DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 25, 2026, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to obtain the information submitted by the operator and
rebut any claims or statements made in it which you believe to
be untrue.
The IAS will still not uphold your appeal, but you will then
have the basis of a defence to the likely county court claim
against you which will follow.
#Post#: 128800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 25, 2026, 9:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here’s what they have submitted.
What I find interesting is the fact that it has my name against
the motorist section. Even though I have refused to name who the
driver was.
HTML https://ibb.co/VYH3FbyD
HTML https://ibb.co/v4wxbhHy
HTML https://ibb.co/vvhz3zLL
And here is the original PCN
HTML https://ibb.co/JwVtmRtK
Please can advise on how to respond 🙏
#Post#: 128815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Dave65
Date: August 25, 2026, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They cannot presume the keeper is the driver relying on Elleot v
Loake, this was a criminal case.
This is private parking charge.
#Post#: 128883--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 26, 2026, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You refer to Elliot v Loake (1982) as case law which supports
the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary
evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the
following reasons:
Firstly, this was a criminal case and any trained legal
professional will know that criminal cases do not turn on
'balance of probabilities' arguments. Criminal cases turn on the
basis of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the
appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he
was the driver, and not, as you incorrectly state, because of
the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the
magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue
sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary
car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic
evidence showed that the appellant lied several times. Other
material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his
possession that night and that no-one else had permission to
drive the car. The driver was the only one insured to drive the
car. The driver was shown to have lied to Police and lied again
in Court.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal
principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle
can be adduced, it is the well known principle that once a
witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is
likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
You are also reminded you of the general principle that the
claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I
was the driver.
#Post#: 128885--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 26, 2026, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a good response, although I'd be tempted to leave out or
amend this:
--- Quote ---
> Firstly, this was a criminal case and any trained legal
professional will know that criminal cases do not turn on
'balance of probabilities' arguments. Criminal cases turn on the
basis of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
--- End Quote ---
It's correct, but I'm not sure there's any benefit in pointing
out that the standard of proof in criminal cases is higher than
that in civil ones.
#Post#: 128893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: August 26, 2026, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> This is a good response, although I'd be tempted to leave out
or amend this:
>
> [quote]Firstly, this was a criminal case and any trained legal
professional will know that criminal cases do not turn on
'balance of probabilities' arguments. Criminal cases turn on the
basis of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
--- End Quote ---
It's correct, but I'm not sure there's any benefit in pointing
out that the standard of proof in criminal cases is higher than
that in civil ones.
[/quote]
Point taken but, what we're trying to convey is the fact that
there was never any element of the conviction which relied upon
'reasonable assumption' and therefore no 'principle' was ever
established. With that in mind we have to point out the basis on
which the conviction actually occurred.
The old 'Catch 22'.
#Post#: 129155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: August 29, 2026, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Response submitted 🤞
#Post#: 131510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: Ed_rx7
Date: September 26, 2026, 3:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The inevitable has arrived.
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"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 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.
I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where
the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and
to take the necessary steps to enforce them.
The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but
denies that at the time of the incident he was 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 he/she was not the
driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence
has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was
not the driver and therefore, contrary to the Appellant's
assertion, the Operator is entitled to assume that as the
registered keeper on the date of the parking event, the
Appellant was also the driver. The Appellant's argument
distinguishing his case from Elliott v Loake has no basis and is
incorrect.
Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the
signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am
satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the
attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply
to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location, which is a
pick up/drop off area, are such that drivers using must make a
valid payment for their stay, by midnight on the day after the
date of their visit. In the photographs provided to me I can see
that the Appellant entered the site at 14:14 and exited at
14:20. In the data provided I can see that no payment was made
for the Appellant's VRN. It is the driver's responsibility to
ensure that they make a valid payment for their stay and
otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the
Operator's signage displayed at this site.
Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into
account.
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. On the present facts, the
compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue.
The Appellant also raises as an issue the airport bylaws. The
contract held by the Operator to carry out enforcement on this
site was drawn up taking into account the existing bylaws. The
bylaws do not prevent enforcement being carried out, even if the
relevant breach is also covered by a bylaw. The bylaws
themselves also do not have to be breached. The relevant breach
is that of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage and
this is the basis upon which the Operator is entitled to issue a
PCN, as they have done on this occasion. The Appellant is
correct in identifying that the Operator is pursuing the driver
on this occasion rather than the registered keeper, a point that
has already been dealt with above. As such, on the basis of the
evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Appellant breached
the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was
correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this
Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that
the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with
the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"
What do I do now…. Wait for the debt lets and then the court
summons?
#Post#: 131525--------------------------------------------------
Re: Airport drop off dispute
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: September 27, 2026, 3:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - nothing to do now apart from go through the process.
They ignored your comments in Elliott v Loake which is
laughable.
These people are not 'legal professionals'.
In the meantime, you could write a complaint to the CMA
outlining how IAS are not acting independently of the parking
industry - show them how IAS are totally misquoting EvL in an
effort to hoodwink individuals in to paying a charge when a
liability for that charge does not exist.
Use these two email addresses;
parking@cma.gov.uk
general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 6
DIR Previous Page