Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear All,

Quick update on the situation, I appealed (as per instructions) to the IAS and now Operator has responded with these documents.

I’ve removed all personal details from the Transfer of Liability notices. Could you please look through everything, especially the “CCTV Footage and Response” documents for both appeals and let me know what you think the next steps should be? I’m not sure whether I should send anything further at this stage or just move straight to arbitration.

As I mentioned before, I was expecting more PCNs because there were several visits to this location up until the first week of January. The hirer told me last night that another notice has arrived (again, hirer was not the driver but present in the vehicle in all occasions). This one relates to an incident that happened two days earlier than the previous PCNs, so I’m not sure why it took them over six weeks to send it out. I’m wondering if that delay helps our case in any way.

I’ll probably receive the actual PCN in a week or two. In the meantime, I’m unsure whether to follow the same process as the earlier ones or just pay this one, especially if more are still on the way.

To be honest, I’m getting a bit anxious about how many more might show up and what could happen if this ends up going to court. Any guidance on how to handle this without letting it spiral would be really appreciated.

Best Regards
A

Dear All,
Quick update on the situation.

As expected, the IAS has rejected both the appeals. Interestingly, I received “ACTION REQUIRED TODAY” letters from TNC for each PCN about a week before the IAS even issued their decisions. Shortly after, TNC sent two “Notice of Intention to Instruct Solicitors” letters, which I’ve attached for reference.
In addition to the original two PCNs, I’ve now received three more for the same location and circumstances, bringing the total to five so far. My intention is to challenge the remaining PCNs in the same way unless advised otherwise.
At this stage, I have not received any Letter of Claim. Am I expected to take any action in response to these threatening letters from TNC, or is this simply part of their standard escalation process? I’d appreciate any advice on what my next steps should be, aside from continuing to contest the new PCNs that may still be on the way.
Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards
A

Hi,

Both responses are available here and are identical. Please advise if any action required at this time.

Many thanks for all the advise so far.

Regards
A

Dear All,

Quick update — UPE have now responded to the last two IAS appeals with the text below. I’d really appreciate some guidance on whether I should reply further (if so, what should be the response) or move straight to arbitration, as the deadline to respond to the operator is 22nd May, so I’m a bit tight on time.

Regards
A

The operator made their response on 15/05/2026 22:30:07.

Transfer of Liability attached.

The appellant is claiming not to be the driver but they have submitted no evidence to confirm that they were not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the contravention. Until such, it is assumed that the registered keeper was the driver hence the reason they do not want to provide the driver's details.

Hi Everyone,

Bumping this with a new thread since my original post didn't get any replies.
 
Out of 4 identical IAS appeals, 2 were allowed and 2 were dismissed. Universal Parking Enforcement (UPE) has now issued a Letter before Claim for the two dismissed ones.

I used AI to draft the response below to Credit Investigation Services (the debt collectors). Could the forum seniors please review it? Let me know if it looks good to send or if I'm leaving any loopholes open.

Thanks in advance!

FORMAL RESPONSE TO LETTER BEFORE CLAIM — INTENT TO DEFEND
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in formal response to the Letters Before Claim dated 15 July 2026 issued by Universal Parking Enforcement Ltd regarding Debt References X and Y. I deny any liability to your client for these alleged debts.
Please note that this matter is heavily disputed. If your client chooses to issue formal court proceedings without attempting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), I will bring this response directly to the attention of the Court to seek formal sanctions and a full conduct cost order against them under Paragraph 13 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
My defense rests on the following binding grounds:
1. Definitive Legal Adjudication on Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)
The alleged debts stem from a series of five PCNs issued within a brief window at 391 Dunstable Road involving hire vehicles where I was the hirer, not the driver.
While your client may reference earlier dismissed historical appeals, the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has since issued definitive, final rulings on identical tickets involving the exact same hirer, location, and operating procedures (see PCN C and PCN D). In decisions dated 04/06/2026, the legally qualified IAS Adjudicator explicitly ruled:
"To transfer liability to the hirer as the hirer, POFA sets out specific requirements, referenced by the Appellant, which have not been met... The appeal is allowed."
Your client completely failed to comply with the mandatory statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Specifically, your client failed to provide the mandatory hire documentation "together" with the Notice to Hirer in the post. Your client only supplied these documents months later during the IAS appeal platform stages.
Because your client's administrative mailing process is fundamentally non-compliant with PoFA, keeper liability has failed to transfer. They have no lawful right to pursue me for these debts. Any attempt to litigate these remaining claims despite an independent body ruling their transfer process illegal constitutes vexatious litigation.
2. Procedural Failure and Absolute Lack of Service (The 5th PCN: E)
I am aware through my hire company, Enterprise, that a fifth citation exists (PCN E, issued 31/12/2025). Your client failed to ever serve a statutory Notice to Hirer to my home address for this ticket, completely denying me my consumer right to access the portal and appeal. Consequently, liability has completely failed to transfer under PoFA 2012, and any claim on this ticket will be robustly defended as an abuse of process.
3. Formal Request for ADR
To avoid wasting valuable court time, I formally request that you refer these accounts back to independent ADR or mediation. Given that the IAS has already established that your client's hire transfer documentation is legally invalid, a neutral mediator will confirm that pursuing these claims is completely unsustainable.
4. Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Document Request
To narrow the issues, please provide the following documentation within 14 days:
1.Full copies of the original single-page mandatory PoFA-compliant documentation your client claims to have served "together" to transfer liability for PCNs A and B.
2.A copy of the direct contract providing your client with landowner authority to operate at 391 Dunstable Road.
If you fail to provide these or reject ADR to rush into a claim, I will immediately request the Court to stay the proceedings until you comply and seek full conduct costs.
I expect your written confirmation that these accounts have been placed on a formal protocol hold.
Yours faithfully,

It's hard to advise on the quality of a response to a letter, when we haven't seen the letter it is responding to... Please show us the Letter of Claim.

Quite right - hadn't spotted the link!