DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Did you identify as the driver? You were supposed to appeal
ONLY as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Any reference to
the driver should have been in the third person. NO "I did this
or that", only "the driver did this or that".
>
> So, has the driver been identified or not?
>
--- End Quote ---
Definitely no identification of the driver.
#Post#: 78898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> There is no keeper liability in this case. Here’s why:
>
> [indent]1. Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued
>
> The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on the vehicle on
09/05/2025, which constitutes a Notice to Driver under Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> 2. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been issued
>
> Since the Keeper (assuming they did not identify as the
driver) submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27 after the
NtD), and the rejection letter dated 30/06/2025 makes no mention
of a Notice to Keeper being issued, the operator has not
complied with PoFA requirements to establish Keeper liability.
>
> Under PoFA Schedule 4, if a NtD is issued, the operator must
serve a compliant NtK between day 28 and day 56 after the date
of the NtD to hold the Keeper liable. Since no NtK has been
served, the keeper cannot be held liable.
>
> 3. Only the driver can be pursued
>
> Without a valid NtK served in accordance with PoFA, the
operator can only pursue the driver, not the keeper. If the
keeper has not identified the driver, and no NtK has been
issued, the operator has no lawful basis to enforce the charge
against the keeper.[/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
Got it - thanks. So 4 July is D-Day.
#Post#: 78911--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: b789
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good. So, over the weekend, you can appeal to the IAS with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. Strict proof that the operator has complied with
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if it is attempting
to rely on keeper liability. In this case, a Notice to Driver
(NtD) was issued on 09/05/2025. I, the registered keeper,
submitted an appeal on 05/06/2025 (day 27). As of the date of
this appeal, no Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been served.
> Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, where a NtD has been issued, a
compliant NtK must be served between day 28 and day 56 following
the alleged contravention in order to establish keeper
liability. The operator has failed to do so. Therefore, there is
no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper, and I am under no
obligation to identify the driver. Any attempt to hold me liable
in the absence of a valid NtK is a clear breach of PoFA and
renders this charge unenforceable against me.
>
> 2. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that
was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of
the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site
plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of
the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage
was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of
Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged
contravention, including requirements relating to font size,
positioning, and the communication of key terms.
>
> 3. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> 4. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
>
> 5. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” If that is true, then the assessor reading this
will know that without a valid Notice to Keeper served in
accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, there can be no keeper liability. That alone is fatal to
the operator’s case.
>
> They will also know that without strict proof of landowner
authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can
succeed. They will know that clear and prominent signage is a
prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]
UKSC 67), and that the burden of proof lies squarely with the
operator.
> Yet the IAS process provides no transparency. Decisions are
unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no register of
assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal
credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their
appeal. If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal
requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents
from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further
weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is
neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.[/indent]
>
> In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 78912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for your excellent advice. I've made a diary note
to submit the appeal and will do so on Saturday afternoon.
#Post#: 80374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: July 10, 2025, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received a response to the appeal, text as follows from
the IAS site:
--- Quote ---
> The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 10/07/2025
09:51:00.
>
> The operator reported that...
> The appellant was the keeper.
> The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
> A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
> The ticket was issued on 09/05/2025.
> The charge is based in Contract.
>
> The operator made the following comments...
> The vehicle was parked with no valid parking session/permit in
a Pay and Display Car Park.
> Issue Reason: Expired Ticket
> Photographic evidence held for this PCN: 15 Photographs.
>
> Our photographic evidence shows the vehicle was displaying an
expired ticket and as such the vehicle was legitimately issued
with a Parking Charge Notice. A ticket is only valid until the
expiry time printed and no longer. It is a driver's
responsibility to ensure that they return on or before the
expiry time. We have a duty to the landowners who contact us to
carry out periodic patrols on their behalf to ensure the rules
are adhered to.
> Our photographic evidence clearly shows that the ticket
displayed within the vehicle expired at 14.30 and the PCN was
issued at 15.03, therefore your vehicle had been parked on site
for 33 minutes without valid authorisation. Please see attached
evidence.
> It is a driver's responsibility to ensure they have purchased
a ticket to cover the stay required within the car park. A
motorist would be expected to consider the time they require
before purchasing a pay and display ticket.
>
> In this case there is no requirement to issue a Notice To
Keeper. The PCN was affixed to the vehicle at the time of
contravention that the appellant admits has been received. The
PCN states that a parking charge of £100 is due from the driver
within 28 days of the date of issue of this notice. Had the
appellant not been the driver at the time of contravention, then
they should have transferred liability to the driver. They have
however, appealed the PCN themselves, we will pursue the PCN
holding the appellant liable as the Registered Keeper. Had no
correspondence been received from the appellant then after 28
days, we would obtain the Registered Keeper details from the
DVLA. There is no need in this instance as the appellant has
provided their details. No Notice to Keeper is required.
