DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76225--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 12, 2025, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 3Sh3roo link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd change the wording of this - it could be read as you saying
you agree that the parking company's enforcement procedures are
in line with your AST.
--- Quote from: 3Sh3roo link ---
>
> 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?
--- End Quote ---
Did you dispute this in your appeal? If not, I'd say it isn't
relevant. If you did, then take a look at the Code of Practice
and see what it says on evidence and observation periods.
#Post#: 76228--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 12, 2025, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your prompt response, I will change point 4, ref
point 7, I used the appeal that b789 kindly supplied
--- Quote ---
>
> Grounds of Appeal:
>
> 1. No Valid Contract – Pre-Existing Parking Rights Granted by
Tenancy Agreement
>
> 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. No Evidence of Contravention – Permit Displayed / Not
Required
>
> 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.
>
> 3. No Standing to Enforce – No Evidence of a Valid Landowner
Contract
>
> The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that they hold
a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted contract with the
landowner, not a managing agent, which:
>
> • Grants them authority to enter into contracts with drivers;
> • Permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (or Penalty
Notices, as described on the NtK);
> • Allows enforcement on residential tenant-controlled spaces.
>
> A copy of the superior lease (if any) is not binding on the
Appellant unless it has been incorporated into the AST and
provided to the tenant, which it has not.
>
> If the operator cannot produce such a contract, their
authority to operate at this site is in serious doubt.
>
> 4. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
>
> 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.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The Appellant denies any contractual liability and invites the
assessor to require the operator to either:
>
> • Provide the unredacted landowner contract showing their
lawful authority to issue charges at residential properties,
including over spaces subject to tenancy rights;
> • Acknowledge that the alleged breach is unsupported by
evidence and withdraw the charge.
>
> Should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant will consider
the matter closed and will not engage further outside of formal
litigation. Any claim will be defended robustly and with full
reliance on tenancy rights, evidential deficiencies, and
operator misconduct.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76245--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: June 12, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've covered the points very well. However, I think there may
be a character limit for the rebuttal and I'd suggest you submit
your response as follows:
--- Quote ---
> APPELLANT REBUTTAL TO VCS OPERATOR EVIDENCE
>
> This rebuttal responds concisely to each of VCS's points,
which are largely repetitive, legally flawed, and ignore
fundamental principles of land law and contract. For ease of
reference, the operator’s assertions are addressed by number.
>
> 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 – Signage and Alleged Contract
> The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the flat
associated with the parking bay in question. Their Assured
Shorthold Tenancy (AST) grants an exclusive right to use the
allocated parking space. The tenancy agreement contains no
clause requiring a permit, nor does it incorporate or reference
any third-party scheme. It overrides any alleged contract based
on signage. VCS is a stranger to the AST and cannot impose new
terms on the Appellant's use of land they already have rights
over. This is settled legal principle: a third party cannot
override superior rights held under a lease.
>
> 4 – Enforcement Method
> Irrelevant. The Appellant's rights to park derive from the
AST. Any purported “enforcement” is ultra vires where a
pre-existing right to park applies.
>
> 5 & 6 – Observations and Photographs
> The Appellant’s vehicle was parked in their own allocated bay,
and a permit was displayed (as a courtesy, not as a
requirement). The operator’s photos do not prove otherwise and
were taken from a distance that does not fairly evidence the
dashboard. Regardless, no contravention can exist where no
contractual obligation applies.
>
> 7 – Compliance with the Single Code of Practice
> The Single Code of Practice requires a minimum consideration
period before a contract can be formed. The Appellant was parked
in their own bay with a right to do so, so no consideration
period is applicable. However, the operator has not shown that
the vehicle remained on site beyond that minimum, nor that any
signage was capable of forming a binding contract. The claim
fails on both formation and standing.
>
> 8 – Keeper Liability under PoFA
> The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule
4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of
parking. A timestamp is not a period. If the assessor is, as
claimed, a solicitor or barrister, they will be familiar with
the persuasive decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions
Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], which confirmed that PoFA requires an
actual duration of parking, not a mere moment in time.
>
> Furthermore, even if PoFA had been complied with (which it has
not), the Appellant’s tenancy grants them a primary and
exclusive right to park in their space. No third-party operator
can override that right. The land may be “relevant” under PoFA,
but keeper liability is void where the underlying right to park
already exists independently of the operator's scheme.
>
> 10 – Operator Contract
> The Appellant put VCS to strict proof that their authority to
manage parking on the site includes the legal right to override
a residential tenancy agreement and impose terms on tenants. The
operator's claim to possess a landowner contract is not enough;
they must show how their terms were incorporated into the
Appellant's lease, which they have not done.
>
> 11 – 24-Hour Helpline
> Irrelevant. The Appellant has no need to call a helpline to
confirm the scope of their own tenancy agreement, which already
includes a right to park.
>
> Conclusion
> This charge is fundamentally flawed. VCS has failed to
establish any binding contract with the Appellant, has no
standing to override tenancy rights, and has issued a Notice to
Keeper that does not meet the statutory requirements of PoFA.
The appeal must be upheld.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76296--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 12, 2025, 5:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for this, I have submitted it, interestingly
their website would not allow a copy/paste function so I typed
out the response. I guess that is another way to discourage
appeals.
#Post#: 76698--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 16, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So VCS have responded as follows:
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. The time and date contravention photographs clearly show
that at the time observation by the PO no valid permit was
displayed in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle, as per
the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions of
parking.
