If ever there was evidence of how corrupt and stupid these companies are, you have it there in a nutshell.
I don't understand what the images of the vehicle leaving the parking bay are supposed to infer? Besides the fact that the NtK is not PoFA compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable as long as the driver is not identified, this would never have a chance should they try to make a claim over it.
Universal Parking Enforcement Ltd’s attempt to hold the driver liable for a passenger leaving the site is legally flawed. Their signage does not create a binding or fair contractual term to support such liability. If the driver remained on-site, no breach occurred, and any enforcement action is likely to fail if challenged.
The wording on the sign fails to establish a clear contractual obligation on the driver for the actions of passengers. It is vague and does not specify that the driver is liable for third-party conduct.
The sign does not define what “remaining on the premises” entails or explain how liability is apportioned between driver and passenger or provide sufficient notice to form a binding contract on such a specific term.
Under contract law, liability must arise from a clear breach of a term by the contracting party — in this case, the driver. A passenger leaving the site does not constitute a breach by the driver unless the signage explicitly states that the driver is responsible for passenger conduct. It doesn't.
The term attempting to impose liability on the driver for a passenger’s independent action is likely unfair, as it:
• Creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations.
• Is not transparent or prominent enough to be enforceable.
• Is contrary to good faith, especially if the driver remained on-site.
• Unfair terms are not binding on consumers.
In
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ibbotson, the court dismissed a claim where the driver remained on-site but a passenger left. The judge found the enforcement attempt unreasonable and warned the claimant about contempt of court for pursuing baseless claims. This case is directly analogous and undermines the legitimacy of UPF’s position.
For now, you can appeal to the IAS. It will be interesting to see their 'opinion'.
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:
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. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
This NtK fails PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not specify any “period of parking”. It merely states a timestamp of 19:14 on 15 May 2025. This is not a period — it is a moment. The requirement for a “period of parking” is not optional. I refer the adjudicator to Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), where this exact failure rendered the notice non-compliant.
It also fails paragraph 9(4), which requires the notice to be “given” within 14 days of the alleged contravention. The NtK was dated 9 July 2025 — 56 days after the event. Keeper liability is therefore not available. The operator has not identified the driver, and the keeper cannot be held liable.
These two points alone are sufficient to cancel this joke of a PCN. If the adjudicator chooses not to uphold the appeal on this basis, it will be taken as further evidence of the abject failure of the IAS to operate as a credible or independent appeals body. This case will be referred to the current government consultation on the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which is ongoing. The IAS’s incestuous relationship with IPC members and its consistent failure to apply basic legal standards will be highlighted. I won’t be sorry to see its demise once the new statutory Code of Practice is enacted.
I also require 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.
The signage states: “Drivers and passengers must remain on the premises whilst the vehicle is parked on site”. It then claims that breach of any term will result in the driver being liable. This is legally incoherent. The driver cannot be held liable for the independent actions of a passenger unless the signage clearly and fairly imposes such liability. It does not. The term is vague, unfair, and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It creates a significant imbalance and fails the test of transparency and good faith.
I also require evidence of 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.
Of course, we all know how the corrupt and fake IAS operates. Like a kangaroo court in a despotic regime, it will almost certainly refuse to disclose any actual evidence of a contract and instead issue its usual boilerplate response: “The assessor has seen the contract and is satisfied it is valid”. That is not evidence. That is not transparency. That is not adjudication. It is a rubber stamp masquerading as legal scrutiny. If the IAS wishes to retain even a shred of credibility, it must require the operator to evidence the actual contract or lease, unredacted and dated, showing the operator’s authority for this specific site. Anything less is a farce.
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.
They will also know that in VCS v Ibbotson (2012), the court rejected a claim where the driver remained on-site but a passenger left. The judge found the enforcement attempt unreasonable and warned the claimant about contempt of court for pursuing baseless claims. This case is directly analogous and renders the operator’s position untenable.
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.
