Free Traffic Legal Advice

Appellant's Final Rebuttal to Operator's Prima Facie Case:

If the IAS assessor is genuinely legally qualified, then they will, without hesitation, be aware of the persuasive relevance of Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), Claim No. B9GF0A9E, heard before HHJ Harris QC in Oxford County Court. In that judgment, the court clarified that temporary stopping for the purposes of collection or delivery is not “parking” in the contractual sense contemplated by private parking schemes.

In this case, the contemporaneous photographic evidence clearly shows the vehicle with its boot open, in the process of loading a large item of furniture from a resident—a task confirmed by a supporting witness statement. The total duration on site was under 17 minutes. That is not, by any stretch, “parking” in the sense envisaged by the ParkingEye v Beavis framework, and nor does it support any finding of contractual liability. It is entirely analogous to the facts in Jopson.

If this appeal is denied despite (a) clear legal authority supporting the appellant's position, (b) failure by the operator to strictly prove landowner authority under Section 14 of the PPC Code of Practice, and (c) no rebuttal to the argument regarding insufficient signage and lack of contractual offer, then I will welcome the opportunity to contest this matter in court—where procedural fairness, evidential standards, and binding precedent do apply.

A dismissal in the face of Jopson and the absence of a material rebuttal by the operator will speak for itself: it will confirm that the IAS is neither independent nor operating in accordance with basic legal standards, and will inform future public commentary and reporting on this scheme.

However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

Subject: Response to your Letter Before Claim – Ref: [Insert Reference]

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date]. The letter lacks sufficient detail of the alleged claim and fails to include the key documents required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, particularly paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2, and also CPR Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a)–(c).

These requirements exist to enable parties to understand and properly respond to claims, and to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Your letter refers to a “contract” yet provides no evidence of the terms relied upon, no copy of the original Notice to Keeper, and no documents substantiating your legal right to enforce or litigate. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence while you fail to disclose the documents you purport to rely on.

To comply with the Protocol and CPR Practice Direction, please provide the following:

1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper and any subsequent correspondence relied upon to establish Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between the Claimant and the driver, specifically an actual photograph of the signage displayed on the date of the alleged contravention, along with a site plan showing the locations of the signs.
3. The exact wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. A copy of the contract or agreement between the Claimant and the landowner or lawful occupier, evidencing the Claimant’s authority to manage the land and take legal action in their own name.
5. A breakdown of the amount claimed, including a justification for any additional charges beyond the original parking charge, and a clarification of whether VAT is applicable.

I am entitled to this information under the PAPDC and require it to discharge my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

Until such time as you provide a Letter Before Claim that fully complies with the PAPDC, I am unable to provide a substantive response. Should you proceed with court action prematurely, I will bring this correspondence to the attention of the court and seek appropriate relief and costs under CPR 3.1(2)(m) and CPR 27.14(2)(g), including a stay and/or sanctions for unreasonable conduct.

Please also note that I will not respond via any third-party debt collection portal. All future correspondence must be sent directly to my postal or email address.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper