Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all!

Just wanted to give the latest update. I finally received a reply from the IAS and seems like they've just dismissed it as expected.


Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible in the vicinity of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified stopped at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I note the Appellant's comments with regards to service however the Operator's code of conduct states that where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper. On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Hello, I've made an appeal to the IAS and I've received a response

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 22/10/2025 11:18:03.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 15/09/2025.
The ticket was issued on 31/08/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The Parking Charge Notice was issued as a result of the vehicle stopping in an area where stopping is clearly prohibited at all times. The site in question, located at Leeds City Station, is under active enforcement due to safety and congestion concerns. This location is designated as a strict “No Stopping” zone, and enforcement is permitted in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice, which recognises that such restrictions may be necessary in areas with high pedestrian footfall or complex traffic flow.

The signage on site meets the requirements set out in the IPC Code of Practice in terms of visibility, positioning, and clarity of terms. The photographic evidence provided by the operator shows that multiple warning signs are placed at prominent positions throughout the location, clearly stating that stopping is not permitted and that a Parking Charge Notice will be issued to vehicles found to be in breach. The signs are legible, in plain language, and displayed in a manner that would be visible to a reasonable driver. Signage does not need to be read in full for a contract to be formed; it is sufficient that the signs are prominent and convey the essential terms clearly. This is consistent with the findings in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which established that clear signage displaying a contractual term is enforceable, even in the context of private land.

Your assertion that the operator must provide strict proof of signage location, calibration records, and a detailed landowner contract is noted. However, the IPC appeals process is designed to assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, a contravention occurred and the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Operators who are members of the IPC are required to hold and maintain valid landowner authority and to adhere to the obligations set out in Section 14 of the Code of Practice. The operator has confirmed, as part of their accreditation, that such authority is in place and that enforcement at this location is properly authorised. The Appeals Service is satisfied that the operator has the legal standing to issue Parking Charge Notices and pursue them in its own name.

In relation to the duration of the stop, it is important to clarify that grace periods or consideration periods do not apply in no-stopping zones. These are specifically excluded under the IPC Code of Practice for locations where stopping is never permitted. Whether the stop lasted seconds or minutes is not relevant—the act of stopping in breach of clearly displayed signage is itself sufficient to constitute a contravention of the advertised terms.

If the operator is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability, compliance with the timelines and wording in Schedule 4 is not necessary. The operator may instead pursue the keeper on the balance of probabilities if no driver is named, a position that has been upheld in numerous appeal cases. If PoFA is being relied upon, then the timing of the Notice to Keeper and its content would be assessed for compliance. In this case, there is no indication that PoFA is the basis for liability.


I need to respond by the 29/10/2025 but I'm unsure if I need to submit a response or refer case to arbitration

Thank you

Hi just an update, I've received a response from UKCPS.

They've denied my initial appeal, and I'm unsure what steps forward I should take. Should I continue to appeal or ignore this?

"Thank you for your appeal submitted on 19th September 2025. After reviewing your comments, and carefully
considering the evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we regret to inform you that your
appeal has been unsuccessful. The reasons for our decision are detailed below:
The area where the vehicle stopped is designated as private land where parking, stopping, or waiting is strictly
prohibited at all times.
At the time of the event, the vehicle was parked, stopped or waiting in this area, and as a result, the driver
contractually agrees to pay a parking charge. As you have not provided driver details, we are unable to transfer
the liability. The circumstances outlined in your appeal do not negate you from the terms and conditions in place
on the site. As the vehicle has stopped in a no stopping area, the terms and conditions have been breached and
therefore the PCN has been issued correctly.
Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the vehicle parked at the location mentioned above.
We have extended the opportunity for you to pay the reduced amount of, £60.00, until 23/10/2025, after this date,
the full amount of £100.00 will be due.
Regards,
Appeals Team"

Hi all,

I, the registered keeper has received a Notice to Keeper (NTK) on the 19th September 2025 for an alleged contravention described as “stopping in a restricted area” at Leeds City Station.

According to the NTK, the vehicle stopped for an unspecified  amount of minutes to allow a passenger to be dropped off. The driver did not see any new signage or road markings indicating that stopping was prohibited, and this location has previously been used for drop-offs without issue.

The NTK (image attached) arrived recently. The registered keeper is currently dealing with redundancy, so any advice on next steps would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

https://imgur.com/a/jD6NwFr