DRAFT reply
7-day deadline. I am submitting it on 9th February
Not sure of decision:
Counter-respond to UKCPS: ? (I need to ensure assessor in appeal)
To IAS Arbitration: ? (I need to ensure adjudicator in appeal)
Guessing it is Arbitration - please confirm.
I might use NtK and CPN wrongly...
Lots of wording and layout taken from b789 previous posts to other cases. I hope we haven't used wording not relevant to my case.
This draft has taken 12 hours with 3 people involved!
Dear IAS Adjudicator,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle [XXXX] and wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UKCPS based on the following seven grounds:
1. The operator has now changed the PCN because it was not PoFA compliant.
2. The operator has failed to deliver a Notice To Keeper that is PoFA compliant.
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.
4. New claims? (non-ANPR, the charge is based in Contract)
5. Signage and the claim that the charge is based on Contract.
6. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.
7. Shambolic operator in breach of Code of Practice of IPS and DVLA.
1.
UKCPS has changed the PCN since the appellant submitted their appeal to the IAS:
from: PCN: "Notice to Keeper (Postal - PoFA) issued on private land, was sent on 17/12/2025. Reason for issue: no stopping."
to: Prima Facie Case: "The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR), was sent on 17/12/2025. The charge is based in Contract."
2.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by UKCPS fails to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). UKCPS has already admitted in their correspondence that they are no longer relying on PoFA to establish keeper liability and they have changed their claim. This admission unequivocally confirms that they acknowledge the PCN does not meet the statutory requirements. Therefore, as a matter of law, the operator cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge. The appeal must be allowed.
UKCPS changed the PCN:
New claim: "Please be advised that this charge was issued under the site's terms and conditions and not under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)."
2.1. UKCPS has agreed with my appeal. The definition of 'relevant land' was amended by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025 to include railway land, and this amendment only came into force on 26th December 2025, and is not retrospective. This alleged parking event took place on 10th December 2025, before the amendment came into force.
3.
UKCPS: "It is a contractual notice directed at the driver of the vehicle for stopping in a prohibited area. Under this framework, liability is assumed to rest with the registered keeper unless evidence is provided to show that they were not the driver".
question - can I say there was no valid contract? does the VCS vs Edward evidence there was no contract or does signage only make the contract?
3.1. There is no evidence the Keeper was the driver – Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable.
(I found this from b789 for a different case, I have to be cautious because their case involved a parking metre, different to my case)
UKCPS has provided not provided any evidence whatsoever that the appellant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The appeal made it clear that the identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and UKCPS has not disputed this or provided any evidence to the contrary.
3.2. This leaves the operator with just one legal route: to pursue the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, that mechanism only becomes available if the operator fully complies with every single mandatory condition set out in PoFA. UKCPS has now confirmed that the initial claim was not PoFA compliant, therefore the UKCPS has no legal route to pursue the registered keeper. The appeal must be allowed.
3.3. It is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion. As explained in caselaw VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], the keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not permit any assumption of driver identity. With PoFA compliance withdrawn by UKCPS, the only remaining option would be to prove — with actual evidence — that the keeper was also the driver. They have not done so. There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver. UKCPS has made no attempt to rebut this point, nor have they presented any evidence to support such an inference. The appeal must be allowed.
3.4. The UKCPS assessor who is supposedly legally qualified, should have considered, if such an assumption could be made that liability is assumed to rest with the registered keeper, why does PoFA exist?
3.5. If the owners of the land, Leeds Station, wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because UKCPS is not the station owner and the UKCPS 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. The appeal must be allowed.
3.6. IAS is not entitled to make assumptions in the operator’s favour, nor is it permitted to apply a lower evidential threshold than the law requires. Keeper liability only arises if PoFA is complied with. It is not a default position, and it does not arise by implication. Accordingly, the only lawful conclusion is that UKCPS cannot pursue the appellant as keeper. There is no PoFA compliance, no driver identification, and therefore no legal basis for continuing enforcement of this charge. The appeal must be allowed.
4.
UKCPS has changed the NtK - "The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR)"
(Note: I don't know what to say about this? Do I need to say something?
