Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: b789 on September 20, 2025, 01:18:40 pm

If the IAS reject your appeal, so what? Their decision is not binding on you and you certainly don't pay.

You will have to now weather the useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

You come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we take it from there. Depending on which bulk litigator NPC use, a suitable response is provided and then you wait for the actual N1SDT Claim Form. Again, we advise on how to defend it and provide a suitable template defence.

Eventually, the claim is most likely to be struck out or discontinued. Of the very few that ever go as far as an actual hearing, most those are won. Nothing we advise on risks a CCJ.

That appeal decision is exactly as predicted. The IAS is a Kangaroo court and, as you can see by the waffle the feckwiot who penned it, is not really a solicitor and certainly not a barrister either. A Barista, maybe. You certainly don't pay the scammers.

I have already given you the advice that you need to follow. come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).

Thank you for your reply
Is there any chance that they will accept an offer of £20 as an admin fee to finish everything so I can save the time ?

Just before you move you send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the NPC DPO at DPO@Nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk and CC yourself. The DRN must instruct NPC to update their records with your new address for service and to erase the old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so make sure you use them.

I also strongly advise you to use postal redirection, ideally for a minimum of three months. We see many cases where this was not done and several months down the line the Keeper is surprised to find they have a CCJ by default because they know nothing about the claim.

Search the forum:

Quote

Send a Data Rectification Notice requiring them to update your address for service and to erase your old address.

thanks guys, will update the case soon.
Hope you have a nice weekends.

I have no idea where you lifted that appeal from but here is an honest critique of why it is utterly naff:

--------.

[/quote]

That really helpful. I appreciated that. Unfortunately, I have asked for adjudication on IAS. Not sure if I could add more details to my appeal or not.
I have a very similar PCN appeal and the operator accepted it, not this one ( saying it was parked without permit).
So what should I do if IAS appeal ?
Once again, many thanks the replies from all members !

Observed for 2 minutes and 22 seconds.

The IAS is crooked and in the pay of the parking companies, is in no way ‘independent’ and will not uphold your appeal. However you can be happy that the charade will at least cost NPC £23.

It will go to court but, if defended, is unlikely to actually go to a court hearing. Their process is designed to intimidate you into paying.

Don’t identify the driver, of course.

What did you say in your appeals?

I got two PCNs at the same location, the other one charged me for partking without permit which has been appealed successfully.
I used a service to appeal, below is the content of this appeal.

This letter issued on 03/09/2025 serves as a formal appeal against the parking charge ---- issued to the Vehicle Keeper of the vehicle -----.
The driver's information will not be provided. The appeal has been made on the basis that the ------ was the Vehicle Keeper. I will therefore rely on POFA 2012 Schedule 4 where applicable. If the appeal is rejected, I will refer the matter to The IAS via their website www.theias.org/appeal for a final decision.
 
1.   The keeper cannot be held liable for the charge
1.   Your parking charge notice doesn't mention the law required to transfer liability to the vehicle keeper which is the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) Schedule 4. Because you don't know who was driving, you are supposed to use POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the vehicle keeper.
2.   Your notice doesn't mention POFA 2012, I therefore deny any responsibility, and I will not be naming the driver.
3.   In a recent court case of Excel Parking Services Limited -V-Mr Lamoureux [2016] Case No. C3dp56q5, the District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds stated:
1.   There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.
2.   Everybody knows that you cannot assume that the keeper is the driver which is why most parking companies, such as Parking Eye, always rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the notice should comply.
4.   I do not need to confirm or provide any details of who was the driver on the day as the vehicle can lawfully be driven with permission from the keeper by anyone with adequate insurance.
5.   I hope you will honour POFA 2012 and your operator code of practice by allowing the appeal on the basis that the keeper is not liable.
2.   The notice does not state the period of parking
1.   The notice has not been issued according to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 namely:
2.   The second condition is that the creditor or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2a) or 9(2)a.
3.   A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver or notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
4.   The notice issued under paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2)a or 9(2)a must—
1. (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
5.   (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
6.   The notice issued does not state the period of parking and therefore it has not been issued correctly under POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
 
3.   If The Operator Refuses to provide information
1.   Please note that because The Operator have issued a parking charge notice stating that there was a breach of contract, it is therefore reasonable for me to request information from The Operator to make sure that your claim is valid and The Operator have the relevant authorisation to pursue this charge.
2.   Nothing requested in this letter is unreasonable because you subscribe to the Approved Operator Scheme which outlines how you must operate and provide services to the public.
3.   If you refuse to provide information, this will be considered Fraud under Fraud Act 2006 which simply states fraud can be committed by:
1. Making a statement which is untrue or misleading where The Operator believe it may be untrue or misleading (fraud by misrepresentation).
1.   Example 1: If you put anything in writing which is not true or misleading, this will be considered Fraud.
2.   Fraud by failing to disclose information which you have a legal duty to do so as we have a contractual dispute.
1. Example 2: If you refuse to provide a copies of the signage present at the time or state that you cannot provide copies of the landowner agreement due to commercial sensitivity, this is also considered fraud because if these documents don't exist or are not valid, you are failing to disclose information that can help me defend this case.
3. Fraud by Abuse of Position: If the person making the appeal decisions does
not seriously consider the points raised in this letter, they are abusing their position.
1. Example 3: If The Operator do not reply to the specific points raised in this appeal, this is fraud even if your statements are by omission. 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the full version of Fraud Act 2006 can be found here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents.