Free Traffic Legal Advice

Info for other users in what to expect when registering with IAS on the website.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You have told us that you are being held liable for the parking charge.

What happens when I have submitted my Appeal?

Once you have submitted your appeal, the case will be sent to the parking operator so that they can provide their account.

The Parking Operator is provided 5 working days to upload sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.

Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log in and see it. You will then have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any photographs or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your appeal you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. WARNING, the Adjudicator will assess ONLY the evidence provided by the operator and NOTHING MORE. You will not have the opportunity of making representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

You will then be notified by email when you are able to proceed further.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, what happens if you fill out all the relevant info on IAS and do not submit an appeal and wait for the operators reposnse? Just curious.

Found this information on here from @b789 to @davidmac used as a Letter of Claim response of which I take no credit for. I have made amendments to it as a draft and hope to use it as an appeal to IAS.

What's your thoughts?



This appeal is submitted by the registered keeper. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The operator bears the burden of establishing liability. They have failed to do so. The Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled for the reasons set out below.

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The operator asserts reliance on PoFA and threatens to pursue the keeper under its provisions, yet the statutory preconditions for keeper liability have not been satisfied. The notice fails to specify any period of parking as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps of entry and exit do not constitute a period of parking and cannot prove that the vehicle was parked or stationary at any relevant time. A vehicle passing through, queueing, or circling for a space does not fall within the statutory meaning of parking. Non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(a) extinguishes any prospect of invoking keeper liability.

2. The Notice to Keeper fails to contain the mandatory invitation prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(e). Instead of inviting the keeper either to pay the charge or to identify the driver, the document attempts to impose a compulsory requirement to provide the driver's full name and address. This is not the statutory wording, is not legally enforceable, and constitutes a misstatement of the keeper’s legal obligations. A notice that does not contain the exact statutory invitation cannot give rise to keeper liability under any circumstances. The operator’s subsequent rejection letter repeats the same misrepresentation, reinforcing its non-compliance.
3. The operator has provided no evidence of any actual parking. The only material relied upon is a pair of ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site. These images do not establish that the vehicle was parked, that it stopped, that it occupied a bay, or that any relevant terms were engaged. ANPR is incapable of proving parking. The operator must prove both the factual basis of the alleged breach and the contractual terms allegedly binding the driver. They have proved neither.

4. No evidence of signage has been produced. The operator asserts that signs are clearly displayed throughout the site but has provided no contemporaneous images, no entrance signage, no site plan, and no evidence of the driver’s proximity to any alleged contractual terms. A contract cannot be formed where terms are not communicated with adequate prominence. The operator has provided no proof that any such contractual offer was made, let alone accepted.

5. The operator has produced no evidence of landowner authority. They do not own the site and cannot issue or enforce parking charges without a valid and contemporaneous contract with the landholder. Assertions of authority are insufficient. The operator must provide the actual agreement demonstrating their right to impose charges and pursue litigation. Their silence on this issue indicates that no such authority has been evidenced.
6. The operator’s correspondence repeatedly misstates the effect of PoFA by asserting that they will automatically hold the keeper liable if the keeper does not identify the driver. That is not the law. Keeper liability arises only if the operator has complied fully and strictly with Schedule 4. They have not. Their misrepresentation of statutory rights and obligations is improper and renders the charge unenforceable against the keeper.

7. The operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof. They have not proved that a contract existed, that its terms were communicated, that the vehicle was parked, that any breach occurred, or that they have the legal standing to issue charges. They have also failed to establish compliance with PoFA, meaning the keeper cannot be pursued. The absence of evidence from the operator is fatal.

In summary, the Notice to Keeper is non-compliant, the evidence is inadequate, the operator’s assertions are contradictory and legally incorrect, and no lawful basis for keeper liability exists. The operator has not provided the necessary factual or legal foundation to support the charge. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

Doubled checked my emails and have received nothing. Will chase and keep everyone updated.

Thank you @DWMB2 for the sound advice, I shall indeed be appealing today and post here the outcome. Though I do hope i'm still within time as I believe the letter was dated 20th or 21st of Janruary?

It would seem that both outcomes are the same?

This was a response on the forum from @b789 to marxman,


"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. PPS 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. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."


Is it worth me using this paragraph to write to Smart Parking?

Hi all,

Here are the photos from the area of where I have received the notice from Smart Parking. The sign closest to where I parked behind the building is in welsh, which is not at all help as I don’t speak the language.

Presumably there are other signs dotted around the area referring to the parking bays, but nothing that suggests or indicates the road behind the Cardiff Sports Campus is paid parking?

There are no parking signs when leaving the main road and entering into the Sports area.

Any thoughts?

https://ibb.co/VpQ9fggp
https://ibb.co/wZdGCr6J
https://ibb.co/rKm3Hcwy
https://ibb.co/mVvMMFzB