Free Traffic Legal Advice

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?

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

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.

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

Follow up to my initial post =====> here

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

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'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?