DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113954--------------------------------------------------
Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: Datapollution
Date: March 21, 2026, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
Received £100 parking charge for 27-minute stay at hotel car
park while collecting a guest. Appealed to operator (rejected),
then to IAS (dismissed). Now being threatened with debt recovery
for £155.
Background:
27-minute visit to hotel car park (evening, 18:07-18:34)
Purpose: collecting hotel guest at check-out time
Vehicle was NOT parked in any marked bay (temporarily stopped)
No payment made as I assumed brief guest collection would be
accommodated
Timeline:
Oct 2025: PCN issued (£100, discounted to £60 if paid within 14
days)
Nov 2025: Appealed to operator - rejected with generic response
Dec 2025: Appealed to IAS
Jan 2026: IAS dismissed appeal
Jan-Mar 2026: Sent 2 digital settlement offers (£50 = 50%
discount) - all ignored and followed it 19th of march with
written tracked letter (awaiting for feedback).
Early Mar 2026: Operator now claims £155, threatens debt
recovery agents
My Arguments to IAS:
Inadequate signage - Grace period/time limit information only
appeared in small print Terms & Conditions on 2 distant boards,
NOT clearly visible on payment machine signage or anywhere near
where drivers park/pay
Hotel context - 27 minutes is reasonable for hotel guest
collection (checkout, luggage, etc.)
Not parked in bay - Vehicle was temporarily stopped for guest
collection, not occupying any marked parking space
Disproportionate charge - £100 for 27-minute guest collection
with no loss to operator
IAS Adjudicator's Decision (Dismissed):
The adjudicator ruled:
On grace period: "The grace period is a period of ten minutes at
the end of a permitted period of parking, which is longer than
one hour in duration. Consequently, it does not apply at the
start of the parking event."
On consideration time: "The driver is entitled to a reasonable
time to read the terms and comply with the requirements.
However, the time allowed is for this purpose only... Given the
size of the car park a consideration period of 10 minutes is
more than sufficient."
On "not parked" argument: Rejected - said I was "parked" because
Code of Practice defines parking as "being stationary other than
in the course of driving"
On hotel guest collection: "If the driver chooses not to read
the sign or uses the time for their own purpose, as here,
parking and waiting to pick up a passenger the period is at an
end"
On signage: "The signage on site complies with current
regulations and is sufficient"
On charge amount: Justified by citing ParkingEye v Beavis
regarding operator overheads
My Concerns with IAS Decision:
10-minute "consideration period" seems unreasonably short for
hotel guest collection where you're waiting for someone to check
out
Treating brief guest collection identically to long-term parking
seems unfair
No acknowledgement that essential terms (grace period/time
limits) were buried in small print, not on prominent signage
IAS decision itself states it is "not legally binding" on me
Current Position:
Made 3 documented settlement offers (£50) with proof of delivery
- all ignored
Operator now demanding £155
Considering whether to pay or wait for potential court claim
Questions for Legal Advice:
Are IAS decisions given any weight in County Court, or do judges
decide afresh?
Is the "10-minute consideration period for reading signs" a
legal standard, or just this adjudicator's opinion?
Does the fact that grace period info was only in small print
T&Cs (not on payment signage) give me a defence under Interfoto
v Stiletto (onerous terms must be fairly brought to attention)?
Realistic chances of successfully defending if they sue in Small
Claims Court?
How can I avoid CCJ while defending? (I'm prepared to fight but
don't want CCJ on credit file)
Should I wait for court claim or pay £155 now to avoid potential
CCJ?
Additional Info:
Operator is IPC member (not BPA)
Have proof of 3 settlement attempts (19 Jan, 14 Feb, 17 March
with signed delivery)
Willing to defend in court if realistic chance of success
Want to avoid CCJ if possible
#Post#: 113961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 21, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Read up and search here on “CCJ”.
You only get a credit-affecting judgement if you lose and you
don’t pay within a month.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/kellys-storage-luton-universal-parking-enforcement-ltd/msg59804/#msg59804,<br
/>for example.
Also please read and act on
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>if you want more advice specific to your circumstances.
#Post#: 113963--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 21, 2026, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some of the time limits you talk about are covered in the
operators’s code of practice, such as
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf
The IAS is a joke and its “rulings” have no legal standing,
however they could be taken into account in court, especially if
not challenged. Every piece of nonsense should be formally
rebutted.
#Post#: 113967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 21, 2026, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ref the consideration period , the minimum is usually 5 minutes
as stated in the joint code of practice, grace period is a
minimum of 10 minutes (they are different and aren't added
together). What you consider to be appropriate and fair is not
relevant, parking ts & cs are governed by the joint code of
practice members of the IPC or BPA are supposed to abide by.
There is no requirement to display the grace or consideration
periods on the signage. It is the resposibility of the driver to
read the signs and abide by the terms. If the driver doesn't
wish to comply they have the duration of the consideration
period to leave without forming a contract.
