Free Traffic Legal Advice

IAS Appeal Submission – PCN [PCN Number] – Vehicle [VRM]

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. In this case, the operator’s own timestamped images show a stop of less than one minute—well within the minimum consideration period required under Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP. Issuing a PCN in such circumstances is predatory and contrary to the Code.

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. In my original appeal, I made clear that no valid NtK was ever received. The operator is therefore put to strict proof of full compliance with every requirement of Schedule 4 of PoFA, including mandatory wording, timelines, and service. If the NtK was not properly served within the statutory timeframe, then keeper liability does not apply.

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). The operator has failed to provide this in response to my initial appeal.

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.

Subject: IAS decision – proof of assessor’s legal qualification and authorship

Dear Sirs,

PCN: [PCN ref]
Vehicle: [VRM]
Site/Date: [Site / Date]

Your decision letter asserts that the adjudicator is “legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor)”. You also rely on the proposition that “it is a criminal offence to impersonate a solicitor”, yet the adjudicator remains anonymous. That position is untenable. A representation about professional status must be capable of verification.

Accordingly, please provide—within 14 days—verifiable proof of the decision-maker’s legal qualification and authorship in this case, or confirm that the statement about “legally qualified” assessors is not relied upon in relation to this decision.

Required minimum particulars (this case only):

• The full name of the adjudicator who decided my appeal.
• Whether they are a solicitor or barrister.
• Their regulator and public register details sufficient for independent verification:

• If a solicitor: SRA roll number and current practising status on the SRA register (on the date of decision).
• If a barrister: BSB register entry and current practising status (on the date of decision).

• A statement signed by your Head of Legal/Head of Adjudication confirming that the named individual personally determined this appeal and that their practising status (above) was valid on the decision date.
• Your conflicts policy and confirmation that no conflict of interest existed for the named adjudicator in relation to the operator.

If you maintain a policy of anonymity, then at the very least provide a signed attestation from your Head of Legal/Head of Adjudication (with their own SRA/BSB registration details) certifying that:

• The named decision-maker is identified on your internal records;
• That person is (and was on the decision date) a current solicitor or barrister; and
• They personally authored the decision in my case.

Please note: a generic assertion that “the IAS has seen” qualifications, or reliance on undisclosed material, is insufficient. A representation that an adjudicator is “legally qualified” is a specific, verifiable factual claim. If it cannot be independently verified for the individual who decided this case, it risks constituting a misleading commercial practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC, Part 4). The CMA can now directly enforce consumer law and impose significant penalties (including up to 10% of global turnover) for breaches. I therefore require verifiable particulars of the decision-maker’s legal qualification, or your explicit withdrawal of that representation in this case.

If you refuse disclosure, please state the precise legal basis for refusal and whether you contend that anonymisation overrides the need to substantiate a professional status claim relied upon in the decision. In that event, please also confirm whether IAS withdraws or disapplies the “legally qualified” claim in relation to my case.

Absent satisfactory verification, I reserve my position to:

• refer this to the Competition and Markets Authority for potential enforcement under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (misleading commercial practices);
• notify the SRA or BSB (as applicable) if professional status has been misrepresented;
• make a report to Trading Standards regarding misleading claims presented to consumers; and
• place your response (or non-response) before the court if proceedings are issued.

Please provide the verification requested within 14 days or confirm that you withdraw the “legally qualified adjudicator” representation in this case.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper