DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77203--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 19, 2025, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this, I will respond with this information. It seems
the photos were there and accessible online all along, I didn't
notice them, however as you state they are not written in the
NtK.
#Post#: 77217--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: June 19, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't feel that you need to be overly polite to the IAS
assessor. Remember, they are not trying to find Ian your favour.
Their sole reason d'être is to protect the IPC members
interests.
Suggesting that the IAS assessor should know better, is a useful
barb to prick what limited conscience they have.
#Post#: 77258--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 19, 2025, 4:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, sent my rebuttal, let's see what nonsense I get back.
#Post#: 79547--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: July 4, 2025, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, IAS dismissed my appeal, I guess I just wait for
the LoC now? I am a little nervous about their responses, do
they have a case or is it a load of 'waffle'?
--- Quote ---
>
> "The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not
in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
>
> I am satisfied from the Landowner Authority documents provided
that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has
authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the
necessary steps to enforce them.
>
> Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the
Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After
viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is
sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the
terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.
>
> The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such
that drivers must clearly display a valid permit in the front
windscreen of their vehicle with all of the details clearly
visible at all times. In the photographs provided to me it is
clear that no such permit was displayed. The Appellant's
contention that the permit was displayed and could have been
seen had the parking attendant got closer to the vehicle is not
accepted as the photographs clearly show that this is not the
case. The Appellant's own image shows no permit on display with
all details visible as required by the signage. It is the
driver's responsibility to ensure that they clearly display a
valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions
of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. The Appellant
claims to have rights under their tenancy agreement but provides
no documentary evidence of any such rights. Even if a right to
park exists without sight of the documents setting out such a
right, I cannot be satisfied that they are not restricted by
other provisions. Even if the Appellant does have an
unrestricted right to park in their tenancy agreement, I am
unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is
correct that a right in a lease would ordinarily have primacy,
and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. however,
by agreeing to display a permit (which the Appellant states he
was doing at the time of the parking event), and take part in
the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any
rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant
cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and
disregard it when it does not. As a genuine permit holder the
Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to appeal is clear
that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating or
extenuating circumstances. The Appellant's argument that the NTK
does not comply with PoFA is also not accepted. The time and
date stamped photographs show different times on them and
therefore show a period of parking and as the Operator states
the Operator is only required to show that no permit was
displayed not a period of parking such as where the PCN relates
to a period of unpaid parking. As such, on the basis of the
evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked
in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN
was correctly issued on this occasion.
>
> I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in
this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established
that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance
with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
> "
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 79552--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: July 4, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, the IAS appeal decision is not just flawed—it’s
a complete mockery. It pretends to be a fair and impartial
process, but in reality, it’s a sham designed to rubber-stamp
whatever the parking operator says.
First, the so-called adjudicator doesn’t even have the courage
to put their name on the decision. That alone tells you
everything you need to know about the credibility of this
process. If they were truly legally trained and confident in
their reasoning, why hide behind anonymity? Even in the most
basic legal settings, decisions are signed. Here, it’s just a
faceless pleb making unchallengeable rulings.
Worse still, the appellant is denied access to the very evidence
the adjudicator claims to have reviewed. The operator’s
contract, the supposed landowner authority, and the site map are
all mentioned—but never shown. The operator gets to see
everything the appellant submits, but the appellant isn’t
allowed to see the evidence used against them. That’s not
adjudication. That’s exactly like a secret trial. Even
authoritarian regimes often give the accused more rights than
this.
The legal reasoning is laughable. The adjudicator admits that
leasehold rights would normally override parking signs, but then
claims that by displaying a permit, the appellant somehow gave
up those rights. That’s nonsense. You can’t waive a legal right
just by trying to comply with a system forced on you. It’s like
saying if you pay a ransom, you’ve agreed to be kidnapped.
The double standards are glaringly obvious. The appellant is
criticised for not providing a full tenancy agreement, but the
operator’s so-called landowner authority is accepted without
question. No scrutiny, no transparency. Just blind acceptance of
whatever the operator says.
The adjudicator also brushes off the argument about PoFA
compliance with barely a sentence. They claim the operator only
needs to show that no permit was displayed, not a period of
parking. That’s simply wrong. PoFA has strict requirements, and
they’ve been completely ignored here.
This isn’t an appeal process. It’s a performance. A show. A fake
process designed to look fair while always siding with the
operator. The IAS is not a real tribunal. It’s a private
complaints handler funded by the very companies it’s supposed to
oversee. Its decisions aren’t binding, they aren’t transparent,
and they certainly aren’t credible.
Honestly, a trial in North Korea would offer more rights than
this. At least there, you’d know who your judge is.
Stop worrying. They absolutely do not "have a case". This will
never see the inside of a courtroom. Just ignore all the debt
recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything
except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible
tree to pay up out go ignorance and fear.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 79558--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 4, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it
benefits them and disregard it when it does not.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure begrudgingly displaying a permit in order to avoid
the hassle of receiving an ill-founded ticket every 24 hours can
reasonably be considered deriving any 'advantage' from the
scheme. The best way to manage residential bays would be to
install lockable bollards in each space, with residents issued a
key. The 'problem' is that would involve the landlords spending
money, unlike bringing in a parking company to dole out PCNs.
#Post#: 79598--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: July 4, 2025, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the detailed response and re-assurance, it's
really appreciated. I will wait for the LoC and get in touch.
#Post#: 85683--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: August 14, 2025, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've received my first letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs
Ltd (DCBL) asking for £170, can I safely assume I can throw this
into my recycling bag?
#Post#: 85692--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Just ignore all the debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are
powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of
ignorance and fear.
>
> Come back when you get a Letter of Claim (LoC).
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 90930--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: September 22, 2025, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This one seems to be churning through their system, today I
received a letter from ELMS Legal titled 'URGENT: NOTIFICATION
OF INSTRUCTION', I can't seem to find an option to attach
images.
I'm assuming I should just 'file' it away until I get a Letter
of Claim?
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page