30 min overstay

[Brenda_R2]

I would use the excellent response provided by @b789.

If you want an alternative:

The operator has confirmed that the Notice to Keeper was issued as a "NON‑POFA" notice. 

That ends the matter as far as keeper liability is concerned.

Where an operator chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they cannot transfer liability from driver to keeper. 
Keeper liability is a statutory construct. It exists only where Parliament has expressly created it, and Parliament did so solely within POFA Schedule 4.

The operator’s assertion that they may simply "infer" that the keeper was the driver is legally fatal.

Elliott v Loake (1982) is not authority for any such inference.  It concerned a criminal case involving forensic evidence, witness testimony, and an admitted lie by the defendant.  It did not establish any presumption that a keeper is the driver, nor has any court ever accepted it as creating such a presumption in civil parking cases.

The operator’s reliance on Elliott v Loake has been rejected repeatedly in county court judgments, including by senior judges, and is widely recognised as irrelevant to private parking disputes.

There is no statutory, common‑law, or evidential presumption that the keeper was the driver. 

The burden of proof rests entirely on the operator.

The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever identifying the driver.

Their position appears to be:

They chose not to use POFA.
They therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
They have no evidence of the driver.
They wish to substitute a discredited criminal case from 1982 as a shortcut.

That is not, and can never be, a lawful basis for liability.

The operator’s "prima facie case" fails because it does not establish driver identity, and they have expressly disclaimed POFA compliance.

The IAS must therefore find that the operator has not established liability against the keeper.

There is no lawful basis on which this charge can continue to be pursued.  It should now be brought to a close before matters escalate unnecessarily — and they will.

If you believe an offence occurred, lay an information before the magistrates under the Single Justice Procedure within six months. Otherwise, erase my data when no longer necessary for this purpose.

As to any further demands, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

[Tezzy]

As you predicted @b789:-

Dear ,

The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 
Vehicle Registration: 
Date Issued: 12/07/2026

Appeal Outcome: Dismissed

The Adjudicators comments are as follows:

"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 Operator maintains that the Appellant exceeded their paid purchase time.
The Appellant raises a number of issues:
1. The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident he was 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 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 was not the driver and therefore the appeal is not allowed on this basis.
2. The Operator need provide no information. Obviously if they do not at least provide the evidence and information to show there is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful. Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator.
3. A number of images have been provided to me which shows the signage displayed on this site. 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. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. It is not lost on me the driver entered the site, chose to park and proceeded to make payment in accordance with the advertised terms. This demonstrates that the driver was able to locate and engage with the parking terms and conditions.
4. Parking is defined as “remaining on controlled land” by the single code of practice. This is evidenced by the ANPR images which show the vehicle parking between07:50:06 and 10:23:51.
5. The consideration period is not a additional free parking. It does not form part of the overstay. The vehicle remained on site between expiry of payment (09:52:00) and payment (10:23:51). This overstay exceeds the 10 minute grace period afforded.
I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms and conditions clear to all motorists. The Appellant's vehicle parked on site and a payment was made in line with the terms and conditions. The driver has therefore engaged with the signage and terms and conditions within. The Appellant informs me that the payment was made by RingGo, which is supported by the Operator's subsequent evidence and therefore is aware of how payment on site is made. If more time was needed, then a further payment was required.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

[b789]

@Tezzy, of course the result was entirely predictable and demonstrates precisely why the IAS is widely regarded as a kangaroo court.

The most revealing part of its standard preamble is this:

"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."

The decision that follows makes a mockery of that assurance.

The supposedly legally qualified adjudicator asserts that Elliott v Loake established a "principle" that, unless the keeper proves otherwise, the keeper is assumed to have been the driver. It established no such principle.

Elliott v Loake was a criminal road-traffic case in which substantial forensic and other evidence connected Mr Elliott and his damaged vehicle with a collision, and his account was found to be untrue. The court concluded from that affirmative evidence that he had been driving. It did not create a legal presumption that every registered keeper was the driver, nor did it place a general burden upon a keeper to prove that somebody else was driving.

The adjudicator does not explain:

• where the alleged "principle" appears in Elliott v Loake;
• how a fact-specific criminal prosecution creates a presumption in a private contractual dispute;
• what evidence identifies you as the driver;
• why silence or refusal to identify the driver constitutes evidence of driving; or
• why Parliament enacted Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if an operator can simply ignore its requirements and obtain the same result by presuming that the keeper drove.

That last point exposes the absurdity. Parliament enacted PoFA specifically to create a carefully conditioned mechanism by which an unidentified driver's parking liability may be transferred to the keeper. (not so) Smart Parking admits that it issued a NON-POFA notice. The IAS has nevertheless invented an alternative form of keeper liability by declaring that the keeper must prove they were not driving. That turns PoFA on its head and renders its statutory conditions pointless.

The remainder of the decision is equally revealing. The adjudicator says that the Operator's relationship with the landowner "has no bearing" on the alleged contract. That is nonsense: unless the Operator had authority from the landholder to offer parking contracts and enforce charges in its own name, it could not acquire the contractual rights it claims against anybody.

The adjudicator also treats ANPR entry and exit timestamps as proof of "parking" throughout the entire period, then states that the vehicle remained on site between "expiry of payment (09:52:00) and payment (10:23:51)", when 10:23:51 was plainly the recorded exit time, not a further payment. That alone shows the quality of attention given to the evidence.

Most seriously, the IAS has endorsed the Operator's attempt to impose liability upon you merely because your name is the only one it obtained from the DVLA. No evidence identifies you as the driver, yet the adjudicator has reversed the burden and required you to disprove an allegation that was never supported by evidence in the first place.

Fortunately, as the IAS itself admits, this decision is not legally binding upon you. It does not create a debt, determine legal liability or bind a county court. It is merely the opinion of an anonymous IAS adjudicator operating the parking industry's own appeals scheme. Given the demonstrably false interpretation of Elliott v Loake, it is entirely right that such a decision has no binding effect.

So, we move on. Do not pay simply because the IAS has dismissed the appeal. You may now receive demands from (not so) Smart Parking or powerless debt collectors. Those can be safely ignored. They have absolutely no effect on you and are simply a tool to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Only a formal Letter of Claim or an actual county court claim must be acted upon; if either arrives, come back here.

The IAS has done nothing more than produce a useful written demonstration of why its decisions deserve no deference and why this particular decision could not withstand proper judicial scrutiny.