DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109502--------------------------------------------------
NPC parking charge currently awaiting my response with IAS
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: February 11, 2026, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all, please advise on the below NtK, I have already
appealed as "keeper" which NPC have rejected. My argument is
resting on their NtK not being PofA compliant primarily. Please
advise what I should say here as a response before IAS start
their arbitration process. There are few bits of evidence from
NPC uploaded on IAS website which I haven't added, please let me
know if I need to. I think original NtK is the most important
evidence and that is attached below.
Many thanks in advance as always.
Thanks,
Please see original NtK:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/4RRJqgDd/PCN-redacted.jpg
My initial appeal:
--- Quote ---
>
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
>
> 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 ---
NPC rejected, then I appealed to IAS:
--- 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 ---
NPC response:
--- Quote ---
>
> The vehicle was recorded by the ANPR camera entering the car
park at 10:01 and exiting at 11:33.
> At the time of parking, the vehicle did not hold a valid
e-permit.
>
> Photographic evidence has been provided to support this
statement.
>
> All drivers are required to hold a valid e-permit in order to
park in this car park.
>
> Clear signage is displayed throughout the area, outlining the
terms and conditions for parking.
>
> A screenshot from the e-permit logs confirms that the vehicle
did not hold a valid e-permit on the date of the contravention.
Please note that physical windscreen permits are not used at
this location.
>
> The appellant states that our NTK is not PoFA compliant. I
have therefore attached the original NTK as evidence that it
fully complies with PoFA requirements, and have also attached
the certificate of postage to demonstrate that it was sent out
correctly.
>
> We note that the appellant also states that the signs within
the car park is not clear, I have attached photos showing clear
signage withing the area.
>
--- End Quote ---
My response:
--- Quote ---
>
> NPC do NOT know driver identity and still seems to indicate me
as the driver in their response.
>
> Driver identity shall not be revealed and cannot be assumed.
>
> Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is not good
enough, the NtK isn't fully compliant and hence there is no
keeper liability.
>
--- End Quote ---
Last message from NPC
--- Quote ---
>
> We note the comments made by the appellant, however our Notice
To Keeper clearly states that "if, after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the Notice is given:
> (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this
Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both
the name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver, we will have the right to recover from you".
>
> As the appellant has not named the driver, we have the right
to recover from them
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 109721--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC parking charge currently awaiting my response with IAS
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: February 13, 2026, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Checking here if any tips, should I add any arguments here or
let it sit? I imagine it goes for adjudication by IAS either way
and my appeal is probably rejected either way, but wanted to
cover all bases.
Many thanks in advance.
#Post#: 109733--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC parking charge currently awaiting my response with IAS
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 13, 2026, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stating the complete rubbish you quote in your “Last message
from NPC” does not make it true. In fact, it’s a complete lie.
It’s what they do, they ignore valid appeal points and invent
invalid reasons for other points.
#Post#: 109739--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC parking charge currently awaiting my response with IAS
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 13, 2026, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Further comments on the parking operators evidence;
The provided notice remains non PoFA compliant.
It does not matter how many times the operator claims compliance
- continued claims of compliance does not magically make the
required mandatory wording appear.
The requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) are not met by
the operators NtK - the required mandatory wording MUST be
present in order to be compliant - the requirements of PoFA are
legally 'tight' and partial or even substantial compliance is
not sufficient.
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) The Notice MUST state "that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver" - I invite NPC to
specifically point out the mandatory wording?
#Post#: 109811--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC parking charge currently awaiting my response with IAS
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: February 14, 2026, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks guys, I have responded with the following and will now
wait. Cheers
--- Quote ---
>
> The provided notice remains non PoFA compliant.
>
> It does not matter how many times the operator claims
compliance - continued claim of compliance does not magically
make the required mandatory wording appear.
>
> Besides other shortfalls, the requirements of Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(2)(e) are not met by the operator's NtK - the
required mandatory wording MUST be present in order to be
compliant - the requirements of PoFA are legally 'tight' and
partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
>
> Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) The Notice MUST state "that the
creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver" - I invite NPC to
specifically point out the mandatory wording.
>
> Otherwise, they should either withdraw the PCN completely or
have it rejected later by IAS or the court if they so please.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1