Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi. The driver was parked in a disabled parking bay without a disabled badge displayed. It was a private retail park. Today, 1st April, I received the notice to keeper relating to the contravention through the post. I am the registered keeper. Please see the attached letter I’ve received. I would truly appreciate some advice in how to tackle this. Thank you. If anything else is required, please do let me know and I’ll be more than happy to provide. Thank you

https://imgur.com/a/nVdoT3i

As long as you are aware that this will be a protracted process and as long as you follow the advice given, you will not be paying a penny to PCM. Before we continue, you need to be aware of the following...

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with al the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable and PCM have no idea of the drivers identity unless the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise. Also, the NtK is in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) which means that they are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA and are therefore using the Keepers data unlawfully.

However, any initial appeal is not going to succeed and as this is an IPC operator, neither will a secondary appeal to the IAS. Where this will be won is after they have initiated a county court claim. The odds of a claim going all the way to a hearing are slim to none, but there is a remote possibility. The most likely outcome will be either a strike out or a discontinuance.

So, with the above in mind, you will need to confirm that you are prepared to follow the advice all the way to its conclusion.

In the meantime:

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

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. 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. PCM 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. PCM have no hope should you ever try and litigate this, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Thank you so much for your response and will get this sent. In regards to your comments, you note the appeal to IAS will also be rejected. Why would that be, even though clear breach of conduct along with breach of POFA has occurred? It’s more so for my own knowledge too. Thank you!

Do not for an instant think that you are dealing with some sort of company or organisation that has any customer service ethos. If you are really that naive or gullible, consider the following:

If this setup isn’t incestuous, then nothing is. The IPC (International Parking Community) and the IAS (Independent Appeals Service) are not separate entities. Both are trading names of a single private company:


And guess who’s behind it?


So, to summarise:


This is a closed loop of vested interests, and the term “independent” in relation to the IAS is not just misleading — it is deeply deceptive and intellectually dishonest. There is no credible independence when the appeals body, the trade association, and a debt-claim law firm are all interlinked through the same small group of individuals with a direct financial stake in profiting from motorists losing.

Now look at the data.


Ask yourself: how can the IAS claim to be independent when it is effectively a front for parking firms, created and run by individuals with a direct commercial interest in appeals failing?

If this were any other industry, it would be shut down for conflict of interest and regulatory failure. But in private parking, this is par for the course — and exactly why smart motorists don’t expect fairness from the IAS.

Also bear in mind b789 believes the PCNs from some of the bigger parking companies aren't compliant, companies that have in house lawyers paid to make sure cases are won in court.

Are you having a laugh? Please tell us about "some of the bigger companies" that "in house lawyers" and where they have won a single claim that we have advised on. I have yet to see a single claim reach a hearing and be lost. I stand to be corrected but please provide the evidence.

You mention "in house" lawyers as though you are dealing with a large multi national company that has a legal team. The only company I can think of that has an anywhere decent in house legal team is ParkingEye and even then, they are not very good. Why do you think they send so many claims through DCB Legal rather than issuing them themselves?

Of all the other parking firms, not a single one has a decent in house legal team. You only have to have seen the recent attempt by the bungling eejits at UKPC to try and bring it all "in house". They didn't continue for long as it was so easy to pick out their utter incompetence and the obvious fact that whoever thought it was a good idea, didn't ave a clue.

I have yet to have an opportunity to argue my points about PoFA failings in court as not a single PCN where I have argued this point has ever reached a hearing. Not that I wouldn't argue the point in court.

However, as I have mentioned, I have argued the point with a district judge and he agreed with my argument, that as long as it is clearly pointed out, it would be a valid argument. So, whilst you may not agree that it is a valid point, just because it has not yet been argued in court doesn't mean that it shouldn't.

I am not a defeatist and still believe that the arguments about PoFA needing to be fully complied with is a very valid argument. Hence the pregnancy analogy now being used to try and lead the somewhat dimwitted POPLA assessors not being able to see the argument. Just like you cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, a PCN cannot be partially oeven mostly PoFA compliant. It's a binary matter. It either is or it isn't.