DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64798--------------------------------------------------
PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 29, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi peeps, any advice for get-outs with this parking charge
notice would be greatly appreciated:
The driver stopped for passengers to alight, taking less than a
minute, before moving off out of the area. The letter arrived
today, March 29th.
I appreciate this is a 'no stopping' area, and the signage is
clear (Google Maps images are old, but driver thinks signage is
current), but the reason given on the letter doesn't match up,
at least?
Many thanks for your attention!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/6a2QMyr.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Abxei6n.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/2goq9CA.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/CBSeT2n.png
#Post#: 64801--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 29, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This PPC is IPC affiliated and as such no appeal is likely to be
successful. You would have a good chance of success if it ever
made it to court which many don't. The forum will help you with
your defence should it reach that point.
Is the signage really clear? Does it meet the standards set by
the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice? Is the
signage relevant and applicable to alleged contravention?
--
For now, appeal only as the Keeper. There is no legal obligation
on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper
(NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no
inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> PCN No: [PCN Number]
>
> Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]
>
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking
charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and
cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64806--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 29, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: G6PRK link ---
>
> This PPC is IPC affiliated and as such no appeal is likely to
be successful. You would have a good chance of success if it
ever made it to court which many don't. The forum will help you
with your defence should it reach that point.
>
> Is the signage really clear? Does it meet the standards set by
the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice? Is the
signage relevant and applicable to alleged contravention?
>
> --
>
> For now, appeal only as the Keeper. There is no legal
obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and
no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [quote]PCN No: [PCN Number]
>
> Vehicle Registration Mark: [VRM]
>
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your ‘parking
charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and
cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
This is fantastic stuff G6PRK - so thank you so much for your
time and attention!
#Post#: 64810--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 29, 2025, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All credit to b789 for the appeal wording.
As I say though, chances of success at appeal are next to zero.
You will need to be prepared to take this all the way if
necessary - but I would offer you a higher than 99% chance of
never paying a penny if you do.
#Post#: 64827--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 30, 2025, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: G6PRK link ---
>
> All credit to b789 for the appeal wording.
>
> As I say though, chances of success at appeal are next to
zero. You will need to be prepared to take this all the way if
necessary - but I would offer you a higher than 99% chance of
never paying a penny if you do.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well the driver would like to thank b789 too! The driver
definitely doesn’t want to pay, so will go all the way.
Quick question though, should the driver be expecting (hoping
for) a reply from the PPC to say the notice has been cancelled?
And, if you don’t mind sharing, how does the NtK not comply with
PoFA? The driver likes to know what they themselves are
talking/writing about, when dealing with such matters.
Thanks again!
#Post#: 64852--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 30, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the driver should be hoping for a cancellation - but as I
say, an IPC company is very unlikely to do so. They will most
likely reject and refer to the second stage "Independent Appeals
Service" which is not independent at all and to most people a
waste of time.
The most obvious PoFA failing is non-compliance with Paragraph
9(2)(a): The notice fails to specify the actual period of
parking. It only shows a single timestamp of 16:53. Paragraph
9(2)(a) requires a period of parking, not just a moment in time.
There was a court case where this was successfully argued but
for the life of me I can't remember which one, someone else
might pipe up.
You should also look up the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP) and what it says about consideration/grace
periods and signage.
The driver saw some parking bays and pulled in for less than one
minute. Is one minute a reasonable amount of time to consider
the parking contract if indeed there was even one available via
adequate signage?
Furthermore, how could the driver enter a contract whereby
parking is not permitted 'outside of a marked bay' if no parking
were permitted at all? And if parking were not permitted at all,
how could a parking contract even exist to be entered into?!
#Post#: 64863--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 30, 2025, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: G6PRK link ---
>
> Yes, the driver should be hoping for a cancellation - but as I
say, an IPC company is very unlikely to do so. They will most
likely reject and refer to the second stage "Independent Appeals
Service" which is not independent at all and to most people a
waste of time.
