Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have no idea why you selected “Nominated Representative” as that has obviously caused the problem here. You were told to simply appeal ONLY as the Keeper. There was no need to confuse the issue by appealing only as the Keeper and then nominating the same person as a nominated representative.

The email address it is sent from has no bearing on anything whatsoever. If you use a disposable email address or a “hide my email” address, why should that matter? It’s like saying you posted something from a specific post box or post office as though it makes any difference to the issue. It doesn’t.

If they're affording you the opportunity to put the appeal back in, but this time without the 'Nominated representative' issue, then I'd do so.

Thank you both.

We've sent b789's letter to IAS in the body of a reply email, and kept a copy of it with the registered keepers title, 1st name and surname, and added a PDF copy of the appeal Letter as an attachment.

Can't make it any clearer to them.

We put the keepers title this time because the email address is a female name and OPS & IAS may be trying to "assume" that this may be the driver??? which is totally incorrect as they were not in the country at the time and has the passport stamps as evidence.

Its been submitted on they're site, emailed to them a couple of times now, and needs to be addressed.

We also have copies of they're automated reply stating "Nominated Representative"
which they're websites offer. We only used this method as the email address given is monitored regularly ready to respond.

The IAS Appeal Letter is 1787 word count which doesn't fit into they're 1000 word box,  so has to be added as a PDF, then it just buffers and doesn't send.

You also have to set up & register an "account" with IAS to be able to log in and to submit the appeal which has been set up with the female email address.

Just an update on the issue.

We've had another email in response to the last one we sent with B789 letter, just saying much the same as before.

Think the issue is that the IAS website wants an "account" set up in the NTK name, then offers the option to "Nominate a representative" which we did, yet they're still not acknowledging the Appeal even if its sent to them via email or as an attachment on they're site and they don't actually "re-set" the original account details as they say they have, and once sent to OPS, they reject it because they see an different name on the Appeal contact because the IAS account shows the representatives name instead of the Keepers. 

The IAS then just email us back again extending the time to Appeal again on they're site, this time we have till 14th January to submit the appeal on they're website.

They maybe just using the "register account" to farm peoples personal details??

Either way, we've just replied via email stating that they're online portal is not disabled friendly and requesting a "Reasonable Adjustment Request" to allow the Appeal Letter as PDF attached to the email yet again, (cant post it into they're word count box anyway)

They clearly seem stuck on making this as difficult and confusing as possible.

Do we now just wait for a threatening CCJ or bailiff's letter??

Hi...Just an update,

Finally heard back from IAS, OPS has responded to them with all the documents and IAS is offering us the opportunity to add any further evidence on an IAS-3 form, but interesting they've not provided a date to respond by...

Can anyone let us know what the next step is in this process please?

Dear XXXXXXXX

You have chosen to use the postal system for the service and receipt of documents during your appeal to the Independent Appeals Service.
 
The Operator has now uploaded their representations and/or any evidence upon which they wish to rely and this can be found below and the enclosed documents.
 
What Do I need to Do Now?
 
You do not need to do anything further; this information is provided to you for information only.  If you wish to add any further evidence to support your appeal please forward the completed IAS-3 Further Iterations Form (enclosed) and any other information to reach us by, otherwise we will process the appeal with the correspondence you have already supplied.

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 05/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 01/11/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
We note the appellants comments however, It do not exempt them from the from the terms and conditions of the site. We are instructed by the freehold landowner to enforce parking on site in accordance with the displayed term. It is the motorists responsibility to ensure that when parking on private land that they review the terms and conditions and park accordingly. The displayed terms state that all vehicles must be parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay at all times.

The contravention photos provided show that the driver parked on site out of a marked bay on double yellow lines and proceeded to walk off site; returning after a period of time and proceeding to leave. Therefore the appellant has parked and made use of the land. The IPC code of practise define parked as a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. A consideration period is afforded to motorists to review the terms on site; this however is not a period of free parking to make use of the land. By making use of the land the appellant has accepted the terms and is no longer afforded a consideration period.

All notices are sent POFA compliant. The Notice to Keeper contains all the pertinent details as required by POFA and was sent within the correct timeframe and therefore the appellant can be held liable as the registered keeper.

The site and signage has been audited by the IPC and therefore the site is deemed as complaint with the signage prominent enough to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists.

By failing to park within the confines of a marked bay and making use of the land the appellant is in direct contravention to the displayed terms and conditions and therefore contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.


Yours Sincerely,
 

The Independent Appeals Service
Independent Appeals Service
PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR