30 min overstay

[b789]

This is a particularly clear example of the corrupt and devious way in which these former clamping firms operate. Having deliberately issued a non-PoFA Notice to Keeper, the Operator knows that it cannot transfer the unidentified driver's alleged liability to the keeper. It therefore attempts to manufacture liability by falsely describing an appeal expressly submitted by the keeper as having come "from the driver", and then misrepresents an unrelated criminal case as authority for presuming that the keeper was driving. This is not an innocent misunderstanding: it is an attempt to invent the evidence and legal basis that its case plainly lacks.

You should choose "Submit your response", not refer the case straight to arbitration. The Operator's Prima Facie Case contains assertions that must be expressly rebutted, particularly its demonstrably false claim that the original appeal came "from the driver".

I cannot remember whether the IAS permits the response to be uploaded as a PDF. Its response box has deliberately been crippled so that text cannot ordinarily be pasted into it—although that restriction can be circumvented if you are sufficiently technically minded and prepared to research how.

Therefore, in case the portal does not permit a PDF upload, I have prepared two versions: a short response that can be typed directly into the box and a fuller response that can be uploaded as a PDF if the system allows it.

Short response:

The Operator has failed to answer the dispositive legal ground of appeal. It admits that the Notice to Keeper was issued on a "NON POFA" basis. The driver remains unidentified; therefore, the unidentified driver's alleged contractual liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

Instead, the Operator falsely states that it received an appeal "from the driver". It did not. The appeal was expressly submitted by the registered keeper without identifying the driver. That demonstrably untrue statement is either mendacious or reflects a failure to read the appeal.

Elliott v Loake was a fact-specific criminal case supported by forensic and other affirmative evidence. It created no presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. Keeper status and refusal to name the driver are not evidence of driving, and invoking the "balance of probabilities" does not manufacture evidence where none exists.

The Operator has consequently produced no answer to the appeal and no lawful basis for holding this Appellant liable. Further engagement with assertions that simply misrepresent both the evidence and the law appears futile. The appeal must be allowed.

If their system allows you to upload a PDF file, then simply type "See uploaded PDF response to operators prima facie case" and use the following as a more comprehensive response:

I respond solely as the registered keeper. The driver has not been identified, and nothing in this response identifies or admits the identity of the driver.

The Operator's Prima Facie Case does not remedy the fundamental and dispositive defect in its case: it has expressly confirmed that the Notice to Keeper was issued on a "NON POFA" basis and that the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 concerning keeper liability do not apply.

The alleged parking contract, if any, could only have been made by the unidentified driver. In the absence of compliance with Schedule 4 PoFA, that person's alleged contractual liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

1. The Operator falsely describes the appeal as coming from the driver

The Operator states:

   "The operator received an appeal from the driver of the vehicle on 05/08/2026."

That statement is false.

The appeal was submitted by the Appellant in the capacity of registered keeper. The driver was not identified, and no admission of driving was made.

The Operator itself records at the beginning of its Prima Facie Case:

   "The appellant was the keeper."

It cannot properly acknowledge that the Appellant appealed as keeper and then, without any evidential basis, redesignate that same person as "the driver".

If the Operator contends that the original appeal contained an admission of driving, it must identify and quote the precise words relied upon. No such admission exists.

2. The Operator admits that it has no statutory keeper liability

The Operator states:

   "An NTK was sent (NON POFA) on 28/07/2026."

It further accepts:

   "The provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not apply."

That admission disposes of any claim against the Appellant as keeper.

The parking event allegedly occurred on 12 July 2026. The Notice to Keeper was not sent until 28 July 2026. For an ANPR case, paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 requires the notice to be delivered within the relevant period of 14 days. A notice not even sent until day 16 was necessarily incapable of satisfying that requirement.

Schedule 4 is the statutory mechanism by which an unidentified driver's alleged parking liability may be transferred to the keeper. The Operator deliberately issued a non-PoFA notice and admits that the statutory provisions do not apply. The alleged liability therefore remains solely with the unidentified driver.