I found some sentences from b789 on a different case involving "paying for parking" (different claim), but it applies to ANPR, not "non-ANPR)
(is this relevant here? I did not mention this in my appeal):
(found a quote from b789: 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). is that the wrong CoP, should it be IPS?
5.
UKCPS claim: "The charge was issued correctly in accordance with site regulations and the IPC Code of Practice and remains valid and enforceable".
5.1. Signage and the claim that the charge is based on Contract.
The IAS assessor must consider that the initial claim of 'No Stopping' and the new claim of "the charge is based in Contract, a contractual notice directed at the driver of the vehicle for stopping in a prohibited area" are not supported by the road markings which is in direct contravention of the IPC Code of Practice which specifically states:
"Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and UNAMBIGUOUS TO DRIVERS."
The charge has not been issued correctly, it is not valid and it is not enforceable. The appeal must be allowed.
(Note: For a driver to have agreed to any contractual terms, the signage must have been legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before entering into a contract = I have left this out???)
5.2. The IAS assessor must consider the contradictory signage/ road markings. The driver is stopped briefly on double yellow lines which the law allows - only double reds can mean no stopping. The appeal must be allowed.
5.3. The CPN is created for UKCPS’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaw's penalty that goes to the public purse) and UKCPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
6.
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is to provide strict proof of full compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.
Flawed Assumption Regarding Signage and Landowner Authority
6.1. The operator has provided an undated site plan, the date of July 2025 is in the file name only which can be changed at the users' discretion. (Valid?)
(Note: all wording provided by b789 in another case with edits relevant to evidence provided to me. I do not know how much of this (if any) applies to me? I did not cover signage in my appeal, but since then the PCN has changed substantially and is more focused on the Contract now. All the evidence photos submitted by UKCPS to me for my appeal are dated 24/07/2025 and 27/07/2025. Is this timescale relevant? Because I am raising signage now, do I need to return to the UKCPS (not arbitration?)
6.2. They have provided signage templates and in location photographs of signage all digitally dated 25th and 27th July 2025, but no photographs showing how the signs actually appeared on-site at or around the date of the alleged contravention on 10th December 2025.
6.3. There is no evidence the signage was present, visible, or reflected any landowner-approved terms at that time.
(Note: there is no signage in the photos of my vehicle. They have sent me many generic photos of locations with signage and I do not know how close signage was to my vehicle).
6.4. They have not shown that the signage was authorised by the landowner, nor that it matched any valid, current agreement. A layout plan that is not dated on the template and file images of signs for a different time period, prove nothing in isolation.
6.5. It is inappropriate for IAS to assume that signage is valid or authorised simply because it exists. Contracts often remain static while terms change — such as grace periods, charge levels, or maximum stay durations — and if the signage was updated without a revised landowner agreement, then the operator is enforcing terms never approved. The appeal must be allowed.
7.
Shambolic operator in breach of Codes of Practice
7.1. By sending me an initial NtK which states PoFA, keeper liability is unlawful in situations where PoFA cannot apply, this is clearly evidence of UKCPS having haphazard methods of running their enforcement operations at this site. It is totally unprofessional and a breach of their Code of Practice. The appeal must be allowed.
7.2. The NtK is not supported by the road markings of yellow double lines which is in direct contravention of the IPC Code of Practice.
7.3. Further evidence of unprofessionalism and breach of UKCPS: UKCPS has contradicted the DVLA Code of Practice. The IAS assessor must consider that operators are not allowed to claim that they can rely on PoFA in situations where they can not when making requests to the DVLA for the registered keeper's details. In this case, a parking contravention has not occurred.
question - can I say lack of "reasonable cause" to contact the DVLA?
question - and requesting data when no contract was formed?
question - can they be reported?
8.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety, primarily based on the operator not showing that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver. I require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. (question - is this point only valid for the UKCPS or is it ok for arbitration?)
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions about no stopping violations and unhelpful dated photographs from the operator, then this will lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified. An erroneous and non valid NtK was issued to me and this case now needs to stop.
---------
The End
---------
There must be a lot to correct and improve on this draft. I hope someone can help.
