LPS Ltd - PCN - Private Access Road - Delivering On Site & Vehicle Breakdown

[b789]

That’s typical evidence of why the IAS is a kangaroo court

They don’t require the operator to properly evidence the claim in a transparent way. Instead of a full evidence pack being served to you (as would be required in any fair process), you just get a narrative summary while the assessor either sees more or simply accepts what’s asserted.

That’s why it operates the way it does. The operator isn’t being put to strict proof in any meaningful sense. But don’t waste energy attacking that directly in the appeal — it won’t go anywhere.

They’ve provided no actual evidence. No NtK, no signage, no landowner authority, no full image sequence, no engagement with telematics — just assertions. So the position stays simple: they haven’t proved their case.

And on the “account changed” point — it hasn’t. Telematics shows movement at the stated time. You’ve just added context about the earlier stop. That’s clarification, not inconsistency.

Strip it back to that and force everything onto proof. Below is a tight rebuttal you can submit.

Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Prima Facie Case

The Operator’s submission is noted. It consists primarily of assertion and commentary rather than evidence capable of establishing liability. The Operator is put to strict proof of each element required to found a contractual claim.

Alleged inconsistency in the Appellant’s account

The Operator’s claim that the Appellant’s account has “materially changed” is incorrect.

The position has been consistent throughout. Telematics evidence shows that at the time stated on the Notice to Keeper the vehicle was moving. That position has not changed. Additional information was subsequently provided explaining why the vehicle had been stationary earlier, namely a mechanical defect requiring attention.

Providing further detail is not inconsistency. It is clarification.

The Operator has not addressed the telematics evidence at all. Instead, it relies solely on its own selected photographs. The Operator is therefore put to strict proof that its images represent a complete and continuous record of the vehicle’s presence, rather than a partial capture of events.

Failure to establish a contractual offer

The Operator’s case proceeds on the assumption that the presence of a stationary vehicle for “39 minutes” establishes liability. That is not the legal test.

The Operator must demonstrate that:

• a valid contractual offer was made by the signage;
  
• that the terms were capable of acceptance; and
  
• that the driver accepted those terms.
  

The Operator has not produced the signage relied upon nor demonstrated that it constitutes a contractual offer rather than a prohibition.

A prohibition such as “no parking” does not create a contract. It withdraws permission. The Operator has not addressed this point.

Reliance on duration alone is legally insufficient

The Operator repeatedly relies on the duration of approximately 39 minutes. Duration is not determinative of liability.

A vehicle being stationary does not, in itself, establish that:

• a contract was formed;
  
• the terms applied to that vehicle; or
  
• those terms were breached.
  

The Operator must prove contractual liability. It has not done so.

Implied licence and commercial access

The Operator asserts that vehicles must not remain on the access roadway but does not address the fact that the roadway serves active commercial premises.

Vehicles attending those premises operate under an implied licence for access in the course of business. The Operator has not demonstrated how its scheme overrides that licence or how its terms were capable of binding delivery vehicles engaged in legitimate commercial activity.

A general statement that “vehicles must not stand” is not sufficient to displace that pre-existing right.

Mechanical defect and necessity

The Operator dismisses the mechanical defect on the basis that a lighting issue does not prevent movement. That is an oversimplification and does not address the legal point.

A vehicle with a defect affecting its lighting system may be unsafe or unlawful to operate, particularly depending on conditions and timing. Drivers are under a legal obligation not to operate unsafe vehicles.

The Operator has provided no evidence to show that the vehicle could have been lawfully and safely moved elsewhere. It merely asserts that it could have been.

The evidential burden rests with the Operator. Assertion is not proof.

If compliance with the alleged terms would have required the driver to operate an unsafe vehicle, the Operator must explain how such terms can be enforced in those circumstances.

Standing and authority

The Operator asserts that restrictions form part of “site controls” and “planning requirements” but has provided no evidence of its own legal standing to enforce those restrictions in its own name.

The Operator is put to strict proof of:

• its authority from the landholder;
  
• its right to enter into contracts with motorists; and
  
• its right to pursue charges in its own name.
  

General statements about site rules are not evidence of legal standing.

Misapplication of legitimate interest

The Operator claims that the vehicle caused obstruction and interfered with site use. No evidence of actual obstruction has been provided.

This is not a retail car park scenario. It is a commercial access road. The presence of delivery vehicles is inherent to the function of the site.

The Operator has not demonstrated any legitimate interest comparable to that required to justify a £100 charge.

Conclusion

The Operator’s submission does not establish contractual liability. It relies on:

• assertion rather than evidence;
  
• duration rather than legal analysis; and
  
• dismissal of relevant facts without proof.
  

The Operator has failed to demonstrate:

• that a contractual offer existed;
  
• that any such terms were accepted;
  
• that those terms applied to a vehicle attending a commercial tenant;
  
• that the vehicle was not compelled to stop due to safety concerns; and
  
• that it has standing to enforce the charge.
  

In the absence of proof of these elements, liability cannot arise.

Key strategic notes (not to include in the submission):

• You’ve neutralised their “inconsistency” attack cleanly.
  
• You’ve shifted focus away from “39 minutes” to contract formation and burden of proof.
  
• You’ve exposed that they have provided no actual evidence pack.
  
• You’ve forced the assessor into the same trap as before: either address the points or ignore them.
  

Do not over-expand this. If any of the points you raise in that response are sidestepped by the assessor, you have all the evidence you need to prove that the IAS is not fit for purpose.