I don't understand this bit:
"...the driver entered the appeal process and ticked that they were the driver of the car..."
Who was the Notice to Keeper (NtK) addressed to? Whatever has been done, identifying the unknown driver to the operator is a fatal mistake in any Parking Charge Notice (PCN) dispute. There is absolutely no legal obligation on the Registered Keeper to identify the driver and they should never, ever, do so if they want a reasonable chance of getting this cancelled.
It is fairly obvious that the Keeper either identified the driver or the driver appealed and identified themself as a different entity from the Keeper, because it is obvious that a new PCN was issued to the named driver a month later.
As you are now in the midst of the corrupt IPC system of appeal and IAS appeal, nothing will ever be resolved in this situation unless you are prepared to defend yourself in court when they issue a claim for this. Are you up for fighting this all the way or not. I am not prepared to invest much time or effort if you are going to give up when the going gets tough.
I will provide a suitable IAS appeal, not that it will succeed but will at least set the stage for any later defence. For now you can appeal to the IAS with the following (assuming that the driver has been identified and the new PCN is in their name:
I am the driver of the vehicle. 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. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:
1. 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, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms. In particular, the signage must clearly explain how the Sippi App functions, including when payment is triggered and how time is calculated. The driver followed the instructions on the signage, downloaded the app, and set it to pay automatically on exit. The app failed to register the session correctly and only started the timer as the driver was leaving the site. The driver manually stopped the session and paid £1.70, which was confirmed by Sippi in writing. Sippi also confirmed that no further action was required.
2. 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 that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes the identity of the landowner, a boundary map of the land to be managed, applicable byelaws, the duration and scope of authority granted, detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions, the means of issuing PCNs, responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents, and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code. These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. 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 as defined by the PPSCoP. In this case, the driver paid for the session via the app, and CPM has admitted in writing that payment was received and that there was a miscommunication with Sippi. This confirms that the driver attempted to comply with the terms and that the failure was operational, not contractual.
4. 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 a motorist cannot be held liable for a failure caused by the operator’s own systems or third-party agents.
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.
