Free Traffic Legal Advice

The IAS will reject your appeal, but it will cost Smart ££ in the process, and you are not bound by it.

It is the “deemed” date of delivery that counts. If the alleged contravention was on 1st August and the NtK was “issued” on Monday 11th August, then the deemed date of delivery is Wednesday 13th August, which is only 12 days after the dare of the alleged contravention, and so within the relevant period as far as PoFA is concerned.

You are unlikely to win this at IAS but if you are prepared to fight it, you would put them to strict proof that they posted it on the date it was issued. They will not have evidence of posting and as the delivery is a rebuttable presumption, you could have a very strong defence point that it was never served within the relevant period and therefore they cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper.

However, all that is a bit superfluous because if you do fight is all the way to a county court claim, with our defence, they will eventually discontinue anyway.

They rely on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will, under pressure, pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Hello all - as the registered keeper of the vehicle I received the following from the IAS in response to my appeal -

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver not paying for the duration of their stay will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant claims that the Operator must claim against the driver, since they did not comply with POFA, and are therefore unable to claim against the keeper. The basis for this is that the notice was not received within the required timescales. Whilst I accept the premise I reject the conclusion.

The fourteen days begins on the day after the parking event, so in this case the first day would be 2nd of August. The notice was sent on the 11th. The rules state that this is deemed served as received on the second working day after this date. This would be the 13th and well within the 14 day deadline.

The Appellant claims the notice arrived on the 18th outside of the 14 day deadline. Even if this were the case the rules are clear that it is assumed to be received on the 13th, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In the absence of corroboration I cannot accept this claim on its face.

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle leaving the land they manage, twelve minutes after it arrived, and without a payment for this vehicle. The appeal is dismissed."

As the keeper what should I do?  Offer to pay 60 to get them off my back. 

What exactly did you put in your IAS appeal? You should have put the operator to strict proof of posting the NtK as it is a rebuttable presumption that service was on the date they claim.

Goes to show you how unlikely it is that the person claiming to be legally trained to solicitor level of higher, is in fact nothing of the sort and a mendacious idiot to boot.

The Appellant claims the notice arrived on the 18th outside of the 14 day deadline. Even if this were the case the rules are clear that it is assumed to be received on the 13th, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. In the absence of corroboration I cannot accept this claim on its face.

That presumption of delivery, if rebutted put the burden of proof on the operator to show when it was actually entered in to the postal system on a guaranteed 1-2 day delivery method. I can guarantee you that they do not hold any such evidence, even though they are required to do so according to the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e) Note 2:

NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. Therefore, parking operators 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.)

Of course, this will be used against them if it ever reaches a hearing (it will not).

As the IAS decision is not binding on you, you do not pay. Ignore all forthcoming debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).