>
> The most obvious PoFA failing is non-compliance with Paragraph
9(2)(a): The notice fails to specify the actual period of
parking. It only shows a single timestamp of 16:53. Paragraph
9(2)(a) requires a period of parking, not just a moment in time.
There was a court case where this was successfully argued but
for the life of me I can't remember which one, someone else
might pipe up.
>
> You should also look up the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and what it says about
consideration/grace periods and signage.
>
> The driver saw some parking bays and pulled in for less than
one minute. Is one minute a reasonable amount of time to
consider the parking contract if indeed there was even one
available via adequate signage?
>
> Furthermore, how could the driver enter a contract whereby
parking is not permitted 'outside of a marked bay' if no parking
were permitted at all? And if parking were not permitted at all,
how could a parking contract even exist to be entered into?!
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you again; you’ve answered all my questions brilliantly.
I shall update this thread if/as it develops (hopefully it won’t
get much further!)
#Post#: 64873--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: March 30, 2025, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No contract was formed. To form a contract by conduct, three key
elements must be present:
[indent]1. Offer – A clear promise of terms made by one party.
2. Acceptance – Clear agreement to those terms by the other
party.
3. Consideration – Something of value exchanged (e.g. money for
a service).[/indent]
In a contract by conduct, these elements must be clear from
actions alone — not just from signs or warnings — and the terms
must be communicated before the conduct occurs.
The sign says "No Stopping – £100 charge," which is a
prohibition, not an offer. You can’t accept something you’re
told not to do. Since there’s no offer, no contract can be
formed, even by conduct. Stopping briefly to let someone out
isn’t accepting terms—it’s ignoring a warning. Without offer,
acceptance, and consideration, there’s no contract.
As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) states the reason as "parked
outside the confines of a marked bay," then there must be signs
clearly displaying that specific term and any associated charge.
However, you have not shown us evidence of any such sign. I
suspect that there are other terms and conditions of parking
signs and you would need to show us what those actually say and
where they were in relation to the route you took through the
private land.
In any case though the vehicle was not parked. The driver simply
stopped briefly to let a passenger out. As confirmed in Jopson v
Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&st=95btqrcy&dl=0,<br
/>a short stop for dropping off passengers is not “parking”, and
does not breach parking terms.
Additionally, as already mentioned, the NtK fails to comply with
PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not
specify a period of parking—only a single timestamp (16:53) and
a vague reference to a period "immediately following" that time.
As confirmed in Brennan v ParkingEye (2023) [H6DP632H]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=zh5amd3d&dl=0,<br
/>PoFA requires a clearly stated period, not just an instant or
assumption. Without a valid period of parking, the Keeper cannot
be held liable under PoFA.
So, this is the most likely scenario if you follow our advice...
You can submit the initial appeal to PCM, but it will be
rejected, regardless of the merits. Since this operator is with
the IPC, a secondary appeal to the IAS is pointless—it lacks
independence and rarely upholds appeals.
Next, you, as the Keeper, will receive a series of threatening
but powerless debt recovery letters, which can be safely
ignored. Eventually, PCM will likely instruct an incompetent
bulk litigator to send a Letter of Claim (LoC), followed by an
N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
If defended using our recommended template, the claim has a
greater than 99% chance of being struck out or discontinued,
based on extensive experience dealing with these rogue,
unregulated private parking companies.
#Post#: 64878--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 30, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> No contract was formed. To form a contract by conduct, three
key elements must be present:
>
> [indent]1. Offer – A clear promise of terms made by one party.
> 2. Acceptance – Clear agreement to those terms by the other
party.
> 3. Consideration – Something of value exchanged (e.g. money
for a service).[/indent]
>
> In a contract by conduct, these elements must be clear from
actions alone — not just from signs or warnings — and the terms
must be communicated before the conduct occurs.
