Rebuttal to operator’s prima facie case
1. The operator’s evidence does not address or rebut core points raised in my appeal and fails to establish keeper liability or a contravention.
2. PoFA Schedule 4 para 9(2)(a): no period of parking. The NtK states only “the period of time immediately preceding 14/09/2025 at 13:54”, which is a single timestamp padded with vague wording, not a period of parking. This point was raised and remains unanswered. Persuasive appellate case law in Brennan v PPS (2023) confirmed that without a definitive period of parking, the NtK is not PoFA 2012 compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable.
2. PoFA Schedule 4 para 9(2)(a): relevant land not identified. The location is given only as “Nova”, with no address or postcode. This is inherently ambiguous and does not identify relevant land. The operator has not remedied or rebutted this.
3. PoFA Schedule 4 paras 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f): defective invitation and warning. The NtK does not contain the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay or name the driver, nor the prescribed warning that the keeper will be liable after 28 days if the charge remains unpaid and the driver is not named. The generic wording relied upon does not mirror the statute. This remains unrebutted.
4. Timing and posting proof: although the NtK shows an issue date, no proof of date of posting has been provided as required by the PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2. The appeal requested this; the operator has not provided it. Presumption of delivery within the relevant period is rebutted.
5. Landowner authority: no contemporaneous, signed, contract meeting PPSCoP section 14.1(a)–(j) has been produced. There is no proof of authority to manage the site, issue PCNs, or pursue charges in their own name, nor any boundary plan or applicable byelaws. This was expressly requested and not supplied.
6. Signage: the operator has filed a site plan and facsimile artwork but no dated, in-situ photographs demonstrating actual placement, prominence, legibility, core term prominence (including the parking charge), or that the signs were in place on the material date. Nothing ties the car images to any particular sign or to the positions on the plan. The signage objections therefore stand.
7. Contravention and duration: the evidence shows at most a moment in time. There is no proof of a parking period or that any minimum consideration period was exceeded. Without evidence of a period of parking greater than the minimum consideration period, no contract could be formed. This was raised and remains unanswered.
8. Site identification gap: the photographs do not contain unique, verifiable features that match the plan, and no camera locations or “no parking area” markings are evidenced. It is impossible to verify that the vehicle was at the site described.
Conclusion: The NtK is not PoFA-compliant on multiple independent grounds and keeper liability cannot arise. The driver remains unidentified and there can be no presumption or inference that the Keeper must be the driver as confirmed in the persuasive appellate case of VCS v Edward (2023). The operator has failed to evidence landowner authority, adequate signage, site identification, posting, or an actual parking period. Their prima facie case fails and the appeal should be allowed.
QuoteI 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. For example, the operators NtK fails to provide a period of parking as required under PoFA 9(2)(a). A single observation timestamp on the NtK is not a period, irrespective of any other photographic evidence that they may hold. This was clarified in the persuasive appellate judgment in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023).
5. The NtK does not evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period mandated in the PPSCoP §5.1, in which case no contract could have been formed. The operator is put to strict proof that any contract was formed with the driver.
6. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
7. 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.
9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.and your notice does not specify a “period of parking”.
(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;
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.They will reject your appeal, as will the useless IAS, but if you follow advice here it will eventually come to nothing, it will just take some time, patience and attention to detail on your part.
Failure to comply with PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(a): your NtK does not “specify the period of parking”. Saying “the period immediately preceding the event time” is not a period. As confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), at least a short period of parking must be specified; a single timestamp or vague wording is insufficient to show that the vehicle was parked at all.
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. UKPS 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. UKPS have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.