Free Traffic Legal Advice

All,

Thank you for your detailed insight into the IAS and explanation, does look like a shambles and is a shame that no one can do anything and that they have backing from a partner law firm which basically make it even harder for your average joe who decides to appeal and I shall not refer to it as a fine again (promise)

1. I received the following on 7th October, I assume the parking agency have sent this onto the IAS now.

'We can confirm that we have received notification of your appeal lodged with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). As a result, we are unable to address the points raised in your recent contact.

Please note that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Any further correspondence regarding your appeal will come directly from the IAS upon completion of their review. '

2. I received the following a Debt recovery letter! dated 29th September, but received it in the post a day or two ago on the 7th/8th October. This has been sent out while I am still in the appeal process ie my reply to the IAS below was sent on 3rd October - I thought this stage wouldn't be till well after the IAS has made their judgement?

- It also says that 'This is your 4th October', not sure what this implied?
- That I have until the 13th October to pay?

https://ibb.co/HL53fkhS
https://ibb.co/wND9VPsW

I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was sent out? Also I'll have to wait for teh IAS to reply with their judgment.

@b789 just seen your signature and that you're away for the bulk of this month *I've gone into panic mode* needed your guidance as I can see them responding and letters like the above appearing . Appreciate you have limited access but hopefully you'll be able to review alongside others on this forum.

Quote from: LondonTraveller84 on October 11, 2025, 05:23:58 pm

I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was sent out?

You DO NOT make any contact whatsoever with a useless debt recovery company, EVER!!!! The debt collector is not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are powerless and their only function is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of ignorance and fear.

Great to hear from you - There will be two things going on at the same time, the IAS appeal and the debt company following up with letters and raising their 'invoice' unware there is a appeal ongoing?

If the IAS come back stating they go against my appeal, what do I do next? I assume at this stage the debt recovery letters were supposed to arrive?

If the IAS appeal is unsuccessful, so what? The IAS is nothing but a kangaroo court. Their decision is not binding on you.

You continue to ignore all debt recovery letters and wait and see if they ever issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). If they do, you come back here and we will advise further.

You were warned that the IAS is a corrupt arm of the same company that owns the IPC.

Yes, the supposed assessors response is riddled with errors you can bank for complaints and any later pre-action/court stage. Key faults:

1. Burden of proof inverted on “relevant land”
   They say you had to prove the site is under statutory control. Wrong way round. The operator is asserting PoFA keeper liability; therefore the operator must prove the land is “relevant” (not excluded). The adjudicator accepted bare assertions (“not under statutory control/no TRO”) with zero primary evidence (title, delegation, byelaws/policy position). That’s a material error of law/principle.

2. Keeper liability accepted without strict PoFA proof
   They don’t cite or analyse the NtK line-by-line against Schedule 4 para 9. No findings on: period of parking (vs entry/exit), creditor identity, mandatory invitation/warning wording, service within the relevant period with proof of posting (not generation). They simply declare compliance. That’s inadequate reasoning and contrary to the “strict compliance” test.

3. 30-minute allowance mischaracterised as “consideration” to dodge the 10-minute grace
   They state the 10-minute grace only applies to a “permitted period of parking” and claim your 30 minutes is just “consideration”. That’s a factual/legal misstep. The site’s own regime describes a 30-minute drop-off/collection allowance—a permitted stay, not pre-contract browsing. If it’s permitted time, the PPSCoP 5.2 grace applies (unless the site is a true ≤30-minute “short stay area,” which this isn’t). Their entire dismissal hinges on that relabelling.

4. “Short stay area” carve-out never established
   They rely on “no grace because not a permitted period,” but don’t find (with evidence) that this location is a Note-2 short-stay site (global max ≤30 minutes). The operator’s own model allows much longer Sippi/e-permit stays. Without a finding that this is universally capped at ≤30 minutes, the carve-out can’t apply.

5. Landowner authority waved through on assertions
   They make a conclusory finding that the operator has authority, while the operator refused to exhibit the agreement (or PPSCoP s14 minimums). Accepting “secret” or non-exhibited authority is procedurally weak and contrary to the Code’s requirement to evidence landowner authority (albeit redactions allowed for sensitivities).

6. Signage: no analysis of entrance prominence/onerous term
   They state signage is “sufficient” without addressing whether the onerous requirement to go inside to kiosks or use a beacon/app was clearly and prominently communicated at the point of entry (and whether the charge was prominent). “Sufficient” is conclusory; it doesn’t grapple with the Beavis prominence test for unusual/onerous terms.

7. ANPR ≠ parking period; no continuity finding
   They equate perimeter timestamps to a proved contravention, ignoring that ANPR does not record a period of parking (PoFA language) and that the alleged 37 minutes is within 30-plus-grace if the 30 minutes is a concession (as above). The decision sidesteps that logic error by re-labelling the concession.

8. Debt-recovery escalation during ADR ignored
   You evidenced a DRA letter dated 29/09 while IAS was live. The decision takes no account of prejudicial escalation during ADR—useful for IPC complaint / later conduct arguments (unreasonable behaviour).

The decision. It’s not binding on you. In the meantime,e ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

If they later send a Letter of Claim (LoC), we will deal with that. Still waiting for a response to the FoI and the councils view on the status of the land.