Free Traffic Legal Advice

Did you identify as the driver? You were supposed to appeal ONLY as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Any reference to the driver should have been in the third person. NO "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

So, has the driver been identified or not?

I am the registered keeper 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 that the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if it is attempting to rely on keeper liability. In this case, a Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 09/05/2025. I, the registered keeper, submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27). As of the date of this appeal, no Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been served.
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 operator 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” If that is true, then the assessor reading this will know that without a valid Notice to Keeper served in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there can be no keeper liability. That alone is fatal to the operator’s case.

They will also know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that the burden of proof lies squarely with the operator.
Yet the IAS process provides no transparency. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. 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.

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 10/07/2025 09:51:00.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 09/05/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
The vehicle was parked with no valid parking session/permit in a Pay and Display Car Park.
Issue Reason: Expired Ticket
Photographic evidence held for this PCN: 15 Photographs.

Our photographic evidence shows the vehicle was displaying an expired ticket and as such the vehicle was legitimately issued with a Parking Charge Notice. A ticket is only valid until the expiry time printed and no longer. It is a driver's responsibility to ensure that they return on or before the expiry time. We have a duty to the landowners who contact us to carry out periodic patrols on their behalf to ensure the rules are adhered to.
Our photographic evidence clearly shows that the ticket displayed within the vehicle expired at 14.30 and the PCN was issued at 15.03, therefore your vehicle had been parked on site for 33 minutes without valid authorisation. Please see attached evidence.
It is a driver's responsibility to ensure they have purchased a ticket to cover the stay required within the car park. A motorist would be expected to consider the time they require before purchasing a pay and display ticket.

In this case there is no requirement to issue a Notice To Keeper. The PCN was affixed to the vehicle at the time of contravention that the appellant admits has been received. The PCN states that a parking charge of £100 is due from the driver within 28 days of the date of issue of this notice. Had the appellant not been the driver at the time of contravention, then they should have transferred liability to the driver. They have however, appealed the PCN themselves, we will pursue the PCN holding the appellant liable as the Registered Keeper. Had no correspondence been received from the appellant then after 28 days, we would obtain the Registered Keeper details from the DVLA. There is no need in this instance as the appellant has provided their details. No Notice to Keeper is required.

There is clear and concise signage displayed at the site. All our sites and signage is audited by our governing body, the IPC. The terms and conditions of parking are very clear at the site, there are numerous terms and conditions signs throughout the site and also the tariff board contains this information.

This PCN was legitimately issued for an Expired Ticket.

We also note that the appellant's appeal is considerably different to their initial appeal to Armtrac Security Services.

The signage at the site states that:

• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit.

• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.

The appellant's vehicle was not covered for the entire parking period where it remained parked on private land. The terms and conditions signs at the site make this requirement very clear to motorists.

We, Armtrac Security Services, are contracted by the landowner to patrol this site ensuring that the terms of parking are adhered to. The signage here states that:

• You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session from the point of entry to point of exit

• You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration number when you make payment.

• No overnight parking/camping between the hours of 1100pm - 0800am.

• All vehicles must be parked in accordance with all other signage located throughout the site.

Please see tariff board located at entrance for payment information. In the event of a faulty payment terminal, please either use an alternative terminal, pay via the cashless payment facility, or leave the car park without using the facilities. Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted.

By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the Terms and Conditions.

Breach of ANY terms or conditions will result in the driver being liable for a
PARKING CHARGE of £100

We have followed the guidelines correctly and these rules are put in place by the land owner(s), not ourselves and our officers are instructed to enforce them. When entering a private car park it is for the motorist to consider the rules of parking in order to determine whether parking is suitable for their requirement's; the appellant chose to park their vehicle here at Maenporth Beach Private Pay and Display Car Park and by parking here they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of parking. By Failing to display a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen or have a valid cashless payment session covering the entire parking period; the rules of parking were breached and therefore they were legitimately issued with this PCN in accordance with the terms of parking displayed on the signage as a contractual term.

This PCN was correctly issued to the appellant.

We have enclosed Notice to Keeper, all correspondence between Armtrac and the appellant and all photographic evidence held for the PCN.

Please refer to uploads for Site Map, Site Photographs, Signs and Landowner Authority.

The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.

You now have TWO options:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 16/07/2025 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.