Free Traffic Legal Advice

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

Did NPC also send you

Quote

(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

?

No?

Then they are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) to hold you, the hirer, responsible for the liabilities of the driver, whom you are under no obligation to identify.

You can appeal along the lines of

Quote

Dear Sirs,

I have received you Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):

A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.

As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.

They only have one shot at getting the Notice to Hirer right. They didn’t. They never do. Lots of people fall for it and pay up.

I will select "I was not aware that I had incurred a charge" option and use the text you kindly shared above.

Quote from: 8vaibhav on August 07, 2025, 09:37:11 am

I will select "I was not aware that I had incurred a charge" option and use the text you kindly shared above.

Before you proverbially blow both feet off... what do you mean by the above?

You only appeal as the "Hirer" or "Other". You are denying any liability as the Hirer.

Is the notice you have shown us a Notice to Hirer (NtH) addressed to you or is it a copy of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent to the lease company? Unless it is an NtH addressed and issued to to you, you cannot do anything.

I am the hirer of the vehicle referenced in PCN [number]. 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. Crucially, if the operator wishes to hold the hirer liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), it must comply with the strict conditions set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14. It has not done so.
I therefore require the operator to provide the following:

1. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 14(5) of PoFA. The Notice to Hirer must contain all the prescribed information. The operator’s notice fails to do so.

2. Strict proof of compliance with Paragraph 13(2) of PoFA. The operator must have included:

• A copy of the hire agreement.
• A statement of liability signed by the hirer.

These documents were not provided. Without them, the operator cannot transfer liability to the hirer. I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so. Unless the operator can establish the identity of the driver, it has no lawful basis to pursue this charge.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 hirer liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.

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 has failed to establish liability, and unless they can identify the driver, they—and the IAS—have no jurisdiction to pursue this matter further.

Wouldn't the "unknown driver" aspect be enough to challenge instead of including all these other points?