3. No alternative form of keeper liability exists

The Operator attempts to circumvent its admitted inability to use PoFA by asserting:

   "In the absence of driver details... they are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was also the driver."

That proposition is legally unsustainable.

There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver. The registered keeper is not required to identify the driver to a private parking operator. The keeper's refusal to do so is neither an admission nor evidence of driving and does not reverse the burden of proof.

The Operator's evidence establishes only that:

• the Appellant was the registered keeper;
  
• the vehicle entered and left the site; and
  
• the Appellant has not identified the driver.
  

None of those matters identifies the Appellant as the person who drove the vehicle or allegedly accepted the displayed contractual terms.

The Operator's assertion that the keeper has produced no evidence proving that they were not the driver improperly reverses the burden. The Appellant is not required to disprove an allegation for which the Operator has provided no evidence.

If keeper status and refusal to identify the driver were sufficient to impose liability, the detailed statutory conditions enacted by Parliament in Schedule 4 would be redundant. An operator could simply issue every notice on a non-PoFA basis and declare that the keeper must have driven unless the keeper proved otherwise.

The Operator cannot obtain through an invented inference the transfer of liability that its admitted non-compliance with PoFA prevents.

4. Elliott v Loake provides no support for the Operator

The Operator's reliance upon Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36 is wholly misconceived.

That was a criminal road-traffic prosecution arising from a collision after which the offending vehicle left the scene. It was not a private parking case, a contractual dispute or a decision concerning keeper liability.

There was substantial affirmative evidence in that case, including forensic evidence connecting the damaged vehicle to the collision and evidence from which the defendant's account was found to be untrue. The court held that there was ample evidence on the particular facts to conclude that Mr Elliott had been driving.

The decision did not establish that:

• a registered keeper is presumed to be the driver;
  
• keeper status is evidence of driver identity;
  
• silence permits an adverse presumption of driving;
  
• a keeper must identify another driver to avoid liability; or
  
• an unidentified driver's contractual liability passes to the keeper without compliance with PoFA.
  

None of the evidence present in Elliott v Loake exists here. There has been no collision, criminal investigation, forensic examination, false account or other evidence identifying the Appellant as the driver. The ANPR images identify the vehicle, not its driver.

The Operator has taken a fact-specific criminal decision and misrepresented it as creating a general presumption that the registered keeper drove. It creates no such presumption and has no application to the present facts.

5. The supposed "balance of probabilities" does not repair the absence of evidence

The Operator repeatedly invokes the expression "balance of probabilities", but that is the civil standard by which evidence is assessed. It is not evidence in itself, does not create a presumption that the keeper drove and is not an alternative mechanism for transferring liability under PoFA.

The Operator has produced no evidence identifying the Appellant as the driver. Its conclusion rests entirely upon keeper status and the keeper's refusal to identify somebody else. Repeating that unsupported assertion using the language of the civil standard does not give it evidential weight.

The Operator's case therefore remains an attempt to hold the Appellant liable because the Appellant is the only person whose name the Operator knows. That is precisely the situation for which Parliament created Schedule 4, with which the Operator admits it has not complied.

6. The remaining evidence does not establish liability

The ANPR images, payment record, signage and site map may concern an alleged contractual breach by the unidentified driver, but none identifies the Appellant as that driver or makes the registered keeper a party to the alleged contract. The Operator admits that this is a non-PoFA case; consequently, none of that evidence establishes any liability against this Appellant.

Conclusion

The Operator admits that this is a non-PoFA case. The driver remains unidentified. No evidence identifies the Appellant as the driver, and Elliott v Loake creates no presumption capable of filling that evidential void.

The Operator has established only that the Appellant was the registered keeper. That is insufficient to impose liability for an alleged contract made by an unidentified driver.

The Operator has therefore failed to establish a Prima Facie Case against this Appellant. The appeal must be allowed and the Parking Charge cancelled.