Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: padre on February 14, 2026, 11:27:52 am
-
WOW moment.
Not seen this from IAS before.
An Assessor who actually applies the correct rules.
Well done - nice work.
-
Good evening all,
An update and a big thank you to all who replied and helped me through this. I actually missed the deadline for my last response and when I logged in to the IAS portal, it simply said the case had been referred for adjudication. Took a while but I've just had an email saying my appeal was accepted! I was expecting a refusal, especially after all the reading I'd done online. I have screenshot and attached the email, maybe it is of some interest to the kind people on here.
Again, a huge thanks to all who took the time to advise me.
https://ibb.co/0RNQPJtM
-
Yes, by “rebut” I suggest that you explicitly quote their rubbish, such as
they are entitled to assume, on the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the driver, unless the keeper provides sufficient evidence to the contrary.
, and state why this is wrong. And so on for each point they make.
They state things as fact which are completely untrue, this being just one example, and need to have these statements countered in your input.
-
It is important to note that the burden of proof to show who was driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator.
I'm afraid it does.
Add an extra line in your comments which set out the operators assertion and then add;
"I put the operator to STRICT PROOF to set out the legislation which supports this assertion - I would point out that simply stating something does not somehow make it law - the operator is clearly stating this in order to generate a liability in a situation where (inconveniently for them) no legal liability actually exists."
-
I would specifically set out the few paragraphs of VCS v Edward which specifically rebut the operators claim.
Paragraph;
34 I am persuaded by Mr Yamba that the evidential effect of establishing that the defendant
was the relevant keeper, does not produce any inference, rebuttable or otherwise, that the
defendant was driving on this particular occasion. Therefore, there is no material
inference for the defendant to rebut. As there was nothing for him to rebut, it does not
seem to me to be right to draw an adverse inference from his failure to engage in seeking
to rebut it. Therefore, I find that the learned district judge fell into error in making the
finding she did.
35 I am fortified in my decision for three other reasons:
35.1 the finding I make is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to bring in keeper
liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could not be established. If
this were not the case car parking companies could have simply have obtained the details of
the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see whether or
not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence of a positive
defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an approach, it would
have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper identify the driver, or at least
set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility himself. In my judgment that
was not the position before the Protection from Freedoms Act was in force;
35.2 my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being
required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and
35.3 it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because
somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they
were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell, For example, there
will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have
the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers are
the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may drive their
vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered
keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. Or there
may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of both family cars
and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their spouse regularly drives
the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw
an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on
any given occasion.
-
Ok, this is my response,
"The Operator's position holds no weight. The keeper of the vehicle can not be held liable without the POFA. The Notice to Keeper was issued too late for this and therefore the Operator's assumption alone is not enough.
Please refer to the case of EXCEL PARKING SERVICES v ANTHONY SMITH (Manchester County Court) in which HHJ Smith confirmed there is no legal presumption that the keeper is the driver. Also VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD v IAN EDWARD (Teeside Combined Court) in which HHJ Gargan held that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving, nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling to nominate a driver because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.
In conclusion, I, the keeper of the vehicle, will not be held liable for these made up charges.
Anything to add?
-
You should rebut each of their incorrect statements. Otherwise they will claim that you agree with them.
This is a better approach than ignoring, although the end result may be the same.
The IAS will probably reject your appeal anyway. But the time thing may cause them to uphold it. If not, you have a boring process to follow which should result in the claimant giving up eventually.
-
Oh so I shouldn't even respond to this and go straight for arbitration?
-
The replies you quote are the usual lies stated as facts in the hope that you believe them and pay up.
There is no obligation for the keeper to identify the driver, nor is there any validity in the assumption that the keeper is the driver. These are all lies.
I suggest that you just ignore this rubbish, and wait for them to try to intimidate you further by taking you to court.
-
Good day people,I have now received the operator's response and have been given the option to respond yet again or refer the matter for arbitration. My previous response was;
"The Operator acknowledges that I, the KEEPER, am not appealing against the contravention. This is not my duty to do so as I have clearly stated, I am the KEEPER of the vehicle, NOT the DRIVER. The Operator should be seeking to recover the parking charge from the DRIVER. I, as the KEEPER, am under no obligation to appeal against the contravention when I am not the liable party. The Operator is assuming liability and I am only engaging in this process in order to clear the matter up.
The Operator also acknowledges the transfer of liability window has passed, but then goes on to say that it remains valid as no evidence to prove otherwise has been submitted. This is legally incorrect, the onus is upon the Operator to provide evidence as to who was driving, which they have not. The person pictured in their CCTV evidence has not been identified and therefore the Operator is relying on assumption that it is the KEEPER. This is a commercial decision rather than a legal position.
