DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63297--------------------------------------------------
ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit – The
Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: March 19, 2025, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
I (named driver but not registered keeper) parked in a visitor
bay in a private residents car park. Less than 10 minutes later,
returning to the car I had received a PCN.
Below are photos I took of the parked car, a sign in the car
park and the PCN issued. Then I've attached some of the photos
taken by the Ace Security Services warden.
I'd like to contest the charge. Would the following be wise to
write:
The registered keeper of this vehicle contend that neither the
keeper nor the driver of the vehicle are liable for the alleged
parking charge and wish to appeal on the grounds that an
infringement of the terms and conditions did not occur. The car
was parked in a visitors bay.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/ksZjp2s9/IMG-8291.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wr75Z21L/IMG-8290.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/JFWv9s6D/PCN-ACE.jpg
Photos taken by Ace Security Services
HTML https://i.ibb.co/RkwSGjWf/image-1863359.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/VKPTWdQ/image-1863363.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/YTydd5Pj/image-1863367.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/KjRJkkF3/image-1863371.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/N65DDSQ8/image-1863372.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WmsJLGN/image-1863373.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/XfvrVhVW/image-1863374.jpg
#Post#: 63406--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: b789
Date: March 20, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tobesb link ---
>
> I (named driver but not registered keeper) parked in a visitor
bay in a private residents car park. Less than 10 minutes later,
returning to the car I had received a PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
What do you mean by "I (named driver)"? If you were there driver
but not the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle, you are not
yet "named" and you most certainly should never be named. Who is
the RK? Is it someone close to you scheduled as your partner or
a friend?
You need to understand the process and the law otherwise one of
you (you or the RK) are going to waste your hard earned dosh
paying something that you do not have to. However, as it is not
your car, you need the compliance of the RK.
The drivers identity is unknown to the parking operator.
Liability for the alleged charge is with the driver only. The
operator will try and use the provision of PoFA 2012 to transfer
the unknown drivers liability to the known keeper. However, the
Notice to Driver (NtD) is not fully compliant with all the
requirements of PoFA and so, they cannot transfer that liability
from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
The process is that if the operator does not receive an appeal
from the driver, then they can apply to the DVLA for the Keepers
details and then send the Keeper a Notice to Keeper (NtK). There
are certain deadlines to all this that must be observed by the
operator if they intend to try and use PoFA to hold the Keeper
liable. However, as I have already pointed out, they have
already failed to fully comply with all the requirements of
PoFA.
IS there any more to that NtD you have shown us? We need to see
all the wording of the whole NtD.
Normally, the way we would deal with an NtD PCN is to have the
Keeper appeal the notice on day 27 after the issue of the NtD.
This is to try and put them off applying to the DVLA for the
keepers data and making them respond to the appeal without
issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK), which would also invalidate
the PoFA liability for the keeper.
However, as you are not the keeper and everything we advise on
is for the Keeper to do, you will require the Keepers
co-operation. Also, as this is an IPC member, no appeal or
subsequent secondary appeal is going to succeed. This will only
be resolved one they make a claim against the Keeper. Any claim
against the Keeper cannot succeed, especially if they were not
the driver and because PoFA had not been fully complied with no
transfer of liability from the unknown driver can be made to the
known Keeper.
So, before I continue, you need to let me know whether you can
go all the way with this otherwise I will be wasting my time and
effort if you or the Keeper are simply going to pay up out of
ignorance and fear of the process.
#Post#: 64049--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: March 25, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi B789,
sorry, forgot to scan the back of the PCN:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1tynGSwd/Ace-PCN-Back.jpg
My wife is the registered keeper. I parked the car. I definitely
do not want to pay up as it has most certainly angered me that
they hand out tickets to those parked in designated bays for
visitors. So I am happy to go 'all the way' against these
cowboys.
Appeals to be made within 28 days. You mentioned wait until day
27th. Happy to do this.
With that in mind, what would you recommend I write in the
appeal (on 9th April)?
The registered keeper of this vehicle contends that no
infringement of the terms and conditions took place and no
liability will be accepted. The car was parked in a visitors
bay.
#Post#: 64050--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: March 25, 2025, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PS Sorry for the late reply too. I was waiting for an email to
inform me that me post had had a reply but I forgot to tick that
box.
