Free Traffic Legal Advice

There is no need to mention PoFA 2012, simply implementing its requirements is sufficient.
So:

Quote

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Quote from: InterCity125 on June 04, 2026, 07:09:55 am

I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the notice.

However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording required by paragraph 9(2)(e).

9(2)(e) specifies;

The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.

The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by 9(2)(f).

Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with IAS ?

Quote from: pesonkute on June 08, 2026, 06:03:00 pm

Quote from: InterCity125 on June 04, 2026, 07:09:55 am

I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the notice.

However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording required by paragraph 9(2)(e).

9(2)(e) specifies;

The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.

The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by 9(2)(f).

Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with IAS ?

No, because the IAS is not “independent” and usually sides with its paymasters, the parking companies.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appeal on this basis, because it sets out your stall and shows the court in due course that you were trying to avoid court. If they go on to take you to court, you have a defence which will be the same point.

The only thing I’d suggest with the IAS appeal is to keep it short, and to the point, and only appeal on one or - at worst - two points only. 9(2)e and possibly 9(2)f. The reason I say this is that if you appeal on lots of points they will pick off the easy ones and ignore the hard ones.

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity to consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In consideration for entering the site they agree not to park beyond the maximum permitted time or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.

I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map, exhibits and images.

The Appellant's does not dispute the facts related to the contravention, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The terms are clear. If the driver stays beyond the maximum permitted time they have few options. They could contact the Operator and request temporary permission to park. Alternatively, they could park elsewhere. Otherwise they could remain parked and agree to pay the charge.

The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein. I must point out that whilst the Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do not. Instead, the operator is entitled to rely either on the legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were driving at the material time.

Turning to the identity of the driver, POFA 2012 and case law permits the Operator to hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge regardless as to whether they are the driver or not. The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that they were not the driver and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

The Notice to Keeper is considered in time unless there is evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was received after the second working day. In the absence of such evidence I cannot consider the matter further.

The Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, and they exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable to pay the full charge.