These are the only points that matter here. All other comments related to the "contravention" are irrelevant."
To which they have replied;
"The Operator's position remains as follows: they are entitled to assume, on the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the driver, unless the keeper provides sufficient evidence to the contrary.
While the appellant have stated that they were not the driver, no evidence has been provided to support this claim. It is important to note that the burden of proof to show who was driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator. In the absence of any alternative driver details from the keeper, the Operator is permitted, as per the legal framework governing parking charges, to hold the keeper liable for the contravention. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the Operator is within their rights to continue to pursue the charge against you as the keeper of the vehicle.
The Operator is correct that the transfer of liability period has passed. However, this does not negate the Operator's right to pursue the keeper when no evidence is provided to establish that the keeper was not the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, you are under an obligation to provide details of the driver if you are claiming that you were not driving. Since this has not been done, the Operator is entitled to rely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver."
Is it time to go to arbitration or should I respond to this again? Another response would feel like a bit like banging my head against a wall.
TIA
-
Thank you both, very much for this. I've responded to this and I'll await the response.
-
Their tactics are to make things up, and to state untruths as facts, in the hope that you will be frightened into believing their nonsense and paying them.
They know their nonsense will not stand up in court.
So you also need to know this, and stand your ground.
-
No - other way about - they are the 'claimant' so their job is to provide the evidence - you are the defendant so your job is to rebut any evidence.
If they make an assertion then there should generally be material evidence to support that assertion.
A person walking offsite could be anyone - how can they prove it's the registered keeper? They cannot.
-
They have cctv/photographic evidence of the driver leaving the site and returning. Do I have to prove that it's not me? I'm assuming not. I hope not. :-X
No.
They have to prove that it was you, which they can’t do.
You’re over-thinking this, and their abilities, as I already said.
-
They have cctv/photographic evidence of the driver leaving the site and returning. Do I have to prove that it's not me? I'm assuming not. I hope not. :-X
-
They say,
"While this may be the case the issuance of the Notice to Keeper is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove otherwise."
That is incorrect - the law requires that they provide the evidence (as to who was driving) which the keeper may rebut if they wish - they are turning it around in an attempt to 'make the keeper guilty unless they can prove innocence' - that is legally illiterate - in the absence of any material evidence there is nothing for the keeper to rebut - this is established legal principle.
At the present time, the driver is not known to the operator and there is no legal route to keeper liability - reliance on the assumption that the keeper is the driver is a commercial decision and not a legal position.
They say,
"The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."
The keeper does not need to appeal against the contravention when they are not the liable party - the operator is assuming liability rather than proving it - in the circumstances, the keeper is under no legal obligation engage with the operator but is doing so to clear up the issue.
-
Hi all. So I lodged my IAS appeal and the operator was given 5 working days to respond. I thought I got lucky when I logged in and the system showed they had just 3 hours of their response window left. Anyway, they did respond with about 90 mins before the deadline. The following is their response,
"On 18/10/2025, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to a vehicle parked at Shell Garage, 391–393 Dunstable
Road, LU4 8DA, after the driver was observed leaving the premises. Signage at this location clearly states that
parking is permitted only within marked bays and only while the driver or passengers remain on site as customers.
The designated parking bays are clearly marked with white painted lines.
The vehicle was observed parked on private land, after which the driver exited the vehicle and proceeded to leave
the premises. This constitutes a breach of the displayed parking terms and conditions, resulting in the issuance of
the Parking Charge Notice.
The terms and conditions state that drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle is
parked onsite which means any visitor is permitted to park on the property for the period while being a customer
followed by them then leaving the premises with their vehicle. The terms and conditions are clear and
understandable.
The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. While this may be the case the issuance of the Notice to
Keeper is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove otherwise.
The vehicle was parked in close proximity to clearly visible signage, and photographic/CCTV evidence will show
the reason why this charge was issued.
The vehicle was observed parked on the land in breach of the displayed terms and conditions, which resulted in
the Parking Charge Notice being correctly issued. The motorist was given sufficient opportunity to read and
comply with the signage and avoid incurring the charge."
My arguement was based on their NtK being issued after 104 days, which it seems doesn't make difference. I've noticed in their response they've also claimed that the appelant is the keeper AND the driver despite my appeal stating that I'm the keeper and I'm not willing to identify the driver - See screenshots below.
Anyway, IAS now expect my response, which I thought I already kind of made my arguement being that the NtK was issued too late. What now?
https://ibb.co/QvgSvrYB
https://ibb.co/My3qWGP1
-
Is it my responsibility to notify them or are they supposed to keep track?