>
> There is clear and concise signage displayed at the site. All
our sites and signage is audited by our governing body, the IPC.
The terms and conditions of parking are very clear at the site,
there are numerous terms and conditions signs throughout the
site and also the tariff board contains this information.
>
> This PCN was legitimately issued for an Expired Ticket.
>
> We also note that the appellant's appeal is considerably
different to their initial appeal to Armtrac Security Services.
>
> The signage at the site states that:
>
> • You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within
the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session
from the point of entry to point of exit.
>
> • You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration
number when you make payment.
>
> The appellant's vehicle was not covered for the entire parking
period where it remained parked on private land. The terms and
conditions signs at the site make this requirement very clear to
motorists.
>
> We, Armtrac Security Services, are contracted by the landowner
to patrol this site ensuring that the terms of parking are
adhered to. The signage here states that:
>
> • You must either display a valid pay & display ticket within
the windscreen or be in possession of a cashless payment session
from the point of entry to point of exit
>
> • You must enter your full and correct vehicle registration
number when you make payment.
>
> • No overnight parking/camping between the hours of 1100pm -
0800am.
>
> • All vehicles must be parked in accordance with all other
signage located throughout the site.
>
> Please see tariff board located at entrance for payment
information. In the event of a faulty payment terminal, please
either use an alternative terminal, pay via the cashless payment
facility, or leave the car park without using the facilities.
Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be
accepted.
>
> By entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by
all of the Terms and Conditions.
>
> Breach of ANY terms or conditions will result in the driver
being liable for a
> PARKING CHARGE of £100
>
> We have followed the guidelines correctly and these rules are
put in place by the land owner(s), not ourselves and our
officers are instructed to enforce them. When entering a private
car park it is for the motorist to consider the rules of parking
in order to determine whether parking is suitable for their
requirement's; the appellant chose to park their vehicle here at
Maenporth Beach Private Pay and Display Car Park and by parking
here they agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of
parking. By Failing to display a valid pay and display ticket in
the windscreen or have a valid cashless payment session covering
the entire parking period; the rules of parking were breached
and therefore they were legitimately issued with this PCN in
accordance with the terms of parking displayed on the signage as
a contractual term.
>
> This PCN was correctly issued to the appellant.
>
> We have enclosed Notice to Keeper, all correspondence between
Armtrac and the appellant and all photographic evidence held for
the PCN.
>
> Please refer to uploads for Site Map, Site Photographs, Signs
and Landowner Authority.
--- End Quote ---
The operator response includes my original appeal text, which I
didn't previously save - redacted copy attached as PDF. The
appeal was made as keeper and doesn't identify the driver. The
other documents provided are the original PCN, photographs of
the vehicle etc already supplied above. They did not provide
the contract with the landowner.
They also provided these documents, not specific to the case:
Operator Documents (Pre-Loaded)
Maenporth Site Photographs.pdf
Site Map
Blank document.docx
pay & Display Entrance Sign (KBT0011-127)
Maenporth Terms and Conditions (KBT0011-129)
Maenporth Ringo Signage (KBT0011-130)
In case these are useful I can upload somewhere for retrieval.
Though, I gather the main point is that the operator is
continuing to seek enforcement against the keeper, following a
notice to driver (PCN), when a notice to keeper has not been
issued.
The IAS provides the following options:
--- Quote ---
> The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says
proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the
parking charge in question.
>
> You now have TWO options:
>
> 1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by
making any representations that you consider to be relevant as
to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra
photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you
submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more
information you will not have the ability to add to or amend
your submission. If the operator provides more information or
evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have
until 16/07/2025 23:59 to submit your response if this is the
route you wish to take.
>
> - OR -
>
> 2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you
do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example
if you consider that the information provided is not capable of
showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the
parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party
will have the opportunity of making more representations and the
Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities,
whether you are liable for the parking charge.
--- End Quote ---
Shall I immediately refer or is there value restating the point
re the failure to issue a NtK?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80376--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 10, 2025, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you at least need to rebut the “In this case there is no
requirement to issue a Notice To Keeper.” rubbish.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
says:
--- Quote ---
>
> 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
>
> (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle
the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
>
> (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against
the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of
the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
>
> (2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after
the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which
the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings
to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.
>
> 6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person
acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
>
> (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph
7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph
8; or
>
> (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph
9.
