Free Traffic Legal Advice

Observed for 2 minutes and 22 seconds.

The IAS is crooked and in the pay of the parking companies, is in no way ‘independent’ and will not uphold your appeal. However you can be happy that the charade will at least cost NPC £23.

It will go to court but, if defended, is unlikely to actually go to a court hearing. Their process is designed to intimidate you into paying.

Don’t identify the driver, of course.

What did you say in your appeals?

Observed for 2 minutes and 22 seconds.

The IAS is crooked and in the pay of the parking companies, is in no way ‘independent’ and will not uphold your appeal. However you can be happy that the charade will at least cost NPC £23.

It will go to court but, if defended, is unlikely to actually go to a court hearing. Their process is designed to intimidate you into paying.

Don’t identify the driver, of course.

What did you say in your appeals?

I got two PCNs at the same location, the other one charged me for partking without permit which has been appealed successfully.
I used a service to appeal, below is the content of this appeal.

This letter issued on 03/09/2025 serves as a formal appeal against the parking charge ---- issued to the Vehicle Keeper of the vehicle -----.
The driver's information will not be provided. The appeal has been made on the basis that the ------ was the Vehicle Keeper. I will therefore rely on POFA 2012 Schedule 4 where applicable. If the appeal is rejected, I will refer the matter to The IAS via their website www.theias.org/appeal for a final decision.
 
1.   The keeper cannot be held liable for the charge
1.   Your parking charge notice doesn't mention the law required to transfer liability to the vehicle keeper which is the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012) Schedule 4. Because you don't know who was driving, you are supposed to use POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the vehicle keeper.
2.   Your notice doesn't mention POFA 2012, I therefore deny any responsibility, and I will not be naming the driver.
3.   In a recent court case of Excel Parking Services Limited -V-Mr Lamoureux [2016] Case No. C3dp56q5, the District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds stated:
1.   There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.
2.   Everybody knows that you cannot assume that the keeper is the driver which is why most parking companies, such as Parking Eye, always rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the notice should comply.
4.   I do not need to confirm or provide any details of who was the driver on the day as the vehicle can lawfully be driven with permission from the keeper by anyone with adequate insurance.
5.   I hope you will honour POFA 2012 and your operator code of practice by allowing the appeal on the basis that the keeper is not liable.
2.   The notice does not state the period of parking
1.   The notice has not been issued according to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 namely:
2.   The second condition is that the creditor or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2a) or 9(2)a.
3.   A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver or notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
4.   The notice issued under paragraph 7(2)a or 8(2)a or 9(2)a must—
1. (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
5.   (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).
6.   The notice issued does not state the period of parking and therefore it has not been issued correctly under POFA 2012 Schedule 4.
 
3.   If The Operator Refuses to provide information
1.   Please note that because The Operator have issued a parking charge notice stating that there was a breach of contract, it is therefore reasonable for me to request information from The Operator to make sure that your claim is valid and The Operator have the relevant authorisation to pursue this charge.
2.   Nothing requested in this letter is unreasonable because you subscribe to the Approved Operator Scheme which outlines how you must operate and provide services to the public.
3.   If you refuse to provide information, this will be considered Fraud under Fraud Act 2006 which simply states fraud can be committed by:
1. Making a statement which is untrue or misleading where The Operator believe it may be untrue or misleading (fraud by misrepresentation).
1.   Example 1: If you put anything in writing which is not true or misleading, this will be considered Fraud.
2.   Fraud by failing to disclose information which you have a legal duty to do so as we have a contractual dispute.
1. Example 2: If you refuse to provide a copies of the signage present at the time or state that you cannot provide copies of the landowner agreement due to commercial sensitivity, this is also considered fraud because if these documents don't exist or are not valid, you are failing to disclose information that can help me defend this case.
3. Fraud by Abuse of Position: If the person making the appeal decisions does
not seriously consider the points raised in this letter, they are abusing their position.
1. Example 3: If The Operator do not reply to the specific points raised in this appeal, this is fraud even if your statements are by omission. 4. For the avoidance of doubt, the full version of Fraud Act 2006 can be found here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents.

I have no idea where you lifted that appeal from but here is an honest critique of why it is utterly naff:

Fatal problems


Legal/technical blunders


Tone and optics


Structure issue


For your information, there is absolutely NO requirement to mention PoFA 2012. All that is required is to have complied with ALL the requirements of PoFA for it to be considered compliant. In this case, it is compliant, so they can pursue the Keeper if the driver is not identified.

Your winning point, if this were to reach a court hearing in the small claims track (highly unlikely) would be that there is no evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period and so, no contract was formed.

When you receive the appeal rejection, you can simply appeal to the IAS with the following:

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 vehicle was parked beyond the minimum consideration period: the NtK records only “Observation time: 08:05:36–08:07:58” (2m22s) without stating whether this was AM or PM. Provide the consideration period applicable at this site (per PPSCoP §5.1 and the signage in force) and evidence that it was exceeded.

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 §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, §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 §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 Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP §8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)

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 keeper 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.

If the IAS reject your appeal, so what? Their decision is not binding on you and you certainly don't pay.

You will have to now weather the useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

You come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we take it from there. Depending on which bulk litigator NPC use, a suitable response is provided and then you wait for the actual N1SDT Claim Form. Again, we advise on how to defend it and provide a suitable template defence.

Eventually, the claim is most likely to be struck out or discontinued. Of the very few that ever go as far as an actual hearing, most those are won. Nothing we advise on risks a CCJ.

If the IAS reject your appeal, so what? Their decision is not binding on you and you certainly don't pay.

You will have to now weather the useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

You come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we take it from there. Depending on which bulk litigator NPC use, a suitable response is provided and then you wait for the actual N1SDT Claim Form. Again, we advise on how to defend it and provide a suitable template defence.

Eventually, the claim is most likely to be struck out or discontinued. Of the very few that ever go as far as an actual hearing, most those are won. Nothing we advise on risks a CCJ.

Yeah I know that will happen if I go ahead.
The only one thing is I will change the address in the next few months so I am afraid that I will be missed the Letter before Claim and Letter of claim later,
How do I avoid it ?

Just before you move you send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the NPC DPO at DPO@Nationalparkingcontrol.co.uk and CC yourself. The DRN must instruct NPC to update their records with your new address for service and to erase the old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so make sure you use them.

I also strongly advise you to use postal redirection, ideally for a minimum of three months. We see many cases where this was not done and several months down the line the Keeper is surprised to find they have a CCJ by default because they know nothing about the claim.

The adjudicator made their decision on 22/10/2025 14:00:49.

It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to be parked in a restricted area as alleged by the Operator, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.

Below is the NTK i posted again: