DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124155--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: yodish
Date: July 9, 2026, 3:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On top of everything jfollows as said, and hopefully relevant
for other, you can check if byelaws apply using this website
which I personally developed:
HTML https://www.ninjapcn.co.uk/#pcn-check-tool
It confirms that the petrol station is well within the
boundaries.
#Post#: 124866--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Coalman
Date: July 15, 2026, 11:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, once again, Intercity 125. I will send an email to
VCS today which will contain your much-appreciated information.
I will also send then the link to the Bye Laws that jfellows has
suggested as well. Thank you.
Regards.
Coalman
#Post#: 126133--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Coalman
Date: July 29, 2026, 12:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good day to you all. We received this from IAS yesterday:
Attention! You need to log back into the system and upload your
response to the operators information and evidence or refer it
straight to an Adjudicator. ( This was in bold lettering to
grab your attention....it grabbed my wife's and frightened her!
)
We received your appeal.
You now have until 31/07/26 23:59 to complete the next stage in
the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this
time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who
will determine liability based only on the information already
supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability
to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.
You need to log into the IAS system at portal.theias.org and
view the information that the Parking Operator has uploaded.
The Parking Operator should have uploaded sufficient evidence to
show that you are, on the face of it, liable to pay the charge.
You will then have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by
making any representations that you consider to be relevant as
to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra
photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you
submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more
information you will not have the ability to add to or amend
your submission. If the operator provides more information or
evidence you will then have another chance to respond.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do
not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if
you consider that the information provided is not capable of
showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the
parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party
will have the opportunity of making more representations and the
Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities,
whether you are liable for the parking charge.
IMPORTANT: If you are unsure as to which option to choose, you
will need to seek your own independent legal advice. The IAS is
not able to comment on the evidence or assist you in making this
decision.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
******
Now this is the , I presume standard response from VCS:
The operator reported that...
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 06/05/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 06/05/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. The BP Fuel Station at the East Midlands Airport is private
land which motorists are permitted to enter subject to the
advertised restrictions.
2. Signage in the area the appellant stopped clearly states, “No
Stopping.” Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol manage and
enforce these areas, where stopping is not permitted unless
authorised, and seek to do so by making motorists aware of the
requirements with signs. The signage also makes it clear that
any motorist contravening the terms and conditions will be
liable for a Charge Notice. This PCN was issued in respect of a
vehicle stopping where stopping is prohibited.
3. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for
the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice
sent on 06/05/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined
to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident
in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware
that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as
such, do not require those details.
4. The issue of this charge and the NTK comply with POFA 2012.
5. A copy of our authority to enforce the No Stopping terms and
conditions in place on this site, including where the appellant
stopped their vehicle, was supplied as part of the IPC audit
process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their
perusal.
6. A review of the footage we possess shows the appellant's
vehicle stationary when first observed and remaining stationary
for approx. ** minute and ** seconds at which point the vehicle
starts to move; as the vehicle was already stationary when first
observed this was the minimum amount of time that the vehicle
was stationary for. During this period two passengers are
dropped off.
7. We are unable to submit the actual footage due to GDPR,
principally the presence of the driver's passengers, however we
do submit an annotated series of footage frames to further
demonstrate the contravention and its duration.
8. The appellant does not deny the material facts of the
recorded contravention.
9. The No Stopping signs are visible on entry to the Fuel
Station and in the vicinity of the location the vehicle stopped.
As such, we deem it implausible a motorist could enter the Fuel
Station and be unaware of the restrictions.
10. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when
the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land,
a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is
the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any
clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the
terms and conditions stated vehicles must not be stopped;
otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.
11. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are
familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage
in private land which they park. We maintain that our signs are
clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the
International Parking Community guidelines. As established
members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to
their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives
recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park.
The signs within the car park fully comply with the
recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are
therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention
the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would
have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this
purpose. Once the presence of the signs; which are designed to
be rad from a moving vehicle; is revealed, it is the motorist's
responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are
familiar with the Terms and Conditions.
12. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite,
including its size, wording and positioning has been audited by
the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of
Practice and is deemed fit for purpose. The location in which
the appellant had stopped can be observed in the supplied
annotated overhead and vehicle and signage location image which
highlight the close proximity of the appellant's vehicle to VCS
contractual signage.
13. The pertinent point in this case is that, having been given
sufficient notice of the No Stopping terms and conditions in
place, the driver freely chose to stop their vehicle on a
roadway where stopping is prohibited at all times. By doing so
the appellant as registered keeper of the vehicle became liable
for the charge which was lawfully issued.
14. By the driver stopping on a road where stopping was
prohibited the appellant became liable for the Charge Notice
issued as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
******
I am sorry this is so long.
What is my response, please?
Thanks again.
Coalman
#Post#: 126136--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 29, 2026, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Comments on the operator's evidence;
1. The operator has not rebutted the fact that their client's
land is inside the statutory area at East Midlands Airport - A
statutory instrument is in place and therefore POFA cannot be
applied in this situation since the land is not relevant land
under POFA.
