DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 120630--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: pesonkute
Date: June 3, 2026, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Greeting to all members of this forum
I have got a PCN rejected by National Parking Control by
overstaying.
The carpark does not has ANPR and the staffs just take the
pictures and report to parking operator.
Below is my appeal which was rejected, so this time I am going
to appeal in theIAS.org.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hFBhRhsn/Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-18-31-44.png
I also have a leg to stand is that my car just come back in an
hour which is no restriction so there are two event of parking.
I hope some could give me some idea for the appeal at the IAS
even I know they will reject anyway.
Many thanks
Below is the PCN
HTML https://i.ibb.co/HLQrd5yc/IMG-9138.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/N2Pt7R3Q/IMG-9139.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/pjtzrC6h/conditions.jpg
#Post#: 120631--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 3, 2026, 12:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no need to mention PoFA 2012, simply implementing its
requirements is sufficient.
So:
--- Quote ---
> (2)The notice must—
>
> (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
>
> (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay
parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking
and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
>
> (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement
to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement
was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
that made them payable;
>
> (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are
unpaid, as at a time which is—
>
> (i)specified in the notice; and
>
> (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which
the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed
to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
sub-paragraph (4));
>
> (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper—
>
> (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
>
> (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
>
> (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
>
> (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
>
> (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver,
>
> the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
> (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available;
>
> (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment
or notification to the creditor may be made;
>
> (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is
sent by post) or given (in any other case).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 120636--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: pesonkute
Date: June 3, 2026, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> There is no need to mention PoFA 2012, simply implementing its
requirements is sufficient.
> So:
> [quote](2)The notice must—
>
> (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
>
> (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay
parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking
and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
>
> (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement
to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement
was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
that made them payable;
>
> (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are
unpaid, as at a time which is—
>
> (i)specified in the notice; and
>
> (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which
the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed
to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
sub-paragraph (4));
>
> (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper—
>
> (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
>
> (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
>
> (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
>
> (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
>
> (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver,
>
> the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
> (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available;
>
> (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment
or notification to the creditor may be made;
>
> (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is
sent by post) or given (in any other case).
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Thank you for your post.
In this case, this notice issued does not state the period of
parking (only mentioned "Observation time"), will it be invalid
?
#Post#: 120640--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 3, 2026, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would say that the observation time is clearly a period, so
it’s grasping at straws to state non-compliance on this point
alone. And it’s just over 2h30m isn’t it?
#Post#: 120656--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 4, 2026, 1:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the
notice.
However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e).
9(2)(e) specifies;
The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver.
There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.
The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by 9(2)(f).
#Post#: 121172--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: pesonkute
Date: June 8, 2026, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the
notice.
>
> However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e).
>
> 9(2)(e) specifies;
>
> The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver.
>
> There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.
>
> The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by
9(2)(f).
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with
IAS ?
#Post#: 121191--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 8, 2026, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: pesonkute link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125
link=topic=11035.msg120656#msg120656 date=1780553395]
> I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the
notice.
>
> However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e).
>
> 9(2)(e) specifies;
>
> The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver.
>
> There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.
>
> The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by
9(2)(f).
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with
IAS ?
[/quote]
No, because the IAS is not “independent” and usually sides with
its paymasters, the parking companies.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appeal on this basis, because it
sets out your stall and shows the court in due course that you
were trying to avoid court. If they go on to take you to court,
you have a defence which will be the same point.
The only thing I’d suggest with the IAS appeal is to keep it
short, and to the point, and only appeal on one or - at worst -
two points only. 9(2)e and possibly 9(2)f. The reason I say this
is that if you appeal on lots of points they will pick off the
easy ones and ignore the hard ones.
#Post#: 121201--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: pesonkute
Date: June 8, 2026, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [quote author=pesonkute link=topic=11035.msg121172#msg121172
date=1780938180]
> [quote author=InterCity125
link=topic=11035.msg120656#msg120656 date=1780553395]
> I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the
notice.
>
> However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e).
>
> 9(2)(e) specifies;
>
> The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver.
>
> There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.
>
> The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by
9(2)(f).
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with
IAS ?
[/quote]
No, because the IAS is not “independent” and usually sides with
its paymasters, the parking companies.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appeal on this basis, because it
sets out your stall and shows the court in due course that you
were trying to avoid court. If they go on to take you to court,
you have a defence which will be the same point.
The only thing I’d suggest with the IAS appeal is to keep it
short, and to the point, and only appeal on one or - at worst -
two points only. 9(2)e and possibly 9(2)f. The reason I say this
is that if you appeal on lots of points they will pick off the
easy ones and ignore the hard ones.
[/quote]
Totally got it. I am not afraid go to court. Many thanks for
your advice.
#Post#: 124781--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: pesonkute
Date: July 15, 2026, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> [quote author=pesonkute link=topic=11035.msg121172#msg121172
date=1780938180]
> [quote author=InterCity125
link=topic=11035.msg120656#msg120656 date=1780553395]
> I agree that a 'period pf parking' is demonstrated by the
notice.
>
> However, the notice is missing the required mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e).
>
> 9(2)(e) specifies;
>
> The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver.
>
> There is no such sentence contained in the NtK.
>
> The NtK is also missing part of the wording required by
9(2)(f).
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for pointing it out.
So in this case, do I have a leg to stand on when appeal with
IAS ?
[/quote]
No, because the IAS is not “independent” and usually sides with
its paymasters, the parking companies.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appeal on this basis, because it
sets out your stall and shows the court in due course that you
were trying to avoid court. If they go on to take you to court,
you have a defence which will be the same point.
The only thing I’d suggest with the IAS appeal is to keep it
short, and to the point, and only appeal on one or - at worst -
two points only. 9(2)e and possibly 9(2)f. The reason I say this
is that if you appeal on lots of points they will pick off the
easy ones and ignore the hard ones.
[/quote]
Hi there. I got the response from IAS with no luck as planned.
--- Quote ---
> The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in
a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity to consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
>
> In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby
the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that
matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator
fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly
issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an
Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish
that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued,
then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the
notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant
proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is
likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will
be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters
on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all
times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the
evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
>
> The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on
land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms,
the driver agrees to them. In consideration for entering the
site they agree not to park beyond the maximum permitted time or
pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract
with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised
terms.
>
> I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and
unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map,
exhibits and images.
>
> The Appellant's does not dispute the facts related to the
contravention, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis.
The terms are clear. If the driver stays beyond the maximum
permitted time they have few options. They could contact the
Operator and request temporary permission to park.
Alternatively, they could park elsewhere. Otherwise they could
remain parked and agree to pay the charge.
>
> The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply
with the requirements therein. I must point out that whilst the
Act does need to be complied with in cases where the Operator
wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions
under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do
not. Instead, the operator is entitled to rely either on the
legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the
driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible
evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were
driving at the material time.
>
> Turning to the identity of the driver, POFA 2012 and case law
permits the Operator to hold the registered keeper liable for an
unpaid parking charge regardless as to whether they are the
driver or not. The Appellant accepts that they were the keeper
of this vehicle but denies that at the time of the incident they
were the driver. In the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the
principle was established that in the absence of sufficient
evidence to the contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to
be the driver of that vehicle at the time of an incident such as
arises in this Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper
of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that
they were not the driver at the time of the incident. In this
case such evidence has not been provided by the Appellant to
establish that they were not the driver and therefore this
Appeal is dismissed.
>
> The Notice to Keeper is considered in time unless there is
evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was
received after the second working day. In the absence of such
evidence I cannot consider the matter further.
>
> The Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal
is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating
circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, and they
exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced
payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable
to pay the full charge.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 124798--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC- overstay in a car park without ANPR - Watford
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 15, 2026, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Elliot v Loake reference is complete pie in the sky and is
not relevant because it was a criminal case which turned on the
facts of the case and not any presumption - IAS continue to
quote this tosh which therefore confirms that these cases are
not being assessed by qualified professionals - there's no SRA
registered individual who would spout this nonsense - they'd
risk being struck off.
Elliot v Loake was cited (by a Parking Operator Claimant) in a
recent court case and the Judge laughed it out describing its
inclusion in the evidence as inexplicable. Even the parking
operator's own legal rep agreed with the Judge in that respect.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1