive appellate decision in VCS Limited v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] confirms that where PoFA conditions are not met and the driver is not identified, the keeper cannot be held liable.
Accordingly, the charge fails at the first hurdle. Irrespective of any alleged contravention, signage, or landowner authority, liability cannot pass to the keeper under statute.
2. Without prejudice to the above, and only in the event that the IAS chooses to ignore the statutory position, I require the operator to provide the following:
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. 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.[/indent]
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.