Hello all, please advise on the below NtK, I have already appealed as "keeper" which NPC have rejected. My argument is resting on their NtK not being PofA compliant primarily. Please advise what I should say here as a response before IAS start their arbitration process. There are few bits of evidence from NPC uploaded on IAS website which I haven't added, please let me know if I need to. I think original NtK is the most important evidence and that is attached below.
Many thanks in advance as always.
Thanks,
Please see original NtK:
My initial appeal:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge.
Besides, other shortfalls, as an example, your NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so it is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e).
Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. NPC have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
NPC rejected, then I appealed to IAS:
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 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
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. Besides other shortfalls, as an example, the NTK fails to "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" so is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e). Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There has been no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 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.
NPC response:
The vehicle was recorded by the ANPR camera entering the car park at 10:01 and exiting at 11:33.
At the time of parking, the vehicle did not hold a valid e-permit.
Photographic evidence has been provided to support this statement.
All drivers are required to hold a valid e-permit in order to park in this car park.
Clear signage is displayed throughout the area, outlining the terms and conditions for parking.
A screenshot from the e-permit logs confirms that the vehicle did not hold a valid e-permit on the date of the contravention. Please note that physical windscreen permits are not used at this location.
The appellant states that our NTK is not PoFA compliant. I have therefore attached the original NTK as evidence that it fully complies with PoFA requirements, and have also attached the certificate of postage to demonstrate that it was sent out correctly.
We note that the appellant also states that the signs within the car park is not clear, I have attached photos showing clear signage withing the area.
My response:
NPC do NOT know driver identity and still seems to indicate me as the driver in their response.
Driver identity shall not be revealed and cannot be assumed.
Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not good enough, the NtK isn't fully compliant and hence there is no keeper liability.
Last message from NPC
We note the comments made by the appellant, however our Notice To Keeper clearly states that "if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the Notice is given:
(i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you".
As the appellant has not named the driver, we have the right to recover from them