You should tell them. They're only able to access keeper data from DVLA once.
-
Thank you all. The appeal text I've submitted to IAS is as follows;
"You completed the appeal on 19/02/2026 22:59:16.
No PoFA keeper liability - NtK issued 104 days after event with no windscreen ticket, exceeding the 14-day limit under Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(4).
I am the registered keeper. I am not liable for this charge.
My original appeal stated that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, yet the operator ignored this point.
There was no windscreen Notice to Driver. Therefore, under PoFA paragraph 9(4) the NtK had to be delivered within 14 days of the alleged parking event.
The dates are:
Alleged event: 18/10/2025
NtK issue date: 30/01/2026
This is 104 days after the event.
This is a clear failure to meet the statutory requirement. As a result, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
My V5C is current and held the correct address at the material time. There is no valid reason for the delay.
The operator's rejection letter compounds this failure by mis-stating the legal position, claiming that a postal PCN can be issued within “7 months”. While a parking charge may be issued at any time, PoFA keeper liability only applies if the NtK is delivered within the statutory period. That condition has not been met.
I am under no obligation to identify the driver and there is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
It is evident that Universal Parking Enforcement have failed to issue a PoFA-compliant NtK capable of transferring liability to the keeper. Their case can only be against the driver, who has not been identified.
IAS must therefore direct the operator to cancel the charge."
I know IAS will reject the appeal and I'll no doubt be back here asking about next steps. I did a little digging (not too much) but it seems IAS is actually the same company as IPC, just using a different trading name for each function. So there's no chance of this succeeding.
**Another point I'm unsure of, I've recently moved house and am in the process of updating my V5C. Is it my responsibility to notify them or are they supposed to keep track? It's just that by all accounts, the next phase is when the debt collection letters start coming and I really don't want to miss a County Court summons and end up with a default judgement all because i didn't know. Any advice guys?
TIA
-
@RichardW It's the IAS in this case, not POPLA :)
Ah, fixed. Even more reason to be direct! IAS don't uphold many, but this may be one they do, given it's so far out of time.
After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within 28 days.
14 days.
Thanks, fixed that too.
-
After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within 28 days.
14 days.
The operator’s statement that a postal PCN can be issued within “7 months” is incorrect in law
This isn't quite right - they can issue a postal PCN later than the timescales provided for in PoFA, but if they do, they cannot then rely on PoFA to recover any charges from the keeper.
-
@RichardW It's the IAS in this case, not POPLA :)
-
After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within
28 14 days.
Also worth pointing out that your V5C is up to date with the correct address.
"I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled"
Don't be nice, don't ask - they don't care! More direct, i.e. "It is evident that Universal Parking Enforcement have failed to issue an NTK compliant with POFA to allow transfer of liability to the keeper, and compounded this by mis stating in their rejection the position with respect to periods for issuing a NTK to allow transfer of liability. IAS POPLA must therefore direct them to cancel the charge."
-
104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
That must be a record for incompetency :)
Thank you for this Brenda, this makes me feel better that I have grounds to tell them to shove it!
Show us a draft before sending anything. The idea is to make it unarguably clear that they have not complied with PoFA (easy given the dates!) and that as such there is no keeper liability.
This is what I came up with and then asked ChatGPT to clean up. Let me know if it's ok!
"I am the registered keeper and I am not liable for this charge.
My original appeal clearly stated that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, yet the operator’s rejection failed to address this point at all.
The dates are:
Alleged parking event: 18/10/2025
Notice to Keeper issued: 30/01/2026
This is 104 days after the event.
Under PoFA:
Paragraph 9(4) requires delivery of a Notice to Keeper within 14 days where no windscreen ticket was served
Paragraph 8(5) requires delivery between 29 and 56 days where a windscreen ticket was served
A Notice to Keeper issued after 104 days is non-compliant under either scenario.
Because the statutory conditions have not been met, the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and will not be doing so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.
The operator’s statement that a postal PCN can be issued within “7 months” is incorrect in law and does not override PoFA. It is therefore irrelevant to keeper liability.
As the operator has failed to establish keeper liability, this charge is unenforceable against me.
I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled."
In addition, is it best to submit this appeal asap or on day 21 (I don't know if it makes any difference)
TIA
-
104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
That must be a record for trying it on :)
there fixed that for you ;)
-
104 days from offence to NTK issue date?
That must be a record for incompetency :)
-
Show us a draft before sending anything. The idea is to make it unarguably clear that they have not complied with PoFA (easy given the dates!) and that as such there is no keeper liability.
