DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107112--------------------------------------------------
NPC Parking Charge, IAS appeal rejected
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: January 23, 2026, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I the keeper of the vehicle received an NtK from NPC back in
November. I appealed it to NPC as keeper which they rejected.
Subsequently, I appealed their rejection to IAS whose rejection
has come in today. (Was awaiting adjudication with ias since 8th
December)
So next step is to ignore all NPC or debt collector letters?
Till I get a "Letter of Claim" or is there something else I
should do right now in the meantime.
I am attaching relevant bits here for context.
Many thanks in advance, for all advice as always.
Original NTK:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/HDxjghhb/IMG-20260123-145302.jpg
[img]
HTML https://ibb.co/ynYrs44Z[/img]
Venue Signage:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Y4SmD9w6/Screenshot-2026-01-23-14-54-44-08-e2d5b3f32b79de1d45acd1fad96fbb0f.jpg
My appeal text to NPC after initial PCN is as follows:
--- Quote ---
>
> I am the keeper 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 Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge.
>
> Besides, other shortfalls, as an example, your NTK fails to
"state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver" so it
is not complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause 2(e).
>
> 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. NPC has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
NPC 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
My appeal text to IAS, sent 6th December:
--- Quote ---
>
> I am the registered keeper 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 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. Besides other
shortfalls, as an example, the NTK fails to "state that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver" so is not complaint with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause
2(e). Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
There has been no admission as to who was driving and no
inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The
registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been
the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the
law of agency.
>
> 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 and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
>
--- End Quote ---
Adjudicator's Decision
--- Quote ---
>
> The adjudicator made their decision on 22/01/2026 13:59:03.
>
> The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in
a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
>
> In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby
the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that
matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator
fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly
issued in accordance with the law then it is likely that an
Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish
that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued
then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the
notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant
proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is
likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will
be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters
on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all
times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the
evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
>
> The NTK has been sent to the Keeper within the 14-day time
frame as required by POFA and, therefore, the Operator has
complied.
>
> The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle
but is not willing to name the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v
LOAKE in 1982 the principle was established that in the absence
of sufficient evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle
is assumed to be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an
incident such as arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is
then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of
probabilities that he/she was not the driver at the time of the
incident. In this case such evidence has not been provided by
the Appellant to establish that he/she was not the driver and
therefore this the Appellant is presumed to be the Driver.
>
> A number of images have been provided to me by the Parking
Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site as well
as the contravention images showing where the Appellant's
vehicle was parked on this occasion. After viewing those images
I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to
the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that
apply to parking on this site, specifically, the signage is
clearly located along the road at which the Driver is parked. I
am satisfied the Driver was parked in breach of the terms,
namely without holding a valid permit as required.
>
> The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 107126--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge, IAS appeal rejected
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 23, 2026, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IAS assessor is once again deliberately mis-stating Elliot v
Loake in order to project his false narrative.
From another website;
You refer to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which supports
the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary
evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the
following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the
appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he
was the driver, and not, as you incorrectly state, because of
the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the
magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue
sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary
car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic
evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts
were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that
night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal
principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle
can be adduced, it is the well known principle that once a
witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is
likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
The IAS assessor is deliberately seeking to circumvent the
requirements of PoFA.
#Post#: 107129--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge, IAS appeal rejected
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: January 23, 2026, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The IAS assessor is once again deliberately miss stating
Elliot v Loake in order to project his false narrative.
>
> The IAS assessor is deliberately seeking to circumvent the
requirements of PoFA.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks, I thought so as well. But of course there is no
option to challenge them at this stage. My plan should be wait
till the eventual Letter of Claim? or anything else before that?
#Post#: 121321--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge, IAS appeal rejected
DIR By: S23
Date: June 9, 2026, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the outcome here?
I wanted to thank you as I combined your posts above into my own
IAS appeal with some minor grammatical edits to comply with word
count restrictions:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper 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 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. Besides other
shortfalls, as an example, the NTK fails to "state that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver" so is not complaint with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9, clause
2(e). Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
There has been no admission as to who was driving and no
inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The
registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been
the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the
law of agency.
>
> 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 any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
>
> 6. The IAS claims that its assessors are qualified solicitors
or barristers, however there is no way to verify. 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. Decisions are unsigned,
anonymised, and unpublished. If the person reading this 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 clear and prominent signage is
a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67), and 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 cast doubts on IAS independence and legal
qualification.
>
> Should you refer to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which
supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if no contrary
evidence, is the driver - understand this is an incorrect
representation of the case for these reasons:
> 1) The facts of the case are the appeal judge ruled the
appellant was the driver because of ample evidence that he was
the driver - not because of lack of evidence as to who the
driver actually was.
> 2) In the case there was ample evidence that justified the
magistrates to conclude this man was driving his blue sports car
on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
> 3) Additionally, a crucial part of the case was forensic
evidence showed the appellant lied. Other material facts were
that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night
and no-one else had permission to drive the car.
> 4) This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal
principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle
can be adduced, its the well known principle that once a witness
has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely their
evidence elsewhere is also false.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 121334--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge, IAS appeal rejected
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 10, 2026, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to start your own thread - that is a golden rule here.
Then you need to post up the PCN for use to see.
In the OP's case the PCN appeared to contain the relevant PoFA
information.
In terms of Elliot v Loake;
I would add a 5th point;
5) That Elliot v Loake was a criminal case - criminal cases do
not turn on 'balance of probabilities' arguments - the are
judged on the basis that the Defendant is innocent until PROVEN
guilty.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1