>
> 2. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly
agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be
said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where
notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in
a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a
contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by
proceeding to park. The appellant's residency of an adjacent
property did not nullify their only park in compliance of the
terms and conditions.
>
> 3. The NTK complies with the POFA 2012. The PCN was issued for
a parking period related contravention; it was issued for the
contravention parking without displaying a valid permit.
>
--- End Quote ---
Should I respond to this by emphasising my above points made
previously, as theirs just seem to be repetitive?
#Post#: 76709--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 16, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The question is, which of their points - if any - introduces
something new?
I’d say their point (2) is laughably wrong, the fact that you
displayed a permit that you were not required to display in no
way meant that somehow fell into a contract with them. A
contract has to offer something, and a notice which offers
something you already have is utterly irrelevant and of course
you didn’t contract with them because you parked in your own
space.
I feel that could be worded better, but I feel that their utter
nonsense needs to be torpedoed.
(1) & (3) are probably irrelevant as you say.
#Post#: 76726--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: June 16, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Appellant's Rebuttal to Operator's Comments
>
> 1. No Permit Displayed
>
> The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the space in
question, with a tenancy that grants exclusive use of the
parking bay. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement to
display a permit, and any prior display was purely out of
courtesy. VCS is not a party to that tenancy and cannot
unilaterally impose terms upon a resident’s demised property.
The Appellant’s right to park derives from a superior interest
in land and cannot be fettered by VCS signage.
>
> 2. Implied Agreement & Contract
>
> A resident cannot be said to enter into a new contract for
something they already possess via their tenancy—namely, the
exclusive right to park. There is no consideration and no
contractual intention. The signage is irrelevant to the
Appellant’s rights, and any such attempt by VCS to override a
pre-existing tenancy fails at law. Forcing a resident to ‘agree’
to new third-party terms is legally incoherent and a
well-rehearsed fiction in such residential contexts.
>
> 3. PoFA Compliance
>
> The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not state any “period of parking”.
A single timestamp is not a period. This failure alone
invalidates any attempt to hold the Keeper liable. If the
adjudicator is indeed a qualified solicitor or barrister—as
claimed by the IAS—they should be familiar with the persuasive
appellate ruling in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd
(2023) [H6DP632H], in which the judge confirmed that a specific
period of parking is mandatory for PoFA compliance. VCS has
provided no such period, only a single observation time.
>
> 4. Consideration Period Absent – No Contract Formed
>
> The Appellant reiterates that under Section 5.1 of the BPA/IPC
Private Parking Single Code of Practice, a motorist must be
afforded a minimum consideration period of at least 5 minutes to
review the displayed terms before any contract can be formed.
This is not optional—it is a binding requirement under the Code
of Practice. A contract cannot be formed merely by conduct in
the absence of clear evidence that the driver had a fair
opportunity to seek out, read and accept the terms. The operator
has produced only a single timestamp, which fails to evidence
any period of parking and does not demonstrate that a
consideration period took place. If the assessor is legally
qualified, as claimed, they will recognise that the absence of a
consideration period is fatal to any claim of contractual
formation, and therefore the charge is unenforceable.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76750--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 16, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks once again, rebuttal sent, this time as a PDF attachment
as copy/paste function is still disabled.
#Post#: 77157--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 19, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A further response from VCS, it seems to be a battle of
attrition where they keep repeating same/similar statements.
Apologies from me, as I did not notice the photos they had
shared (attached), do these prove their point 2? :(
--- Quote ---
>
> 1. We note that parking operators are entitled to up to six
months from the date of a parking event in order to lawfully
request keeper details from the DVLA for the purposes of
lawfully issuing a charge, and subsequently up to six years to
pursue the outstanding sum of this charge. We have adhered to
this timescale.
>
> 2. The supplied contravention photographs are time and date
stamped and confirm that the appellant's vehicle was observed in
situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds before the PCN was issued.
This was a fair and reasonable period.
>
--- End Quote ---
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77201--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: June 19, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not that the IAS will do anything but... the NtK does not comply
with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) because it fails
to specify the required period of parking. A single timestamp is
not a period of parking. The law requires the NtK to clearly
state the actual period the vehicle was parked, not just one
moment in time.
The operator cannot fix this failure by later submitting
timestamped photos to the IAS. PoFA compliance is assessed based
on what is written in the NtK itself, not on what is added later
during an appeal.
Even if the vehicle was present for 11 minutes and 36 seconds,
that is irrelevant if the NtK does not mention this as a defined
period. Without a compliant NtK, the operator cannot transfer
liability to the keeper.
The IAS response about DVLA access and six-year time limits has
nothing to do with this. The issue is whether the NtK allows
them to hold the keeper liable. It does not. Only the driver
could be liable, and the operator would need to prove who that
was.
Were these photos available to you when you appealed? It still
does not make the NtK PoFA-compliant.
The NtK itself must explicitly state the period of parking. It
is not enough for this information to be available somewhere
else, even if the photos were accessible online at the time. The
legal requirement is clear: the notice must contain the
information, not just link to or imply it.
You ay want to respond to the operators evidence with the above
information, explaining in detail, that if the supposedly
legally trained IAS assessor cannot understand the difference
between evidential timestamped photos held elsewhere, does not
change the fact that the NtK is still not compliant with PoFA,
then you won't worry too much because the operator can go waste
their money in litigation where they will receive another of
their regular court spankings, where a knowledgeable defendant
highlights their attempts at extortion.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page