>
> The sign says "No Stopping – £100 charge," which is a
prohibition, not an offer. You can’t accept something you’re
told not to do. Since there’s no offer, no contract can be
formed, even by conduct. Stopping briefly to let someone out
isn’t accepting terms—it’s ignoring a warning. Without offer,
acceptance, and consideration, there’s no contract.
>
> As the Notice to Keeper (NtK) states the reason as "parked
outside the confines of a marked bay," then there must be signs
clearly displaying that specific term and any associated charge.
However, you have not shown us evidence of any such sign. I
suspect that there are other terms and conditions of parking
signs and you would need to show us what those actually say and
where they were in relation to the route you took through the
private land.
>
> In any case though the vehicle was not parked. The driver
simply stopped briefly to let a passenger out. As confirmed in
Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&st=95btqrcy&dl=0,<br
/>a short stop for dropping off passengers is not “parking”, and
does not breach parking terms.
>
> Additionally, as already mentioned, the NtK fails to comply
with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does
not specify a period of parking—only a single timestamp (16:53)
and a vague reference to a period "immediately following" that
time.
>
> As confirmed in Brennan v ParkingEye (2023) [H6DP632H]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=zh5amd3d&dl=0,<br
/>PoFA requires a clearly stated period, not just an instant or
assumption. Without a valid period of parking, the Keeper cannot
be held liable under PoFA.
>
> So, this is the most likely scenario if you follow our
advice... You can submit the initial appeal to PCM, but it will
be rejected, regardless of the merits. Since this operator is
with the IPC, a secondary appeal to the IAS is pointless—it
lacks independence and rarely upholds appeals.
>
> Next, you, as the Keeper, will receive a series of threatening
but powerless debt recovery letters, which can be safely
ignored. Eventually, PCM will likely instruct an incompetent
bulk litigator to send a Letter of Claim (LoC), followed by an
N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC).
>
> If defended using our recommended template, the claim has a
greater than 99% chance of being struck out or discontinued,
based on extensive experience dealing with these rogue,
unregulated private parking companies.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your reply b789 - most informative.
Regarding the stopping (not parked) period, (having just looked
online) PCM have provided 5 images in the evidence section of
the (paymypcn-uk) website, timestamped from 16:53:25 (passenger
alighting) to 16:53:31 (front wheels turned to leave), so yes,
the briefest of stops.
They have also provided a poor quality (small print
unintelligible) image of the 'other sign' (which seems to appear
in the upper right area of timestamped images) you mentioned,
which states 'no grace period' - ridiculous!
HTML https://i.imgur.com/SM53Kdv.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/DcDa6Xe.jpeg
But for the moment the driver shall concentrate on that initial
appeal provided by yourself/G6PRK. Would it be correct to fill
out all these details on the paymypcn-uk website, as the
registered keeper? This needs to be done before one can
'appeal'. Or is 'snail mail' preferable, in these instances?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/sJRXelm.jpeg
Thanking you all again!
#Post#: 64880--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 30, 2025, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wild that they're saying no grace period applies while being
signed up to follow the PPSSCoP. Alas, just one way in which
they and others are non-compliant. Nevertheless it's a
requirement, as is a consideration period.
Per the PPSSCoP:
--- Quote ---
> As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an
appropriate opportunity to
> understand and decide whether to accept the terms and
conditions that apply should they
> choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of
time needed varies according
> to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open
to the public includes the
> time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to
leave the premises should the
> driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration
period before the contract
> between the driver and the parking operator is made. It is
also a requirement to allow a
> grace period in addition to the parking period where parking
is permitted, and all terms and
> conditions have been complied with.
--- End Quote ---
Borderline hilarious that their pictures only show a 6 second
window. How could a driver consider the terms of parking, or be
considered to have parked in 6 seconds.
RE the form, yes you can fill all that, they have all but your
email address anyway, and they'll need that to send your
rejection.
The only watch out on the form is if they ask you to provide
your relationship with the vehicle. Remember you are appealing
as the keeper.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page