Thanks Richard, draft appeal to IAS below, based on the generic IAS template. Please let me know any suggestions, or if it would help to see the photographs (appear to be CCTV stills) they provided on the payment page.
Many thanks.
***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
1. Insufficient evidence of the alleged contravention
As the registered keeper, I am not obliged to identify the driver. UKPS bears the burden of proof. The photographs provided by UKPS purport to prove that “the driver exited and walked offsite”, but they do not support this allegation. The images provided are of multiple individuals - UKPS has not identified who they allege was the driver, nor provided any evidence that any person shown in the photographs was the driver of the vehicle.
On the contrary, the photographs UKPS provided show the individual(s) walking out of Wing Yip store into the car park, and none of the photographs show the same individual(s) leaving the site. If anything, these images demonstrate that the individuals depicted in the photographs were customers of Wing Yip and remained on site.
Mere speculation that a person in an image is the driver is insufficient. I put UKPS to strict proof of their allegation. Such evidence should include photographs of the contravention and a site map and a picture of the signage that would have communicated to the driver the defined boundary of the site they are alleged to have left.
2. No site boundary defined
The only signs evidenced say variations of “Parking is for customers only” and “Drivers must remain on the premises at all times”. No plan, map, line, boundary, or marker is identified anywhere. Motorists are not told or show any map of where “premises” begin or end, nor warned when crossing an undefined point becomes a £100 event. An uncertain, unmarked boundary cannot form part of a fair or enforceable contract. Any alleged breach dependent on undefined geography fails for uncertainty.
No explanation has been provided as to what constitutes “leaving the site” and it has not been established whether the driver was on site all along.
If no such sign or evidence exist, then I contend that the driver could not have known where the car park site boundary began and ended and in the absence of proof, I deny that there was any contravention. As a result, there was no contract formed with the driver to pay a charge in exchange for going off site; there was no consideration, offer or acceptance and no site boundary defined.
Even if a sign says a charge can be issued for 'leaving the premises', this means nothing if 'the premises' is not defined. This could include any number of shops, a cash point, toilets, cafe, drop-off areas, delivery area, the car park itself, rest area/benches and any other section of a retail park.
3. Genuine customer
As already noted in the appeal to UKPS, the driver/ occupants were genuine customers of Wing Yip, spent £X in-store at Wing Yip, and remained on-site for less than one hour (well within the stated two-hour maximum stay). I enclose a copy of the purchase receipt. The vehicle was therefore parked in accordance with the intended use of the car park and no contractual breach occurred.
Evidence
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, CCTV 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 Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK 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 keeper 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 as the keeper and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
