DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: mickR
Date: April 18, 2026, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
hmmm sign say enter details in "Kiosk inside"
what "kiosk" and "inside" where??
33 Darkes lane covers the whole building with multiple
businesses with separate entrances. all of which are closed at
night.
#Post#: 116269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: cm6578
Date: April 18, 2026, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> That should do for the initial appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you DWMB2, I have submitted the appeal. I'll will post
once I hear back.
#Post#: 116270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: cm6578
Date: April 18, 2026, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> hmmm sign say enter details in "Kiosk inside"
> what "kiosk" and "inside" where??
> 33 Darkes lane covers the whole building with multiple
businesses with separate entrances. all of which are closed at
night.
>
--- End Quote ---
Appreciate you response mickR, I have already submitted the
appeal but that is a very good point everything is shut along
there after midnight so no 'kiosk' Maybe I can use that further
down the line if they don't cancel the PCN.
Thank you
#Post#: 117204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: cm6578
Date: April 28, 2026, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/v4yz6DXp
Hi,
I received a response from Euro Parking Service that my appeal
has been unsuccessful and that I should pay in full or submit an
appeal to the independent Appeals Service (IAS).
Do I raise the same points as my original appeal? Also adding
that the office blocks are closed at the time of the alleged
contravention so no where to enter VRN.
Any advice on the approach to this would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
#Post#: 117221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 28, 2026, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cm6578 link ---
>
> Also adding that the office blocks are closed at the time of
the alleged contravention so no where to enter VRN.
>
--- End Quote ---
I wouldn't add this point as it doesn't particularly support
your case - the counterpoint to it is that if a driver is unable
to comply with the terms on offer then he should leave.
Have a look at some other IAS appeals but they will essentially
be more thorough versions of your initial appeal.
#Post#: 119901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Parking Services - Potters Bar
DIR By: cm6578
Date: May 28, 2026, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I was wondering if I could have some advice please as I have
made an appeal to the IAS after Euro parking rejected my appeal.
I read through some comments on here so I used the following but
I don't know if I've messed up. I have also receive the prima
facie from the operator (below) claiming that the appellant was
the drive but at no point has the drivers identity been
revealed. I have until tomorrow to respond.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability
for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that
was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of
the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site
plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of
the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage
was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of
Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged
contravention, including requirements relating to font size,
positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)-(j) requires the operator to have
in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
the identity of the landowner,
a boundary map of the land to be managed,
applicable byelaws,
the duration and scope of authority granted,
detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
the means of issuing PCNs
. responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
. and the operator's obligations and appeal procedure under the
Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to
comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of
PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are "qualified solicitors
or barristers." Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading
this really is legally qualified, they will know that without
strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ
186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and
accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator,
that will speak for itself-and lend further weight to the
growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent
nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full
evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice,
and basic contractual principles.
However I didn't realise that this didn't go through to an
Adjudicator and that EURO PARKING SERVICE were allowed to
respond to this.
Their response was as follows
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 21/05/2026 09:41:22.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 24/03/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 21/03/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
[b]The operator made the following comments...
There are multiple signages displayed on the site for the
motorists to view and acknowledged the site regulations. (see
evidence attached).As per the signages it is clearly mentioned
that the motorist needs to enter the VRM into the kiosk while
being in the car premises. (see evidence attached).The Landowner
authority is not public information and this does not have to be
disclosed.however, please be advised that all correspondence was
issued in a timely manner. The IAS has access to this should the
appeal go to this stage.The motorist has failed to comply with
the site regulations during their stay in the car park. It is
the sole responsibility of motorist to get their vehicle
whitelisted so that it complies with the site regulations and
which shall make it not liable for the Parking Charge notice.
(see evidence attached)
Do I appeal to the Arbitration and do I use my initial appeal or
something different. Sorry I'm panicking now
Any advice for be greatly appreciated. Thank you
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page