#Post#: 64097--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: b789
Date: March 25, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Make a note in your diary to send the following appeal to ACE
Security Services (ASS) on 9th April. Email it to
appeals@acesecurities.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Charge Notice 987187 – Keeper Appeal (Not the Driver)
>
> To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk
>
> Dear Ace Security Services,
>
> I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle DF14 KYP in respect of
your Charge Notice number 987187, issued on 13/03/2025 at The
Pelhams 1, Wimbledon.
>
> Let’s be clear...
>
> The wording on the reverse of your Charge Notice claiming that
“CNs can only be appealed by the driver” is utter nonsense.
Nowhere in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) does it state that the Keeper cannot appeal, regardless
of whether the notice is a Notice to Driver (NtD) or a Notice to
Keeper (NtK). That statement is misleading, legally baseless,
and potentially breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008.
>
> I was not the driver, and I am under no obligation to identify
the driver. I have now provided you with the Keeper’s full name
and serviceable address. As such, under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you do not
need to request my data from the DVLA.
>
> If you now apply to the DVLA for my data, despite receiving
it, you will be:
>
> [indent]• In breach of your DVLA KADOE contract
> • In breach of UK GDPR, and
> • Liable to be reported to both the DVLA and the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO).[/indent]
>
> You now have a choice:
>
> [indent]• Accept this appeal as you are required to do under
the PPSCoP, or
> • If you prefer to play games, send a Notice to Keeper to the
name and address provided. I will then appeal again on the same
basis.[/indent]
>
> Either way, the NtD is not PoFA compliant. It fails to specify
any period of parking, which is a mandatory requirement under
Schedule 4 of PoFA. Merely recording an "observed time" followed
by a "time of issue" one minute later does not establish any
meaningful parking period. More importantly, a one-minute
observation falls well within the mandatory consideration period
(as set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice)
during which a driver is entitled to review the signage and
choose to leave without accepting any contract. Accordingly, no
contract can be formed and no breach can occur. This point has
already been successfully argued and is now persuasive case law
following Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H],
should you be bothered to look it up.
>
> Any attempt to ignore this appeal or use my details unlawfully
will result in immediate formal complaints.
>
> Regards,
>
> [Full Name]
> Registered Keeper
> [Address]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64129--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: March 25, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow that packs punch!
Thank you.
I'll post any reply I get on here when it comes.
Kind regards,
Toby
#Post#: 68011--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: b789
Date: April 22, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Too late to send that appeal now. Wait for the Notice to Keeper
(NtK) to arrive.
#Post#: 68017--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: April 22, 2025, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789. Stupidly and unfortunately I failed to send to
appeal on the 27th day after the PCN.
I'll be in touch with when it arrives.
Cheers, Toby
#Post#: 68710--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: tobesb
Date: April 25, 2025, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, Notice to Keeper arrived yesterday. I
unfortunately failed to reply to the initial Charge Notice in
time (brain and phone malfunction).
HTML https://i.ibb.co/s9FqJNc1/PCN-ACE.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/X97RDkT/PCN-ACE-2.jpg
Is it a good idea to use the template reply you suggested last
time with a little bit of editing?
eg. (previous template with strikethrough and added words in
red):
Subject: Charge Notice 987187 – Keeper Appeal (Not the Driver)
To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk
Dear Ace Security Services,
I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle DF14 KYP in respect of
your Charge Notice number 987187, issued on 13/03/2025 at The
Pelhams 1, Wimbledon.
Let’s be clear...
The wording on the reverse of your Charge Notice claiming that
“CNs can only be appealed by the driver” is utter nonsense.
Nowhere in the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) does it state that the Keeper cannot appeal, regardless
of whether the notice is a Notice to Driver (NtD) or a Notice to
Keeper (NtK). That statement is misleading, legally baseless,
and potentially breaches the Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008.
I was not the driver, and I am under no obligation to identify
the driver. I have now provided you with the Keeper’s full name
and serviceable address. As such, under Paragraph 5(1)(b) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you do not
need to request my data from the DVLA.
If you now apply to the DVLA for my data, despite receiving it,
you will be:
• In breach of your DVLA KADOE contract
• In breach of UK GDPR, and
• Liable to be reported to both the DVLA and the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
You now have a choice to:
• Accept this appeal as you are required to do under the PPSCoP,
or not.
• If you prefer to play games, send a Notice to Keeper to the
name and address provided. I will then appeal again on the same
basis.