>
> (2)If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice
to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80380--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: July 10, 2025, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And I presume we're relying upon this 'expiry period',
highlighted in red - paragraph 5 - having been surpassed:
--- Quote ---
> 8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper
for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance
with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
>
> (2)The notice must—
>
> (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
>
> (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay
parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking
and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
>
> (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified
period of parking has been given and repeat the information in
that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
>
> (d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to
driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part,
specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—
>
> (i)specified in the notice to keeper, and
>
> (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which
the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed
to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
sub-paragraph (4));
>
> (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper—
>
> (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
>
> (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
>
> (f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to
keeper is given—
>
> (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified
under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
>
> (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver,
>
> the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid;
>
> (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available;
>
> (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment
or notification to the creditor may be made;
>
> (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent
by post) or given (in any other case).
>
> (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking
specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent
the giving of separate notices which each specify different
parts of a single period of parking).
>
> (4)The notice must be given by—
>
> (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current
address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period;
or
>
> (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the
keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the
relevant period.
>
> (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)
is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver
was given.
>
> (6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for
the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day
after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose
“working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a
public holiday in England and Wales.
>
> (7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any
evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
>
> (8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for
the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
>
> (a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing
informally with representations by the keeper about the notice
or any matter contained in it; and
>
> (b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints
(however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent
adjudication or arbitration.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 10, 2025, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Plus they never applied to the DVLA:
--- Quote ---
> 11(1)The third condition is that—
>
> (a)the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the
creditor) has made an application for the keeper's details in
relation to the period of parking to which the unpaid parking
charges relate;
>
> (b)the application was made during the relevant period for the
purposes of paragraph 8(4) (where a notice to driver has been
given) or 9(4) (where no notice to driver has been given);
>
> (c)the information sought by the application is provided by
the Secretary of State to the applicant.
>
> (2)The third condition only applies if the vehicle is a
registered vehicle.
>
> (3)In this paragraph “application for the keeper's details”
means an application for the following information to be
provided to the applicant by virtue of regulations made under
section 22(1)(c) of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act
1994—
>
> (a)the name of the registered keeper of the vehicle during the
period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate;
and
>
> (b)the address of that person as it appears on the register
(or, if that person has ceased to be the registered keeper, as
it last appeared on the register).
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80386--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2025, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There was no need to apply to the DVLA as the Keeper appealed,
solely in their capacity as the Keeper.
--- Quote ---
> Response to operators Prima Facie case:
>
> If the assessor genuinely holds legal qualifications at
solicitor or barrister level — a claim for which the IAS offers
no transparency or public verification — they would know that
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
requires a valid Notice to Keeper (NtK) where the parking
operator seeks to pursue the registered keeper, in cases where
the driver is not identified. This obligation applies
specifically when a Notice to Driver (NtD) has been issued and
the keeper has not admitted to being the driver. In this case,
the NtD was affixed to the vehicle, and I appealed solely in my
capacity as keeper without making any admission of driver
identity. Therefore, absent a compliant NtK, the operator’s
reliance on PoFA is not only procedurally defective — it is
legally embarrassing.
>
> The suggestion that my appeal, made solely in the capacity of
registered keeper, somehow enables Armtrac to bypass the
requirements of PoFA and retrospectively assign driver liability
is not just legally untenable — it is desperate. Lipstick on a
pig remains a pig, and the misapplication of statute does not
cure a fatally defective claim.
>
> Therefore if the IAS assessor is indeed legally qualified — as
claimed but never substantiated — they will be fully aware that
in cases where an NtD has been issued and the keeper has not
admitted to being the driver, PoFA requires the issuance of a
valid NtK to engage keeper liability. This is not discretionary.
The absence of a Notice to Keeper in this case is fatal to any
attempt to rely on PoFA.
>
> Should the assessor choose to ignore this foundational
requirement — which sits at the heart of Schedule 4 — it will
speak volumes about the reliability and independence of this
adjudication process. The consistent refusal to attribute
decisions to named individuals only compounds the perception
that transparency and legal rigour are lacking. If the decision
rendered here genuinely reflects qualified legal reasoning, its
author should be willing to put their name to it. If not, one
must question why.
>
> In summary, the absence of a valid NtK, combined with the lack
of any driver identification, renders keeper liability entirely
inapplicable under PoFA The operator cannot lawfully pursue the
registered keeper, and any attempt to do so is procedurally
defective and unenforceable.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 80439--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: July 10, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - response submitted. Given the clear failure to comply
with PoFA as you set out - and which I with no prior knowledge
of the law was able to verify independently in a matter of
minutes - it would be indeed be farcical if IAS doesn't adjucate
in favour of the appelant.
On a side note - the IAS form which needs to be filled in to
respond has had the ability to copy or paste text disabled,
which I struggle to see any valid reason for.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page