There is no room for fairness or reasonableness, unless the
terms themselves are deemed to be unreasonable by a judge or
they breach the joint code that are what they are, take them or
leave them.
The invoice value was set in the case cited, arguing it isnt
proportionate has worked for a decade.
I'm not trying to be blunt but you need a clear understanding of
how this actually works and not make your own assumptions if you
are going to defend this in court.
If you defend this they are likely to drop it before they have
to pay the court fee. However we need to see the oriniginal
notice to Keeper and ideally the appeal you submitted. If you
identified yourself as the driver during the appeal you may have
thrown away some of your best grounds for a defence.
#Post#: 113976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: Datapollution
Date: March 21, 2026, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheers for being straight with me - genuinely helpful to know
how this actually works rather than what I think is fair.
On consideration/grace periods:
Right, got it - 5 mins consideration, 10 mins grace, separate
things, don't need to be on the signs. That makes sense now.
On whether I said I was the driver:
No, I didn't. In my first appeal I wrote things like "the
vehicle was present for 27 minutes for a pick-up/drop-off" - I
was careful not to say "I was driving" or anything like that.
Appealed as keeper the whole way through.
On the Notice to Keeper:
This is the bit I'm not sure about. The original PCN says the
contravention was "05A - paid for insufficient time" but their
own payment records show zero payment, and their rejection
letter says "no payment was made".
The IAS person didn't mention this at all in their decision.
Does that matter under the Protection of Freedoms Act? Like, if
the notice is contradictory, does that affect whether they can
chase me as the keeper?
On my settlement offers:
I've tried settling three times (offered £50 each time, got
proof I sent them) and they've ignored all of them. Does that
help at all if it goes to court or is it irrelevant?
On them dropping it:
You said if I defend they'll probably drop it before paying the
court fee - is that actually common with these parking firms?
Would just filing a defence be enough to make them think twice?
What I've got:
Original PCN with the "paid for insufficient time" bit
Their evidence showing no payment at all
Their letter saying "no payment was made"
IAS decision that didn't look at this issue
Proof I tried settling three times
Worth me posting these (blanked out obviously) for you to have a
look? Or is this contradictory notice thing not strong enough to
bother defending on?
Appreciate the help - better to know now than get caught out
later.
#Post#: 113980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 22, 2026, 2:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post up the original PCN to start with.
#Post#: 113985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: ixxy
Date: March 22, 2026, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately on of that is relevant. The paid for insufficient
time / didn't pay is nothing to do with POFA.
IAS is not really really relvant either, its just lip service
for the bottom end of the parking sector to show compliance with
the code of practice.
Trying to settle is fine but it's up to them if they accept your
offer. In their minds you owe them X and if you offer them less
than that they have a choice as to whether they accept it or
not.
Yes they often drop court claims if you file a defence, depends
on who is manag8ng the ourt claim and who the private parking
company is.
Now we know you didn't identify the driver intercity125 is
correct we need to see the original PCN as it may not allow them
to hold the keeper liable, or there may be wording on there that
might allow us to concoct a suitably legal sounding defence
that they drop it.
#Post#: 114755--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: Datapollution
Date: March 29, 2026, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Right, I've got the original PCN, i could not see a way to post
the images here directly so use posting.cc to post them. I hope
this work.
[img]
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/6ptp7cf[/img]
Link:
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/6ptp7cf
Thank you
PS: my physical letter to the Parking company has been
unanswered so far. I have also evidence that the letter reached
them.
#Post#: 114759--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: Datapollution
Date: March 29, 2026, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Read up and search here on “CCJ”.
> You only get a credit-affecting judgement if you lose and you
don’t pay within a month.
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/kellys-storage-luton-universal-parking-enforcement-ltd/msg59804/#msg59804,<br
/>for example.
>
> Also please read and act on
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>if you want more advice specific to your circumstances.
>
--- End Quote ---
I read this and was keen to get general feedback. I think and my
research say that step seven of the guide on CCJ is incorrect?
❌ THE ERROR IN STEP 7:
What the guide says:
"If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file."
This is MISLEADING and potentially wrong.
✅ THE CORRECT POSITION:
If the court rules against you (judgment entered):
A CCJ IS recorded immediately when judgment is entered.
What happens with payment timing:
Pay within 1 month (30 days):
✅ CCJ is marked as "satisfied"
✅ You can apply to court to have it removed from public
register (costs ~£50-100, form N244)
⚠️ BUT credit agencies may still keep their own
record
⚠️ It's NOT automatically completely removed from
your credit file
Would my understanding be incorrect?
#Post#: 114985--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Charge - Defective Notice to Keeper
DIR By: Datapollution
Date: March 31, 2026, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I got a letter from them today! I assume based on the guidence
given, the debt agency will send threating letter but can't do
anything as they need a judgment before any collection?
Here is the letter in full!
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/yNGqb1jR/Smart-Parking.png
Original - Letter
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/wvz8z7hK/Fin-01.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/G2RwRHkd/Fine-02.png
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1