Free Traffic Legal Advice

(2)The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):

A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.

As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled

I am the Hirer of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Hirer (NtH) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the Hirer of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Gemini has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The Hirer cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtH can only hold the driver liable. Gemini have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I am the Hirer 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.

4. Strict proof that the Notice to Hirer complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on Hirer liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.

In particular, where the vehicle is hired or leased, paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 requires that the operator must provide a copy of the documents described in paragraph 13(2)—namely: a copy of the hire agreement, and a copy of the statement of liability signed by or on behalf of the hirer—as well as a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) sent to the vehicle Keeper. The operator has failed to provide copies of these documents, meaning they have not complied with the statutory conditions to pursue the hirer. In the absence of full compliance with paragraph 14, liability cannot be transferred to the hirer.

5. Strict proof that the NtH 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.)

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 Hirer 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.