DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74982--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 5, 2025, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please show us the exact wording of the question to
which you are referring?
#Post#: 74983--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 5, 2025, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see screenshot below:
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74993--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 5, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Next page is as follows if I select I am being held liable:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 75234--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 7, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For completeness, I've selected I am being held liable, as VCS
are attempting to go after me as the registered keeper.
#Post#: 76012--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 11, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After appealing on IAS website, VCS have responded as below, it
would be appreciated if you could advise what response I should
give to this? I don't really have much hope of IAS being
impartial (as read previously) but I guess 'nothing
ventured....'.
--- Quote ---
>
>
> The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 11/06/2025
13:41:45.
>
> The operator reported that...
> The appellant was the keeper.
> The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
> The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 24/04/2025.
> The ticket was issued on 24/04/2025.
> The charge is based in Contract.
>
> The operator made the following comments...
> 1. The Sxxxxx Cxxxx Residential Car Park is private land and
motorists are allowed to park their vehicle provided that they
abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
>
> 2. The signage on site states, ‘Parking is strictly reserved
for valid parking permit holders Only' and ‘A valid parking
permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen of the
vehicle with all details clearly visible at all times.' The
signage makes it clear that anyone observed to be in
contravention of these Terms and Conditions will become liable
for a PCN.
>
> 3. Site photos supplied show that the signage can be seen
throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the VCS
signage onsite, including its 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.
>
> 4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is
undertaken by POs who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record
details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be
parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions.
Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real
time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No
formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead,
a Notice to Keeper is subsequently issued by post, this practice
falls in line with the process and procedures as per site
management using ANPR technology.
>
> 5. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in
situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds and when digitally recording
the contravention the PO noted ‘Vehicle not displaying a valid
parking permit.'
>
> 6. The contravention photographs supplied, which are time and
date stamped corroborate the PO's observations, clearly show
that no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the
vehicle and highlight the proximity of the vehicle to
contractual VCS signage.
>
> 7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our
photographic evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
>
> 8. 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 where explained in the
formal Notice sent on 24/04/2025. 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.
>
> 9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when
the motorist entered the car park. 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 that vehicles must clearly display
valid permit otherwise the motorist would face liability for a
Charge Notice.
>
> 10. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site,
including where the appellant parked their vehicle was supplied
as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the
Adjudicator for their perusal.
>
> 11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is
clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist
experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns.
This was not utilised by the appellant. If the terms and
conditions were in any way unclear to the appellant, or they
were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of
contacting us for advice.
>
> 12. The appellant has presented no evidence of either
possessing a valid permit or of residency of an adjacent Signal
Court property. However such evidence would not nullify the
facts of their contravention or their liability for the charge.
The terms and conditions for parking on this private land are
clearly advertised by the signage on site.
>
> 13. The appellant became liable for a Charge Notice as per the
Terms and Conditions displayed by parking without displaying a
valid permit.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76021--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 11, 2025, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Go through this and counter every point that’s wrong, eg
1. Tenants have the right to use allocated parking spaces
according to their lease agreements, which do not require the
display of a permit or compliance with signs erected by a third
party, VCS
2. Signage is irrelevant, VCS is not a party in the tenancy
agreement and can not impose terms and conditions on parking
3. Signage is irrelevant
4. Enforcement is solely according to the leases and their terms
and conditions
5. The Patrol Officer is irrelevant
….
8. Notwithstanding the irrelevance of VCS, the notice issued
does not comply with PoFA because ….
9. VCS can not contract with a motorist when the motorist
already has the right to use the parking spaces according
because of the lease
10. VCS needs to demonstrate how its “authority” to manage
parking has been incorporated into the residents’ leases
….
12.
etc.
That is not a good reply, but you can do better and ensure that
no points remain unchallenged. If you are serious about the IAS,
that is. Otherwise, don’t bother, let them take you to court
where you’ll win.
#Post#: 76075--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 11, 2025, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm leaning towards just leaving it as I'm not sure it's worth
the hassle if they will find in favour of VCS, or should I take
some time out and cover each point?
#Post#: 76109--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 11, 2025, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your call as it's your time and effort.
