DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71908--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: May 16, 2025, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Part 2
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71909--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: May 16, 2025, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Part 3
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71910--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: May 16, 2025, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Part 4
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71913--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: roythebus
Date: May 16, 2025, 6:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have a similar case in the Lidl car park opposite. I note your
PCN only states the location as Retail Park, New Street. what
town, what postcode? It's a very vague location. If this were to
go to court, I doubt it would get very far. How many New Streets
are there in the country? How many have retail parks? they can't
suddenly introduce new evidence, they have to go with what
they've provided to you.
In my case which is being dealt with elsewhere on here and at
the risk of having this reply deleted, my letter simply said
location Lidl Ashford. I have a cousin who lives in Ashford,
that has a Lidl with a car park. But she lives 70-odd miles away
in the other Ashford in Surrey. There's no mention of which
Ashford my car was parked in. you see the point I'm making?
Vague location. Ive just noticed an earlier post that mentions
lack of location. top worrying, and moreover DO NOT PAY and DO
NOT name the driver. I'd go as far as to say it's safe to ignore
any further correspondence with them. But others may offer
better advice.
Highview Parking have become very active with enforcement in
their little car park recently from what other locals have told
me. If you're using the gym attached to Lidl over the road you
get up to 2 hours for gym users providing you sign in on their
screen or go shopping in Lidl.
#Post#: 71916--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: b789
Date: May 16, 2025, 11:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't see any evidence that Highview have a valid contract to
operate on the land. Their own, absurd statement damns them:
[indent]"We can confirm that we have the authority to act on
behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide
evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the
appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority,
they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The
photographs included in Section F show that signage and
equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of
enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s
authority."[/indent]
I really couldn't be bothered trying to rebut anything else in
their evidence and their failure to provide strict proof that
they hold a valid contract flowing from the landowner, kills the
validity of the PCN dead. Just use the following by copying and
pasting it into the reply webform as your response to their
evidence which should put this to bed, once and for all:
--- Quote ---
> Operator has failed to respond to Point #8 of my POPLA appeal–
no landowner contract, no legal standing, no case to answer
>
> Point #8 of my original appeal put the operator to strict
proof that they hold landowner authority to operate at this
location and to issue PCNs in their own name. Not only was this
clearly set out, it itemised exactly what that proof would need
to include—such as an unredacted, in-force contract identifying
the land in question and confirming that the operator has
enforcement rights in its own name. The appeal also made
reference to Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice, which sets these evidential standards in black and
white.
>
> In response to all of this, the operator’s only rebuttal is:
>
> “We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of
the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide evidence
to support their claim that we do not.”
>
> That is not a rebuttal. That is [a joke].
>
> This infantile response completely ignores the very concept of
a burden of proof. They are the operator. They are pursuing a
charge. They are alleging breach of contract. They must prove
standing. Instead, they’ve essentially said: “we’re not showing
you anything—prove we’re lying”.
>
> That is not how evidence works. It is not how POPLA works. It
is certainly not how contract law works. This is not a
playground argument. It is a formal legal dispute requiring
proper evidence, and the operator has shown precisely none.
>
> Their suggestion that the presence of signs somehow proves
they have landowner authority is absurd, beyond ridiculous. Even
if signs were legally placed at some point, that tells us
nothing about whether any contract still exists, is in force, or
even covers the relevant part of the land. The contract could
have expired, been revoked, terminated, or amended. There is no
signature, no term, no scope, no content. There is no contract.
Period.
>
> To suggest that “signs are up, so there must be authority” is
an argument so shallow it would struggle to float in a puddle.
It’s a fantasy of convenience, and one that would be ridiculed
in any proper courtroom. Any assessor buying into that fiction
would be wilfully disregarding both the evidential standards
under the PPSCoP and basic legal common sense.
>
> This is not a technicality. This is the core foundation of any
operator’s right to issue charges. Without proof of landowner
authority, they are nothing more than a third party with a
camera and a set of stickers. The fact that they’ve arrogantly
sidestepped Point #8—despite it being clearly laid out—speaks
volumes.