Either way, the NtD is not PoFA compliant. It fails to specify
any period of parking, which is a mandatory requirement under
Schedule 4 of PoFA. Merely recording an "observed time" followed
by a "time of issue" one minute later does not establish any
meaningful parking period. More importantly, a one-minute
observation falls well within the mandatory consideration period
(as set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice)
during which a driver is entitled to review the signage and
choose to leave without accepting any contract. Accordingly, no
contract can be formed and no breach can occur. This point has
already been successfully argued and is now persuasive case law
following Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H],
should you be bothered to look it up.
Any attempt to ignore this appeal or use my details unlawfully
will result in immediate formal complaints.
Regards,
[Full Name]
Registered Keeper
[Address]
#Post#: 68759--------------------------------------------------
Re: ACE Security Services CN – Not Displaying a Valid Permit –
The Pelhams 1, Wimbledon, SW19 1NY
DIR By: b789
Date: April 26, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just appeal with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Keeper Appeal – Charge Notice 987187 (Vehicle
DF14KYP)
>
> To: appeals@acesecurities.co.uk
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration DF14KYP
regarding your Charge Notice 987187.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper is fundamentally non-compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4 and no
contract could have been formed with the driver, for the
following reasons:
>
> 1. No Period of Parking Stated and No Evidence of Contract
Formation
>
> Your original Notice to Driver failed to specify any “period
of parking” as required by PoFA paragraph 7(2)(a). Instead, it
recorded only a single observation time followed by a time of
issue one minute later. A one-minute snapshot is not a “period
of parking” and does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under
PoFA, as confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions, where
the court held that an operator must evidence an actual
identifiable period of parking, not merely a momentary presence.
>
> Moreover, the lack of any proper recorded parking period means
there is no evidence that the vehicle remained stationary beyond
the minimum mandatory consideration period required under the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The driver is
entitled to enter the site, review the signage, and leave
without entering into any contract.
>
> Since you have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained
in situ beyond the minimum consideration period, there is no
basis to suggest that any contractual relationship was ever
formed between the driver and Ace Security Services.
>
> This is not simply a PoFA breach: it is also a breach of the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice in failing to respect
the minimum consideration period and issuing a charge when no
contract could have been created. This breach of the Code of
Practice also amounts to a breach of the KADOE contract you hold
with the DVLA.
>
> A formal complaint has already been submitted to the DVLA
regarding these breaches and the misuse of Keeper data.
>
> This fundamental defect carries through to your Notice to
Keeper, which also fails to specify any “period of parking” as
required by PoFA paragraph 8(2)(a). The NtK simply restates the
same defective single timestamp without providing any proper
period of parking as shown in your Notice to Driver.
>
> 2. Incorrect Wording Regarding the 28-Day Period
>
> Your Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with PoFA paragraph
8(2)(f) because it misstates the mandatory warning about the
28-day relevant period.
>
> Specifically, your NtK wrongly claims that the Keeper has "28
days from the date given" to make payment.
> This is completely incorrect.
>
> PoFA paragraph 8(2)(f) expressly requires you to warn the
Keeper that the 28-day period begins "AFTER" the day on which
the Notice to Keeper is given (i.e., after it is deemed
delivered, which is two working days after posting).
>
> The use of the word "AFTER" in PoFA is deliberate, precise,
and critical. It means that the counting of the 28-day period
does not start on the day the notice is given, but starts on the
day "AFTER" the notice is deemed given.
>
> By incorrectly stating that the Keeper has 28 days from the
date given, you have misstated the Keeper's legal rights,
confused the actual payment deadline, and fundamentally failed
to comply with the requirements of PoFA 8(2)(f). Strict
adherence to the statutory wording is required for any attempt
to transfer liability from driver to Keeper. Because you have
misstated the timing rule by ignoring the crucial word AFTER,
your NtK is invalid for the purposes of PoFA.
>
> Because of these defects, you have failed to meet the
mandatory conditions under PoFA Schedule 4, and therefore you
cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Your claim against the
Keeper must fail.
>
> If you are unable to understand the explanation provided, I
suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult within your
firm, preferably one who has at least a basic understanding of
PoFA and contract law and have them explain to you that you have
no hope of ever recovering a penny from the Keeper and are only
going to be wasting your firm's money on a wasted IAS appeal or,
even more on trying to litigate this.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page