#Post#: 76126--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 12, 2025, 12:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 3Sh3roo link ---
>
> I'm leaning towards just leaving it as I'm not sure it's worth
the hassle if they will find in favour of VCS, or should I take
some time out and cover each point?
>
--- End Quote ---
If you leave it, you’re going to have to write a defence to the
inevitable claim, but if you spend the time now it will be the
majority of your defence in due course when/if the IAS doesn’t
uphold your appeal, so I think it’s a case of do it now or do it
later anyway.
And if the IAS does uphold your appeal, you’ve saved yourself a
lot of paperwork hassle.
But it’s your effort and your choice of course!
#Post#: 76222--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 12, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the guidance, I've put together the following
responses, mainly be referring to previous advice from you good
folk. I am not very experienced at this and do need help on
point 7, also can you please advise if my responses are on
point?
1. The Sxxxxx Cxxxx Residential Car Park is private land and
motorists are allowed to park their vehicle provided that they
abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
APP: Once again, The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant
of the property associated with the parking space in question.
An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the
Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated
parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the
display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the
signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company. The
Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any
alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is
put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an
existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use,
and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed
obligations.
2. The signage on site states, ‘Parking is strictly reserved for
valid parking permit holders Only' and ‘A valid parking permit
must be displayed inside the front windscreen of the vehicle
with all details clearly visible at all times.' The signage
makes it clear that anyone observed to be in contravention of
these Terms and Conditions will become liable for a PCN.
APP: Signage is irrelevant, VCS is not a party in the AST and
therefore cannot impose terms and conditions on parking.
3. Site photos supplied show that the signage can be seen
throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the VCS
signage onsite, including its 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.
APP: Once again, signage is irrelevant as VCS are not a party in
the AST
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is
undertaken by POs who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record
details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be
parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions.
Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real
time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No
formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead,
a Notice to Keeper is subsequently issued by post, this practice
falls in line with the process and procedures as per site
management using ANPR technology.
APP: Enforcement for parking is solely in line with the AST.
5. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in
situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds and when digitally recording
the contravention the PO noted ‘Vehicle not displaying a valid
parking permit.'
APP: The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred.
The vehicle was parked in the Appellant's allocated space. A
valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although
the operator's photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST
grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit
has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach
of any enforceable term.
6. The contravention photographs supplied, which are time and
date stamped corroborate the PO's observations, clearly show
that no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the
vehicle and highlight the proximity of the vehicle to
contractual VCS signage.
APP: As the photos were taken from a distance, they do not show
the missing permit which is always present in the car as a
courtesy, further there are no signs.
7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our photographic
evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
APP: Need help on how to respond to this point? Do they comply
with the Single Coe of Practice?
8. 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 where explained in the formal Notice
sent on 24/04/2025. 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.
APP: The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it
does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single
timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt
to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister
they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in
Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was
parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required
under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1).
No contract could have been formed without first allowing the
driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when
the motorist entered the car park. 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 that vehicles must clearly display
valid permit otherwise the motorist would face liability for a
Charge Notice.
APP: VCS cannot form a contract with the appellant as the
appellant has an AST in place granting them rights to park in
their allocated space without the need of a valid permit.
10. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site,
including where the appellant parked their vehicle was supplied
as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the
Adjudicator for their perusal.
APP: VCS needs to demonstrate how its “authority” to manage
parking has been incorporated into the residents’ AST
11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is
clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist
experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns.
This was not utilised by the appellant. If the terms and
conditions were in any way unclear to the appellant, or they
were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of
contacting us for advice.
APP: As an existing AST is in place which allows the appellant
to park in their allocated space, using this number is
completely unnecessary and irrelevant.
12. The appellant has presented no evidence of either possessing
a valid permit or of residency of an adjacent Signal Court
property. However such evidence would not nullify the facts of
their contravention or their liability for the charge. The terms
and conditions for parking on this private land are clearly
advertised by the signage on site.
APP: A valid permit, though not necessary, is always on display
on the vehicle, no evidence was requested to show this permit,
if it was requested it a copy of it would have been presented to
VCS.
13. The appellant became liable for a Charge Notice as per the
Terms and Conditions displayed by parking without displaying a
valid permit.
APP: Once again, as the appellant has an AST in place for their
allocated space a valid permit is not needed.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page