Free Traffic Legal Advice

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. Besides other shortfalls, as an example, the NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e). Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There has been no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC 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.

5. 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 any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are qualified solicitors or barristers, however there is no way to verify. 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. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. If the person reading this 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 clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and 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 cast doubts on IAS independence and legal qualification.

Should you refer to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if no contrary evidence, is the driver - understand this is an incorrect representation of the case for these reasons:
1) The facts of the case are the appeal judge ruled the appellant was the driver because of ample evidence that he was the driver - not because of lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
2) In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
3) Additionally, a crucial part of the case was forensic evidence showed the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and no-one else had permission to drive the car.
4) This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, its the well known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely their evidence elsewhere is also false.