-
Personally, I would send a short appeal to the IAS, stating that your appeal point was ignored by UPE and therefore implicitly agreed with, that with dates of
alleged offence 18/10/25
notice issued by UPE 30/1/26
they can not invoke PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to you, the registered keeper.
All other points made by UPE in their rejection of your appeal are irrelevant, and the notice should be cancelled by the IAS.
Whether or not the IAS upholds your appeal doesn’t ultimately matter, but if not you will have to put up with debt collectors and probably court paperwork until they give up.
There’s probably a better form of wording so don’t rush, wait for other input.
If you want to pick up on their nonsense about issuing a postal notice within seven months, the truth is that under contract law they can start proceedings against the driver within six years, but only against the registered keeper if they comply with PoFA, which they haven’t. Stating something as a fact when it isn’t is another common tactic of these companies.
-
Follow up to my initial post =====> here (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/universal-parking-enforcement-passenger-or-driver-left-the-premises-wh-9915/msg109789/#msg109789)
Summary:
Date of alleged contravention - 18-10-2025 (ANPR Camera)
Notice to keeper - 30-01-2026 (nothing before this)
Internal appeal to Universal Enforcement Parking sent - 14-02-2026
Appeal rejected - 16-02-2026
Appeal was made on the basis that the Notice to Keeper was issued too late to hold the keeper liable (advice given by @jfollows). As predicted, the appeal made no mention of the key point and just waffled.
I have attached the appeal response and all the other images again. What is the next step?
*Could someone also advise whether I've done the right thing by creating a new post or should I just keep updating the previous one?
TIA
Appeal rejection (2 pages) - https://ibb.co/F4syjb40 https://ibb.co/394RjhxM
links to photos and NTK;
https://ibb.co/wFJ0H7N3
https://ibb.co/v44xmbXg
https://ibb.co/xSwyVWc9
https://ibb.co/rKTLbQ6x
https://ibb.co/VW1x1yPh
-
You know I was going to just pay it, but I absolutely hate these blood suckers. Thanks for your help thus far, I'll be back when they send the heavies around.
-
I love you anyway, thank you for responding and advising so quickly. So I'm good to copy and paste that and send it off straightaway?
Yes.
Don’t be surprised if they reject the appeal, their rejection waffle probably not addressing the key single point, followed by a failed appeal to the sham IAS “independent” appeals process, but you never know. Come back here in due course, the end result will be £0 after months of tedious paperwork.
-
I love you anyway, thank you for responding and advising so quickly. So I'm good to copy and paste that and send it off straightaway?
-
I love this. You're my kind of guy. You found the perfect balance of professionalism and mockery.
Thanks, but I copied it from someone else!
-
I love this. You're my kind of guy. You found the perfect balance of professionalism and mockery.
-
How on earth could anyone take the photo and infer your identity from it?
The police can’t do this, and certainly some rogue firm of former clampers can’t either.
The only way they know the identity of the driver is if you tell them.
Standard appeal is
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.
Besides, other shortfalls, as an example, your NTK is issued too late to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
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. UPE 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. UPE 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.
-
I'm the registered keeper, my name is on the log book. The photo is not evidence that i was the driver?
MSE recommeds sending this template "I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."
Is this applicable to me?
-
Their photo does not identify you.
Their Notice to Keeper is issued too late to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Although they will automatically reject any appeal, including valid ones, it will be the first step along the path to paying £0.
Please confirm that you are the registered keeper, your car’s V5C is up to date, or if you are not the registered keeper, what are you?
-
Hi all,
I'm looking for some guidance on the following situation. I'll bullet point it otherwise I'll end up writing a novel;
I pulled into a Shell garage at 23:05 back on 18th October 2025.
I walked offsite to a takeaway next door to the garage to collect some food - I was parked for around 10 mins.
I received a Notice to Keeper dated 30th January 2026 - Uploaded.
I have checked their evidence, they have pictures of my vehicle stationary, time-stamped and even show me returning to the vehicle with my food - I'll upload these.
Since receiving it, I have gone back to the site in question to check signage - there is plenty of it, however it blends in perfectly with the car wash signage (all red and yellow) and does not stand out all.
They want £100, reduced to £60, but I think I've run out of the discount period.
I have not responded or identified myself as the driver, but they literally have a photo of me!
Anyway, please advise me. Should I just pay this off or can I beat this?
links to photos and NTK;
https://ibb.co/wFJ0H7N3
https://ibb.co/v44xmbXg
https://ibb.co/xSwyVWc9
https://ibb.co/rKTLbQ6x
https://ibb.co/VW1x1yPh
TIA