9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
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).• 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.
• If a barrister: BSB register entry and current practising status (on the date of decision).
• 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
And in your experience, how often do these companies actually take people to court?
Why no bailiff can knock on your door
1. County Court Judgment (CCJ):• A bailiff (enforcement agent) can only get involved after a creditor has obtained a CCJ against you in a county court.
• If the CCJ is under £600, the creditor cannot transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO). Instead, enforcement would remain under the county court's jurisdiction.
2. Threshold for High Court Enforcement:• If a CCJ is over £600 (including fees and interest), the creditor can transfer it to the High Court for enforcement by an HCEO. This is a common method because HCEOs tend to be more effective at recovering money.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Creditors:• For CCJs under £600, creditors may find it uneconomical to pursue enforcement through county court bailiffs, as they are generally slower and less effective than HCEOs.
• As a result, creditors may opt not to escalate enforcement for small amounts.
4. Private Parking Charges and Bailiffs:• In the context of private parking charges, no bailiff action can occur unless the parking operator has gone to court, won a case, obtained a CCJ, and you fail to pay the judgment within the stipulated time (usually 30 days).
So, no bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600 unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement is transferred to the High Court.