You say you appealed on behalf of the Keeper... in what capacity?
Their authorised representative. I have a properly executed Letter of Authorisation which was included with the original appeal.
The operator has now missed the PoFA window for keeper liability. For a windscreen NtD, PoFA Sch 4 para 8 requires a postal NtK to be delivered to the keeper not earlier than day 29 and not later than day 56 after the event.
• Parking event: 11 Aug 2025 (Day 0)
• Earliest lawful NtK delivery: 8 Sep 2025 (Day 28 after; delivery Day 29)
• Latest lawful NtK delivery: 6 Oct 2025 (Day 56)
• No NtK was ever delivered. Today is 14 Oct 2025 (Day 64), so the operator has forfeited the right to transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
An appeal/rejection (even if addressed to the RK) does not count as, or extend time for, an NtK. Because “delivered” is the test, the last practical posting date would have been Thu 2 Oct 2025 (allowing two working days’ deemed service to land by Mon 6 Oct).
Conclusion: they can pursue the driver only; keeper liability under PoFA is no longer available.
Use that as the core of your IAS appeal, for what it's worth. Irrespective of the alleged contractual breach is, they cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge if the driver is no identified.
As the IAS is a kangaroo court and their adjudicators are anonymous liars who pretend that they are qualified solicitors (they aren't), they are very likely to reject the appeal on the legally embarrassing grounds that they think they can infer that the Keeper must be the driver.
If the IAS rejects the appeal, so what? Their decision is not binding on the Keeper and they can try and issue a claim in the county court where they wouldn't stand a chance of winning against the Keeper as log as the driver is not identified.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
For the sake of continuity and in the name of completeness, I'll post further updates as they occur.
Thanks again.
Regards
O
You say you appealed on behalf of the Keeper... in what capacity?
The operator has now missed the PoFA window for keeper liability. For a windscreen NtD, PoFA Sch 4 para 8 requires a postal NtK to be delivered to the keeper not earlier than day 29 and not later than day 56 after the event.
• Parking event: 11 Aug 2025 (Day 0)
• Earliest lawful NtK delivery: 8 Sep 2025 (Day 28 after; delivery Day 29)
• Latest lawful NtK delivery: 6 Oct 2025 (Day 56)
• No NtK was ever delivered. Today is 14 Oct 2025 (Day 64), so the operator has forfeited the right to transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA.
An appeal/rejection (even if addressed to the RK) does not count as, or extend time for, an NtK. Because “delivered” is the test, the last practical posting date would have been Thu 2 Oct 2025 (allowing two working days’ deemed service to land by Mon 6 Oct).
Conclusion: they can pursue the driver only; keeper liability under PoFA is no longer available.
Use that as the core of your IAS appeal, for what it's worth. Irrespective of the alleged contractual breach is, they cannot hold the Keeper liable for the charge if the driver is no identified.
As the IAS is a kangaroo court and their adjudicators are anonymous liars who pretend that they are qualified solicitors (they aren't), they are very likely to reject the appeal on the legally embarrassing grounds that they think they can infer that the Keeper must be the driver.
If the IAS rejects the appeal, so what? Their decision is not binding on the Keeper and they can try and issue a claim in the county court where they wouldn't stand a chance of winning against the Keeper as log as the driver is not identified.
Thank you for the clarifications. What was the content of the appeal you sent as the authorised representative of the Keeper?
In order to answer some of your points, first I accept that as long as you are authorised by the named person on the PCN, you can deal with it on their behalf. The only reason I mentioned it is because some people simply respond without any authorisation and are not happy when things proceed to debt recovery or court claim in the name of the Keeper.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf) (v1.1, 17 Feb 2025) (PPSCoP) says the operator is only required to deal with an appeal from the person the charge is aimed at (driver/keeper/hirer) or from their appropriately authorised representative, and the representative may be asked to show proof of that authority. Your Letter of Authorisation satisfies that, so you can act and the operator must deal with you.
Separately, the same Code requires operators to accept complaints in writing or by e-mail; and where a complaint is, or includes, a challenge to the validity of a parking charge, it must also be treated as an appeal for timing purposes. That underpins the validity of using a written route when the portal blocks third-party submissions.
Correction: I previously said “this wouldn’t stand up in court because there was no loss to the landowner”. That was imprecise. In private parking cases the £100 is usually claimed as a contractual charge, not as damages for loss, so the claimant does not have to prove a financial loss to enforce it (following ParkingEye v Beavis).
The right questions are whether the operator complied with PoFA to hold the Keeper liable, whether a clear and fair contract was formed on the signage, whether the terms are transparent and fair under the Consumer Rights Act, and whether the operator’s own payment system and rules made compliance impossible at midnight. In this case payment for Monday was made before the vehicle left, the entrance signage is weak and “all day” ending at 23:59 is potentially misleading, there was no forward-purchase option, and the website failed around midnight.
Those points, together with striking any added “debt recovery” sums and requiring proof of landowner authority, are the grounds that matter. My earlier “no loss” line was shorthand and not the correct legal basis; the defence would rely on the contractual, statutory and fairness arguments above.
Here is a PoFA (Schedule 4) checklist against the wording of the NtD, with the exact limbs it falls foul of and those that are at least arguable.
Clear non-compliance
1. Para 7(2)(a) and 7(3): “period of parking”
The notice prints “Period of Parking: 00:27” (a time of day, not a period). The “Observation from 00:22 to 00:27” line is not stated to be the period and conflicts with “00:27” being described as “Period”. PoFA requires a single period of parking to be specified; what’s printed is ambiguous and not a period.
2. Para 7(2)(f): date and time when the notice is given
The notice shows “Date of Service: 11/08/2025” but no time of giving. PoFA requires the NtD to specify both the date and the time when the notice is given (i.e. when it was affixed/handed). A photo timestamp on a website does not cure an omission on the face of the NtD.
Strong/arguable non-compliance
3) Para 7(2)(a): “relevant land”
“Location: Jamaica Street Carpark, 16–26 Ja” appears truncated. If there is any doubt as to the precise site, this fails the requirement to specify the relevant land with sufficient clarity.
4. Para 7(2)(b): describe the parking charges and the circumstances/means by which the requirement arose
The NtD says “breach of terms… as detailed on the signage at site” and “Reason: No Valid Payment”, but it does not actually describe “those charges”, the circumstances that made them payable, or the means by which they were brought to the driver’s attention beyond a bare reference to signage. That thin description is at least arguable non-compliance.
5. Para 7(2)(c): total amount of the unpaid parking charges “as at a time specified”
The NtD states “£100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days” but does not tie the amount to an “as at” time. Further, PoFA’s wording refers to “unpaid parking charges” (tariff due for the period), yet the NtD only states the contractual parking charge (the £100 PCN) and no unpaid tariff. Many operators conflate the two; it’s an arguable defect.
6. Para 7(2)(e): identify the creditor and specify how/whom to pay
“Parkpay Services Ltd” is named and payment routes are given, but the NtD does not expressly identify Parkpay as “the creditor”. Some judges accept implicit identification; others prefer explicit wording. Treat this as arguable.
Likely compliant items
• Para 7(4): given while stationary and before removal from the land (it was affixed to the windscreen).
• Para 7(2)(g): sets out dispute/appeal arrangements and mentions the IAS.
Bottom line: you have two clean PoFA points (period of parking; time of giving) and several decent supporting/arguable ones (relevant land clarity, description of charges/circumstances, “as-at” time for the amount, explicit creditor identification). If they later try to hold the keeper liable, these para 7 defects prevent keeper liability unless a subsequent NtK fully (and strictly) meets para 8.