You can appeal as soon as possible but as stated appeal as the registered keeper.
You need to request what evidence they have to identify who they believe is the driver e.g photographs also they would need to show what is meant by premises. Is the parking area used by more than one business. I have seen that a number of parking companies place additional signs stating that you are now leaving the area are any signs placed on entry or exit paths for example. Did you read up on VCS vs Ibottson as you may ask if the attendant observed the driver leaving the area why did they not challenge the driver. You will start off with the appeal to the Parking company and thereafter a further appeal ultimately it may end up in court where you can request the attendant to give evidence. One step at a time. There are a number of posts here where you can formulate an appeal.
Right Ive used a few AI tools combined with advice from a few places to come up with this, does it look ok?
Dear Appeals Department,
Re: Parking Charge Notice number: HT3797282
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute this ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability. I make no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.
1. Lack of Evidence and Burden of ProofThe PCN alleges the driver left the site. I dispute this allegation. The burden of proof rests with Total Parking Solutions (TPS) to provide clear, contemporaneous evidence that the driver exited the defined boundary of the "premises." The low-resolution photos provided do not show the driver leaving the site. Furthermore, I cite VCS v Ibbotson [2012]; if an attendant observed a driver allegedly leaving the site, they had an opportunity to mitigate any potential loss by informing the driver of the terms, yet chose not to, suggesting a predatory "trap" rather than a genuine parking management interest.
2. Ambiguity of "The Premises" and Inadequate SignageThe signage states "Do not leave the premises," yet fails to define what constitutes "the premises." There is no map provided on the signs, nor are there any perimeter markings or warnings on the footpaths to indicate where the private land ends and public land begins. According to the BPA Code of Practice, signs must be clear and unambiguous. A term that is undefined is unenforceable for vagueness.
3. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 / Keeper LiabilityAs the keeper, I note that your Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to transfer liability from the driver to myself. I put you to strict proof that your notice meets every statutory requirement of Paragraph 9 of the Act. If it does not, you have no legal right to pursue me as the keeper.
4. Lack of StandingI put you to strict proof that Total Parking Solutions Ltd has the specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue PCNs and to pursue legal action in your own name at this specific location. A witness statement is insufficient; I request to see the relevant contemporaneous contract.
5. Penalty and UnconscionabilityWhile I am aware of ParkingEye v Beavis, the "legitimate interest" in that case was to encourage turnover in a busy car park. As this car park was not full and the parking is free, a £100 charge for a person allegedly stepping across an invisible boundary is "out of all proportion" and remains an unenforceable penalty.
In light of these points, I request that you cancel this charge immediately. If you reject this appeal, I require the appropriate POPLA verification code so that I may take the matter to independent adjudication.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name](Sign as Registered Keeper)