>
> And frankly, because this one failure is so catastrophically
fatal to their case, I won’t even waste time responding to the
rest of their generic, boilerplate “evidence.” If they can’t get
this basic requirement right, then they have no business
enforcing anything against anyone.
>
> No contract. No standing. No case. Appeal must be upheld.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 71918--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: roythebus
Date: May 17, 2025, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I fully understand that, but the simple fact that their initial
evidence which they would rely on in court does not have a
specific location of where the alleged breach occurred. Easy.
Retail Park New Street. What town? What county? Postcode? It's
easier to ignore, but then you'll miss out on the "fun" of
wasting a lot of their time for no end result.
#Post#: 71919--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: May 17, 2025, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much appreciated. I've submitted comments exactly
as per the above. Will, again, keep you posted. Thanks you.
#Post#: 80301--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: Circle87
Date: July 9, 2025, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Team,
Bit of a weird one!
Got my appeal back from POPLA which it was successful. However,
upon reading it I think they've got the appeal??? This is what
the comments are:
[START]
POPLA assessment and decision
09/07/2025
Verification Code
2921135509
Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Amy Smith
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking
without a valid pay and display ticket.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal: • They tried to pay using the ticket machines, but
both were out of order. They say they tried the QR code system,
however this also malfunctioned as it would only accept the
letter 'Y'. They say after multiple failed attempts, they paid
by phone, which worked but charged more than usual which was £5
instead of £3.80. • The appeal was rejected solely on the
grounds that the correct vehicle registration was not and they
say this was false. They say the invoice and screenshots show
they entered the correct registration number within the required
timeframe. • They say that the phone payment method charged a
higher rate than advertised on signage. This raises questions
about the legality and fairness of the contract, especially
since other payment methods were unavailable. They argue this
could constitute a frustration of contract. • They tried to
explain the situation to the parking attendant at the time, but
they were not concerned and refused to talk to the appellant. •
They question whether operator is properly authorised by the
landowner to issue tickets. After reviewing the operator’s
evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The
appellant states: The appellant has provided a copy of the text
confirmation as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence
will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The
burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been
issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle
exceeded the maximum stay. The appellant questions whether
operator is properly authorised by the landowner to enforce
parking. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The
Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply
with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land
is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation
must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this
case the operator has not provided POPLA with any evidence that
it has a valid contract with the landowner to enforce parking on
this land on the date in question. They say the operator is put
to strict proof that it holds a valid contract with the
landowner in accordance with Section 14 of the code. This
contract must not redact any critical parts of the contract and
if heavily redacted will fail to meet the standards of section
14 of the code. The operator states the following within in its
evidence pack: “We can confirm that we have the authority to act
on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to
provide evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the
appellant genuinely believes that we do not have such authority,
they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The
photographs included in Section F show that signage and
equipment is in place at the site to manage the function of
enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s
authority.” I must advise that it is within the operator’s gift
to rebut the appellant’s claims with proof that a valid contract
was in place in order for POPLA to determine it was granted the
authority to enforce parking on the land on the date in
question. In the absence of any proof it had authority to
enforce, I cannot conclude that the operator had a valid
contract based on testimony alone. POPLA’s role is to assess if
the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the
conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a
copy of a landowner agreement, I am not satisfied that the
operator has issued this PCN correctly, and accordingly the
appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in
their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not
necessary for me to address these.
[END]
With my situation i did none of the above. Do I just keep quiet
and take it as the win?
#Post#: 80319--------------------------------------------------
Re: HighView Parking, Exceeded maximum stay, New Street Retail
Park Ashford, Kent
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 9, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All's well that ends well, even if it ends in an unorthodox
matter.
The ground upon which your appeal has been upheld was one of the
ones you raised, even if the others mentioned were not. I wonder
if some sort of technical error has presented someone else's
appeal grounds, but a copy of the correct assessment.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page