04-07-2026, 04:23 PM
Welcome to the forum @NaiveDL. The initial appeal was never likely to succeed. That is just the standard rubber-stamp rejection stage and nothing about that outcome is surprising.
The realistic position is that an IAS appeal is also very unlikely to succeed. The odds of the IAS allowing an appeal on a technical legal point like this are about as likely as a rock having a conversation with you. That does not mean the point is bad. It means the IAS is just a corrupt forum that is only interested in protecting the IPC members. The IAS is not where this is likely to be won.
The real issue here is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). If an operator wants to hold the keeper liable, every relevant condition in paragraph 9 must be met. It is not enough for some or even most of them to be met. They all matter. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. This NtK does not do that.
What it says is:
That is not a period of parking. It is a single timestamp. A single moment in time is not the same thing as a parking period. That defect is fatal to keeper liability.
It makes no difference that there may be extra photographs elsewhere showing a short passage of time. The NtK itself must comply with PoFA. The operator does not get to repair a defective notice by pointing later to other images. In any event, the additional images here are still insufficient. Even taken at their highest, they do not show anything approaching the minimum consideration period of at least 5 minutes. So even on the wider evidence, they do not get close to showing that any contract could properly have been formed and breached.
That is why the key point is this... If PoFA fails and the driver has not been identified, the operator has nowhere sensible to go. They can pursue the driver if they can prove who that was, but they cannot simply jump from “we have the keeper’s details” to “the keeper must pay.” Parliament gave them a statutory route to keeper liability, but only if they comply fully with the conditions. Here they have not done so.
So the practical position is straightforward. An IAS appeal is still worth doing, not because there is any real faith in the IAS, but because it puts the point on record and shows from an early stage that the keeper liability case is defective. But the place where this is ultimately likely to be won, if it ever has to be won, is court. If Bank Park were foolish enough to issue a claim, the defence would be that they failed to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they cannot transfer liability to the keeper, and the driver has never been identified. On that basis, they are likely to fail.
So the real question is not whether the IAS is likely to be fair. It is not. The real question is whether you are prepared to see this through if necessary, because that is where the strength of the case lies. If you are prepared to fight it all the way, then this is a case worth standing on and I am more than happy to assist you in achieving that.
The realistic position is that an IAS appeal is also very unlikely to succeed. The odds of the IAS allowing an appeal on a technical legal point like this are about as likely as a rock having a conversation with you. That does not mean the point is bad. It means the IAS is just a corrupt forum that is only interested in protecting the IPC members. The IAS is not where this is likely to be won.
The real issue here is that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). If an operator wants to hold the keeper liable, every relevant condition in paragraph 9 must be met. It is not enough for some or even most of them to be met. They all matter. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the notice to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. This NtK does not do that.
What it says is:
Quote:“Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. Tandem Centre. High Street Colliers Wood, London, SW19 2TY on the 15/01/2026 at 11:33:13.”
That is not a period of parking. It is a single timestamp. A single moment in time is not the same thing as a parking period. That defect is fatal to keeper liability.
It makes no difference that there may be extra photographs elsewhere showing a short passage of time. The NtK itself must comply with PoFA. The operator does not get to repair a defective notice by pointing later to other images. In any event, the additional images here are still insufficient. Even taken at their highest, they do not show anything approaching the minimum consideration period of at least 5 minutes. So even on the wider evidence, they do not get close to showing that any contract could properly have been formed and breached.
That is why the key point is this... If PoFA fails and the driver has not been identified, the operator has nowhere sensible to go. They can pursue the driver if they can prove who that was, but they cannot simply jump from “we have the keeper’s details” to “the keeper must pay.” Parliament gave them a statutory route to keeper liability, but only if they comply fully with the conditions. Here they have not done so.
So the practical position is straightforward. An IAS appeal is still worth doing, not because there is any real faith in the IAS, but because it puts the point on record and shows from an early stage that the keeper liability case is defective. But the place where this is ultimately likely to be won, if it ever has to be won, is court. If Bank Park were foolish enough to issue a claim, the defence would be that they failed to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they cannot transfer liability to the keeper, and the driver has never been identified. On that basis, they are likely to fail.
So the real question is not whether the IAS is likely to be fair. It is not. The real question is whether you are prepared to see this through if necessary, because that is where the strength of the case lies. If you are prepared to fight it all the way, then this is a case worth standing on and I am more than happy to assist you in achieving that.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
