Free Traffic Legal Advice

After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within 28 14 days.

Also worth pointing out that your V5C is up to date with the correct address.

"I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled"

Don't be nice, don't ask - they don't care!  More direct, i.e.  "It is evident that Universal Parking Enforcement have failed to issue an NTK compliant with POFA to allow transfer of liability to the keeper, and compounded this by mis stating in their rejection the position with respect to periods for issuing a NTK to allow transfer of liability.  IAS POPLA must therefore direct them to cancel the charge."

After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within 28 days.

14 days.

The operator’s statement that a postal PCN can be issued within “7 months” is incorrect in law

This isn't quite right - they can issue a postal PCN later than the timescales provided for in PoFA, but if they do, they cannot then rely on PoFA to recover any charges from the keeper.

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

Hi all. So I lodged my IAS appeal and the operator was given 5 working days to respond. I thought I got lucky when I logged in and the system showed they had just 3 hours of their response window left. Anyway, they did respond with about 90 mins before the deadline. The following is their response,

"On 18/10/2025, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to a vehicle parked at Shell Garage, 391–393 Dunstable
Road, LU4 8DA, after the driver was observed leaving the premises. Signage at this location clearly states that
parking is permitted only within marked bays and only while the driver or passengers remain on site as customers.
The designated parking bays are clearly marked with white painted lines.
The vehicle was observed parked on private land, after which the driver exited the vehicle and proceeded to leave
the premises. This constitutes a breach of the displayed parking terms and conditions, resulting in the issuance of
the Parking Charge Notice.
The terms and conditions state that drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle is
parked onsite which means any visitor is permitted to park on the property for the period while being a customer
followed by them then leaving the premises with their vehicle. The terms and conditions are clear and
understandable.
The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. While this may be the case the issuance of the Notice to
Keeper is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove otherwise.
The vehicle was parked in close proximity to clearly visible signage, and photographic/CCTV evidence will show
the reason why this charge was issued.
The vehicle was observed parked on the land in breach of the displayed terms and conditions, which resulted in
the Parking Charge Notice being correctly issued. The motorist was given sufficient opportunity to read and
comply with the signage and avoid incurring the charge."

My arguement was based on their NtK being issued after 104 days, which it seems doesn't make difference. I've noticed in their response they've also claimed that the appelant is the keeper AND the driver despite my appeal stating that I'm the keeper and I'm not willing to identify the driver - See screenshots below.

Anyway, IAS now expect my response, which I thought I already kind of made my arguement being that the NtK was issued too late. What now?

https://ibb.co/QvgSvrYB
https://ibb.co/My3qWGP1