Free Traffic Legal Advice

@RichardW It's the IAS in this case, not POPLA

@RichardW It's the IAS in this case, not POPLA

Ah, fixed.  Even more reason to be direct!  IAS don't uphold many, but this may be one they do, given it's so far out of time.

Quote from: RichardW on February 19, 2026, 02:39:40 pm

After non compliant in either scenario I would clarify that there was no windscreen NTD and this NTK should have been issued within 28 days.

14 days.

Thanks, fixed that too.

Is it my responsibility to notify them or are they supposed to keep track?

You should tell them. They're only able to access keeper data from DVLA once.

They say,

"While this may be the case the issuance of the Notice to Keeper is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove otherwise."

That is incorrect - the law requires that they provide the evidence (as to who was driving) which the keeper may rebut if they wish - they are turning it around in an attempt to 'make the keeper guilty unless they can prove innocence' - that is legally illiterate - in the absence of any material evidence there is nothing for the keeper to rebut - this is established legal principle.

At the present time, the driver is not known to the operator and there is no legal route to keeper liability - reliance on the assumption that the keeper is the driver is a commercial decision and not a legal position.

They say,

"The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."

The keeper does not need to appeal against the contravention when they are not the liable party - the operator is assuming liability rather than proving it - in the circumstances, the keeper is under no legal obligation engage with the operator but is doing so to clear up the issue.

They have cctv/photographic evidence of the driver leaving the site and returning. Do I have to prove that it's not me? I'm assuming not. I hope not.

No.
They have to prove that it was you, which they can’t do.
You’re over-thinking this, and their abilities, as I already said.

Their tactics are to make things up, and to state untruths as facts, in the hope that you will be frightened into believing their nonsense and paying them.
They know their nonsense will not stand up in court.
So you also need to know this, and stand your ground.

Good day people,I have now received the operator's response and have been given the option to respond yet again or refer the matter for arbitration. My previous response was;

"The Operator acknowledges that I, the KEEPER, am not appealing against the contravention. This is not my duty to do so as I have clearly stated, I am the KEEPER of the vehicle, NOT the DRIVER. The Operator should be seeking to recover the parking charge from the DRIVER. I, as the KEEPER, am under no obligation to appeal against the contravention when I am not the liable party. The Operator is assuming liability and I am only engaging in this process in order to clear the matter up.
The Operator also acknowledges the transfer of liability window has passed, but then goes on to say that it remains valid as no evidence to prove otherwise has been submitted. This is legally incorrect, the onus is upon the Operator to provide evidence as to who was driving, which they have not. The person pictured in their CCTV evidence has not been identified and therefore the Operator is relying on assumption that it is the KEEPER. This is a commercial decision rather than a legal position.
These are the only points that matter here. All other comments related to the "contravention" are irrelevant."

To which they have replied;

"The Operator's position remains as follows: they are entitled to assume, on the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper of the vehicle is also the driver, unless the keeper provides sufficient evidence to the contrary.

While the appellant have stated that they were not the driver, no evidence has been provided to support this claim. It is important to note that the burden of proof to show who was driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator. In the absence of any alternative driver details from the keeper, the Operator is permitted, as per the legal framework governing parking charges, to hold the keeper liable for the contravention. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the Operator is within their rights to continue to pursue the charge against you as the keeper of the vehicle.

The Operator is correct that the transfer of liability period has passed. However, this does not negate the Operator's right to pursue the keeper when no evidence is provided to establish that the keeper was not the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, you are under an obligation to provide details of the driver if you are claiming that you were not driving. Since this has not been done, the Operator is entitled to rely on the assumption that the registered keeper was the driver."

Is it time to go to arbitration or should I respond to this again? Another response would feel like a bit like banging my head against a wall.

TIA