Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please read https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ and follow its instructions on how to post images in particular. Your wall of text is better than nothing but very unpleasant to read.

Your next step will be to appeal to the IAS on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012 legislation to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.

Their tactics are to refuse your appeal, lie and bluster in the knowledge that many people believe their nonsense and pay up. Just continue to ensure you do not identify the driver.

Yeah it is quite annoying they just literally ignored my point and admitted to not following the law but are still trying to squeeze money out of me. I have heard that the IAS doesn’t tend to favour the person appealing and the appealing success rate is quite low. I have appealed with the following message, just wondering what would happen next if the IAS also rejected.

The operator has confirmed in its rejection letter that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside the statutory period required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA 2012”).

As the Notice to Keeper was not served within the required 14-day period, the operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012 and cannot transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

The appellant has not identified the driver and is under no obligation to do so. The operator has therefore failed to establish keeper liability.

Accordingly, the charge should be cancelled.

The 'notice' please and pl confirm that you are the registered keeper*.

Compliance with PoFA is mandatory only if they wish to hold the keeper liable, but their reply is a tad short of being this explicit and we know that some PPCs do not rely upon PoFA.

When we see the notice and your clarification we'll see whether:

They regard you as being the keeper and the notice purports to comply with PoFA, or
Perhaps you are a hirer*.

I'm thinking of replying with this:

The operator has failed to establish keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA 2012”).

The Notice to Keeper was issued on 23/04/2026 in relation to an event dated 01/04/2026. This is outside the statutory 14-day period required by Paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 PoFA 2012.

The operator has therefore failed to comply with the mandatory conditions required to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper.

The operator now merely asserts that “the appellant was the driver” but provides no evidence whatsoever as to the identity of the driver.

No admission as to driver identity has been made.

The operator’s evidence only shows the vehicle and occupants allegedly leaving the site. It does not identify the driver.

The operator also incorrectly states:
“It is the responsibility of the registered keeper to prove they were not the driver.”

That is not the legal position. In the absence of PoFA compliance, the burden remains on the operator to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the identity of the driver. There is no lawful presumption that the registered keeper was driving.

As the operator has failed both:

1. to comply with PoFA 2012; and
2. to prove the identity of the driver,

the appeal must be allowed.