Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good day to you all.  We received this from IAS yesterday:
Attention! You need to log back into the system and upload your response to the operators information and evidence or refer it straight to an Adjudicator.  ( This was in bold lettering to grab your attention....it grabbed my wife's and frightened her! )
We received your appeal.
You now have until 31/07/26 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.

You need to log into the IAS system at portal.theias.org and view the information that the Parking Operator has uploaded.

The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.

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 extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example 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. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

IMPORTANT: If you are unsure as to which option to choose, you will need to seek your own independent legal advice. The IAS is not able to comment on the evidence or assist you in making this decision.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

******
Now this is the , I presume standard response from VCS:
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 06/05/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 06/05/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
1. The BP Fuel Station at the East Midlands Airport is private land which motorists are permitted to enter subject to the advertised restrictions.

2. Signage in the area the appellant stopped clearly states, “No Stopping.” Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol manage and enforce these areas, where stopping is not permitted unless authorised, and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the requirements with signs. The signage also makes it clear that any motorist contravening the terms and conditions will be liable for a Charge Notice. This PCN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping where stopping is prohibited.

3. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 06/05/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.

4. The issue of this charge and the NTK comply with POFA 2012.
5. A copy of our authority to enforce the No Stopping terms and conditions in place on this site, including where the appellant stopped their vehicle, was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.

6. A review of the footage we possess shows the appellant's vehicle stationary when first observed and remaining stationary for approx. ** minute and ** seconds at which point the vehicle starts to move; as the vehicle was already stationary when first observed this was the minimum amount of time that the vehicle was stationary for. During this period two passengers are dropped off.

7. We are unable to submit the actual footage due to GDPR, principally the presence of the driver's passengers, however we do submit an annotated series of footage frames to further demonstrate the contravention and its duration.

8. The appellant does not deny the material facts of the recorded contravention.

9. The No Stopping signs are visible on entry to the Fuel Station and in the vicinity of the location the vehicle stopped. As such, we deem it implausible a motorist could enter the Fuel Station and be unaware of the restrictions.

10. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated vehicles must not be stopped; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.

11. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land which they park. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs; which are designed to be rad from a moving vehicle; is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions.
12. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose. The location in which the appellant had stopped can be observed in the supplied annotated overhead and vehicle and signage location image which highlight the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS contractual signage.

13. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given sufficient notice of the No Stopping terms and conditions in place, the driver freely chose to stop their vehicle on a roadway where stopping is prohibited at all times. By doing so the appellant as registered keeper of the vehicle became liable for the charge which was lawfully issued.

14. By the driver stopping on a road where stopping was prohibited the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
******

I am sorry this is so long.
What is my response, please?
Thanks again.
Coalman

Hello Lads.
I had a reply from my appeal letter last Friday:
We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 15/06/2026.
Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our
main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:
The signs where your vehicle was observed within the Fuel Station, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice
that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop. The above detailed
vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay the advertised Charge.
We note that you have declined to name the driver of your vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is
important that we make you aware that in this case we may pursue you as the registered keeper of the vehicle for the
outstanding Charge, as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
The notice sent to you clearly states: Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day
after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid
in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have
the right to recover from the registered keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed
to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is
proved.
A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped for an unreasonable
amount of time in any area where stopping for any reason is strictly prohibited. As stated, the signs near to the
location your vehicle was observed clearly stated "No Stopping" and warned that if you did so, you were liable for the charge advertised.

I hope and will thank you all in anticipation for your further advice on my next move.
Cheers!

https://ibb.co/ymvDnTM6
https://ibb.co/CdVFVzP
https://ibb.co/ymvDnTM6

Thank you.  I am really surprised that anyone needs to build a defence when , from what I have read, the petrol station is not 'relevant land' and therefore VCS have no jurisdiction over that part of the airport estate. Isn't this a slam-dunk , a no-win for the scamming parking firm because of the 'not relevant land' situation?  Thanks for your time .  I will sort out a better upload tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you....but from what i have read, they are not that 'independent' are they? 

Hi everybody!  I had a this occurrence at the petrol station at East Mids airport.  I received the customary PCN from a firm called VCS.  After researching websites for excellent information, this was my reply/appeal to them on their website....
( They have a drop down list for you to choose a reason for the appeal )
*  Despite the drop down reason given is ''there was no signage at the car park'', I cannot say for sure  if there was signage or not, I can only state that I DID NOT SEE any signage.
However, and more importantly, I am the registered keeper but VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control, which East Midlands Airport certainly is. As a matter of fact and law, VCS will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because East Midlands Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If East Midlands Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because VCS is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for VCS's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and VCS 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 . Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. VCS  have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.  VCS has issued an invoice that, by law, can only hold the driver liable, not the keeper. Please note the Protection of Freedoms Act2012(Sch 4), confirmed in Appeal Court judgment VCS v Ian Edward.  I therefore, I require you to cancel the PCN and expunge my personal data from your records.

signed
*******

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will *ever* be given. Please do not bother with your known fishing expedition in an attempt to get driver details.  It is known parking firms do this to try and get around the fact when there is no keeper liability in play. (and never can be under POFA)
Three weeks later the owner of the car received this:
We refer to correspondence received from you concerning the above numbered Charge Notice.
Please note that responsibility for this Charge lies with the driver of the vehicle at the time the parking contravention
was observed. However, we are unable to ascertain who the driver was on the date in questions from the information
given within your appeal.
In order for us to process your appeal correctly, please follow the instructions below:
1. If you were the driver on the day in question, please confirm this within your next correspondence.
2. Notify the driver of the vehicle that they will need to appeal to us directly, including their FULL NAME (Forename
and Surname) and a valid FULL SERVICEABLE ADDRESS within 14 days.
3. If you are representing the driver we require a signed and dated statement from the driver of the vehicle confirming
that you are authorised to appeal on his/her behalf; this needs to be an original signature and not a photocopy or a
stamp. The statement MUST contain the drivers FULL NAME (Forename and Surname) and a valid FULL
SERVICEABLE ADDRESS.
Please ensure that correspondence is submitted through the portal www.myparkingcharge.co.uk in order to correctly
adhere with the appeals process.

Is there a templet for a reply / another appeal, or do I just tell them to jog-on?
Thank you in anticipation for your help.