I have already made my appeal and got rejected so this is my appeal to IAS.
Ground 1: Failure to Comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Late Delivery)
The operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 in order to transfer liability to the keeper/hirer.
The alleged contravention occurred on 27/02/2026. Therefore, the Notice to Keeper/Hirer was required to be delivered within 14 days, i.e. by 13/03/2026.
The notice was not received until 18/03/2026, which is outside the relevant period.
Whilst the operator states the notice was issued on 10/03/2026, PoFA is clear that the requirement is for delivery, not issuance. The operator has provided no evidence that the notice was delivered within the statutory timeframe.
Accordingly, the operator has failed to establish keeper/hirer liability.
⸻
Ground 2: Presumption of Service Not Satisfied (Postage Issue)
Under the Interpretation Act 1978, a notice is presumed served two working days after posting, unless the contrary is proven.
Even if the notice had been posted on 10/03/2026, deemed service would be 12/03/2026 at the earliest.
However, the notice was actually received on 18/03/2026, clearly rebutting any presumption of service.
Furthermore, the operator used a third-party mail provider (The Delivery Group), where delivery times are not guaranteed. The operator has provided no proof of posting date or delivery date, and therefore cannot rely on presumed service.
⸻
Ground 3: Failure to Comply with Hire Vehicle Requirements (PoFA Paragraph 14)
As this is a hire/Motability vehicle, the operator must comply with Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Schedule 4.
This requires the operator to provide:
• A copy of the hire agreement
• A statement of liability signed by the hirer
These documents were not provided with the Notice to Hirer.
This is a mandatory requirement, and failure to include these documents means the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer under any circumstances.
⸻
Ground 4: No Driver Identified
The operator has not identified the driver.
I confirm that I was not the driver, and I am under no legal obligation to name the driver.
As the operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4, they cannot pursue the keeper/hirer, and must instead pursue the driver, whom they have not identified.
⸻
Ground 5: No Notice to Driver Issued
No Notice to Driver (windscreen ticket) was affixed to the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention.
Therefore, the operator is required to fully comply with the 14-day delivery requirement under Schedule 4, which they have failed to do
These grounds are a bit muddled, in that ground #1 and ground #3 directly conflict with each other.
Are you the registered keeper? (The fact that it is a Motability vehicle means the answer to this is probably 'yes', as they're the exception to the rule when it comes to hiring, but please confirm) If you are, then paragraph 14 of PoFA is irrelevant, and ground #3 should be removed.
If you are not the registered keeper, then paragraph 14 is relevant, but then the relevant period of 14 days would not apply (that applies to notices to the keeper, not any subsequent notice to hirer)
I note this is a different username to other posts, are you the same OP?
It is a motability car and theirs is multiple insured drivers.what part do I delete and is the rest of my points valid. Also to answer your last question I am a new user. Thank you for helping also
I have split this out into its own thread. Please don't hijack someone else's post to ask about your own problem.