Free Traffic Legal Advice

And I presume we're relying upon this 'expiry period', highlighted in red - paragraph 5 - having been surpassed:

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(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)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice to keeper, 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, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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 (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.

(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—

(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and

(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

There was no need to apply to the DVLA as the Keeper appealed, solely in their capacity as the Keeper.

Response to operators Prima Facie  case:

If the assessor genuinely holds legal qualifications at solicitor or barrister level — a claim for which the IAS offers no transparency or public verification — they would know that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) requires a valid Notice to Keeper (NtK) where the parking operator seeks to pursue the registered keeper, in cases where the driver is not identified. This obligation applies specifically when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued and the keeper has not admitted to being the driver. In this case, the NtD was affixed to the vehicle, and I appealed solely in my capacity as keeper without making any admission of driver identity. Therefore, absent a compliant NtK, the operator’s reliance on PoFA is not only procedurally defective — it is legally embarrassing.

The suggestion that my appeal, made solely in the capacity of registered keeper, somehow enables Armtrac to bypass the requirements of PoFA and retrospectively assign driver liability is not just legally untenable — it is desperate. Lipstick on a pig remains a pig, and the misapplication of statute does not cure a fatally defective claim.

Therefore if the IAS assessor is indeed legally qualified — as claimed but never substantiated — they will be fully aware that in cases where an NtD has been issued and the keeper has not admitted to being the driver, PoFA requires the issuance of a valid NtK to engage keeper liability. This is not discretionary. The absence of a Notice to Keeper in this case is fatal to any attempt to rely on PoFA.

Should the assessor choose to ignore this foundational requirement — which sits at the heart of Schedule 4 — it will speak volumes about the reliability and independence of this adjudication process. The consistent refusal to attribute decisions to named individuals only compounds the perception that transparency and legal rigour are lacking. If the decision rendered here genuinely reflects qualified legal reasoning, its author should be willing to put their name to it. If not, one must question why.

In summary, the absence of a valid NtK, combined with the lack of any driver identification, renders keeper liability entirely inapplicable under PoFA The operator cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper, and any attempt to do so is procedurally defective and unenforceable.

On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled, which I struggle to see any valid reason for.

Because they are firm of scamming bar stewards. The IAS is a company with the same directors as the IPC. Judge, jury and executioner, all rolled into one.

They have deliberately made it as difficult as possible for anyone to try and appeal in any meaningful way. There is something I wouldn't do, even if they were on fire...

Zero respect for them and hopefully once the Private Parking legislation is active, it will see their demise.

Quote from: richonlybyname on July 10, 2025, 02:16:36 pm

On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled, which I struggle to see any valid reason for.

Because they are firm of scamming bar stewards. The IAS is a company with the same directors as the IPC. Judge, jury and executioner, all rolled into one.

They have deliberately made it as difficult as possible for anyone to try and appeal in any meaningful way. There is something I wouldn't do, even if they were on fire...

Zero respect for them and hopefully once the Private Parking legislation is active, it will see their demise.

I figured as much and share the sentiment!

Typical blather from an anonymous pretend lawyer. Thankfully, the IAS decision is not binding on you and you should not pay it. The IAS are simply an incestuous arm of the IPC and their only objective is to protect IPC members.

The operator will now come back to you with more male bovine excrement about you being liable to pay them. Don't.

They will next engage useless debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt collector demands as they are powerless to actually do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will take it from there.

Typical blather from an anonymous pretend lawyer. Thankfully, the IAS decision is not binding on you and you should not pay it. The IAS are simply an incestuous arm of the IPC and their only objective is to protect IPC members.

The operator will now come back to you with more male bovine excrement about you being liable to pay them. Don't.

They will next engage useless debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all debt collector demands as they are powerless to actually do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will take it from there.

I received the Letter of Claim a few weeks back but was busy and took no action as I was very busy with other matters.  I have now received a county court Claim Form.  Particulars of Claim read as follows:

"The Claim against the Defendant (D) is for £100.00 for a parking charge following a parking contravention which occured on 09/05/2025 on private land (lawfully occupied by the Claimant (C)) at Maenporth Beach Car Park Falmouth Tr11 5Hn by the driver of a vehicle, BMW 3 SERIES registration mark REDACTED.  C's terms and conditions (displayed on signage) offered the driver a contractual licence and was accepted by the driver upon entry, and subsequently breached. Driver's breach:
Parked after the expiry of the time paid for
D is liable as driver, or keeper per Sch. 4 PoFA2012. C also claims £60.00 contractual recovery costs as set out in its terms and conditions and the ATA Code of Practice."

The claimant is KBT Cornwall Limited.  The claim amount is for £160 + court fee of £35 + legal representative's costs of £50 = £245

Issue date 18 February 2025.  Of course, I wish to dispute the claim in full and will respond accordingly online.  I was intending to submit the following as my defence:

"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge. I rely upon the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).  In this case, a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 09/05/2025. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been served to date. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, where a NtD has been issued, a compliant NtK must be served between day 28 and day 56 following the alleged contravention in order to establish keeper liability. The Claimant has failed to do so. Therefore, there is no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver. Any attempt to hold me liable in the absence of a valid NtK is a clear breach of PoFA and renders this charge unenforceable against me."

I feel this should be adequate as this is the legal crux of the matter, but would welcome any advice / whether it's worth seeking evidence of their ownership of the land etc.

Please show us the claim form - redact your name and address, claim number and MCOL password. Leave the rest visible - we only need to see the actual Claim Form, not any of the enclosed forms etc.