2. The operator is in clear breach of their Code of Practice
since they are not allowed to state or imply POFA capabilities
in situations where POFA cannot apply.
3. The driver remains unknown to the operator and as such there
is no liability in this matter.
4. Elliott v Loake DOES NOT establish that the keeper was the
driver - this case is a criminal case which turned on the facts
of the case and, as any legal professional will know, criminal
cases do not turn on mere 'assumption' - this case turned on the
ample evidence which was put before the court and there is no
mention of 'reasonable assumption' in the case summary.
5. The operator claims that the driver entered a contract with
the operator when they entered their client's land - this
contract claim is denied - operator's are required (both by the
Code of Practice and by consumer laws) to provide drivers with a
consideration period (in order to examine and understand T&Cs)
before being bound by such terms - Consumer legislation cannot
be circumvented purely due to its inconvenience.
#Post#: 126361--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Coalman
Date: July 30, 2026, 11:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh Boy! What would numpties like me and others do without the
knowledge of you and others who know what to write and put us at
ease when the operators are threatening us with all kinds of
nasty legal things!
Thank you very much!
PS.... It is also noted that in the IAS 'response' box, it
doesn't accept 'copy and paste' ! lol
#Post#: 130497--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Coalman
Date: September 15, 2026, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello again and I am sorry for the late response, once more.
This arrived about 29th August.
Our IAS appeal seems too have fallen on deaf ears, no surprise
there,eh? They have sent me a massive email telling the reasons
why that is the case.
''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 in a restricted area 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 signage at this site makes it clear that parking is on
private land and that vehicles must not be parked in a
restricted area. A failure to comply with that term and
condition will result in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice.
Even if I accept the Appellant's claims, I am unable to allow
the appeal on this basis. The terms are clear. If the driver
parks in a restricted area 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.
In this Appeal it is clear from the images provided that the
Appellant's vehicle was stationary within the restricted area in
contravention of the terms and conditions which were prominently
displayed throughout the site. The extensive signage on site
makes it clear that no stopping is permitted in any
circumstances.
Some definitions of ‘parking' refer to leaving the vehicle.
Leave in this sense does not mean to walk away from the vehicle.
It means to allow or cause to remain. I do not agree with the
Appellant's definition of parking. By their definition they
could remain there for an unspecified period of time and not be
parked, then at some point not identified they would become
parked. Clearly parking is a question of fact not degree. One
cannot become parked after the passage of an indeterminate
period of time. The code of practice defines parked as “being
stationary other than in the course of driving.” This
incorporates the position of the Appellant's vehicle.
The Appellant should note that stopping in a restricted area to
read the wording within the sign is not permissable. It should
be easy for any competent driver to read whilst travelling and
without stopping. This is the very nature of most road signs.
Unfortunately for the Appellant by stopping has breached the
terms for entering and as a result the Appellant is liable for
the parking charge. For the avoidance of doubt, consideration
and grace periods do not apply.
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 Operator does not need to provide any information relating
to their relationship with the land owner. Obviously if they do
not at least provide the evidence and information to show there
is a prima facie case then they are likely to be unsuccessful.
Thereafter it is a matter for their judgment as to what evidence
and information to provide to this appeal to show the charge is
lawful and the Appellant is liable. However, there is no
requirement to provide anything. The Operator's relationship
with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to
freely enter into a contract with the Operator. In any event the
landowner authority is provided to me.
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.
So! The missus is poking me 'just' to pay up, but I worked hard
for my nest egg and I am not too keen on letting these scammers
trample over my legal rights.
I hope that you will be able to guide me forward.
Thanks, Coalman
#Post#: 130510--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: September 15, 2026, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That isn’t a surprise to anyone who is familiar with the IAS,
they are fundamentally hand in glove with the parking companies
so just need to be ignored, their decision is not binding on you
in any way.
But now begins a bit of a test of your resolve. You’ll hear from
the parking scum very quickly to tell you that you lost and need
to pay up. Just ignore that.
Then begins the series of letters from an appointed debt
collector, who have no power in this matter until a court
decides that a debt is due and you fail to pay it in the
prescribed time frame. That is not where we are currently.
I guess the proper advice is to retain these letters but do not
under any circumstances engage with the debt collectors.
Wait until you get a letter from solicitors (this can be at best
months away) which is headed letter of claim or letter before
claim and then resurrect this post and seek advice as regards
your reply - there will be threads on here that you can find
that provide some background and potential drafts to use when
you reply to that letter as it is the next stage at which you
need to engage.
#Post#: 130560--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: Coalman
Date: September 15, 2026, 11:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thankk you for the reassurance.
Much appreciated. :)
Coalman
#Post#: 130562--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: September 16, 2026, 1:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IAS comments on Elliott v Loake are simply untrue and the
Court's have consistently thrown out attempts to imply that the
case is relevent.
The Assessor simply skips over POFA.
You cannot be liable for this charge so no need to pay.
You will win in the end.
#Post#: 130568--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from East Midlands Airport Petrol Station
DIR By: RichardW
Date: September 16, 2026, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Should be noted that VCS have been known to push it all the way
to a hearing, so OP needs to be prepared for that!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page