It's not going to make any difference to the IAS decision. In the vast majority of IAS decisions, they are going to back their brother parking firms. The IAS is a kangaroo court.

However, an IAS decision is not binding. The majority of these cases are won after a county court claim is issued, with the vast majority being discontinued.

Quote from: 8vaibhav on August 20, 2025, 02:22:09 pm

As my lease is about to end, I am thinking to not complain as of now. But would note this for future.

That is a bit silly. You are entitled to compensation for any breach of your GDPR.

They have dobbed you in it with the IAS, so that is not going to end successfully for you. You can easily fight this all the way through the eventual county court claim but I suspect, based on your response above, that you are going to try and settle for the mugs discount.

Quote

. Saying “timestamped photos advise how long the vehicle was observed” is not proof of a continuous period outside any consideration/grace allowance or proof of parking rather than a brief stop. The operator should produce the observation log and a continuous sequence; they have not.

You're not the registered keeper, but you were keeping the vehicle at the relevant time in your capacity as the hirer. As long as your actual appeal makes clear the capacity in which you are appealing that should be fine.

So you appeal to the IAS with the following:

Quote

I am the hirer of the vehicle referenced in PCN [number]. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.

The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. Crucially, if the operator wishes to hold the hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it must comply with the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14. It has not done so.
I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 14(5) of PoFA. The Notice to Hirer must contain all the prescribed information. The operator’s notice fails to do so.

2. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. The operator must have included:

• A copy of the hire agreement.
• A statement of liability signed by the hirer.

These documents were not provided. Without them, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so. Unless the operator can establish the identity of the driver, it has no lawful basis to pursue this charge.

3. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention.

4. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements.

5. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period.

6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.

In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. The operator has failed to establish liability, and unless they can identify the driver, they—and the IAS—have no jurisdiction to pursue this matter further.

Quote from: 8vaibhav on August 07, 2025, 09:37:11 am

I will select "I was not aware that I had incurred a charge" option and use the text you kindly shared above.

Before you proverbially blow both feet off... what do you mean by the above?

You only appeal as the "Hirer" or "Other". You are denying any liability as the Hirer.

Is the notice you have shown us a Notice to Hirer (NtH) addressed to you or is it a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent to the lease company? Unless it is an NtH addressed and issued to to you, you cannot do anything.