DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: b789
Date: July 10, 2025, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: richonlybyname link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because they are firm of scamming bar stewards. The IAS is a
company with the same directors as the IPC. Judge, jury and
executioner, all rolled into one.
They have deliberately made it as difficult as possible for
anyone to try and appeal in any meaningful way. There is
something I wouldn't do, even if they were on fire...
Zero respect for them and hopefully once the Private Parking
legislation is active, it will see their demise.
#Post#: 80483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 10, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Too late for your case but one can generally find some sort of
browser extension for whatever browser you're using that
bypasses right click restrictions etc.
#Post#: 80489--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: July 10, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=richonlybyname link=topic=6286.msg80439#msg80439
date=1752153396]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Because they are firm of scamming bar stewards. The IAS is a
company with the same directors as the IPC. Judge, jury and
executioner, all rolled into one.
They have deliberately made it as difficult as possible for
anyone to try and appeal in any meaningful way. There is
something I wouldn't do, even if they were on fire...
Zero respect for them and hopefully once the Private Parking
legislation is active, it will see their demise.
[/quote]
I figured as much and share the sentiment!
#Post#: 85361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: August 12, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Response just in from the 'Independent Appeals Service':
--- Quote ---
>
> Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
>
> The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
> "It is important that the Appellant understands that the
adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The
adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has
a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of
each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally
binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they
are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or
solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their
understanding of the law and legal principles.
>
> The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to
consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of
other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this
appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of
contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or
extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's
signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it
sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at
all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to
comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's
reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While
noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to
this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site
otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by
allowing their vehicle to remain parked beyond the expiry of the
ticket displayed in their vehicle, having been allowed an
adequate grace period prior to the charge being issued. It is
the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to
ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly
complied with. I have considered the correspondence sent to the
Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was
correctly served and that the correspondence complies with
current guidelines. I am satisfied on the evidence provided that
the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this
site. I am further satisfied as to the location of the
contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified
parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the
correct Appellant is pursued.
>
> I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie
case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's
circumstances, once liability has been established, only the
Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge
based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is
dismissed.
> "
>
> As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator
has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge
was lawfully incurred.
>
> As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS
is unable to intervene further in this matter.
>
> You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment
of the charge.
>
> Should you continue to contest the charge then you should
consider obtaining independent legal advice.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> The Independent Appeals Service
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I won't be rushing to contact the operator to make payment. It
seems that the IAS adjudicator is only concerned with whether
the ticket was validly issued, rather than whether there is a
liability upon the keeper to pay.
I presume the operator will be in touch in due course to request
payment and threaten a court claim. Is this operator likely to
proceed with the issue of a claim?
#Post#: 85381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical blather from an anonymous pretend lawyer. Thankfully,
the IAS decision is not binding on you and you should not pay
it. The IAS are simply an incestuous arm of the IPC and their
only objective is to protect IPC members.
The operator will now come back to you with more male bovine
excrement about you being liable to pay them. Don't.
They will next engage useless debt recovery letters. You can
safely ignore all debt collector demands as they are powerless
to actually do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will
take it from there.
#Post#: 85427--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: August 12, 2025, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, let them bring it on - will be in touch in due course!
#Post#: 111083--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: February 25, 2026, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Typical blather from an anonymous pretend lawyer. Thankfully,
the IAS decision is not binding on you and you should not pay
it. The IAS are simply an incestuous arm of the IPC and their
only objective is to protect IPC members.
>
> The operator will now come back to you with more male bovine
excrement about you being liable to pay them. Don't.
>
> They will next engage useless debt recovery letters. You can
safely ignore all debt collector demands as they are powerless
to actually do anything except to try and scare the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.
>
> Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will
take it from there.
>
--- End Quote ---
I received the Letter of Claim a few weeks back but was busy and
took no action as I was very busy with other matters. I have
now received a county court Claim Form. Particulars of Claim
read as follows:
"The Claim against the Defendant (D) is for £100.00 for a
parking charge following a parking contravention which occured
on 09/05/2025 on private land (lawfully occupied by the Claimant
(C)) at Maenporth Beach Car Park Falmouth Tr11 5Hn by the driver
of a vehicle, BMW 3 SERIES registration mark REDACTED. C's
terms and conditions (displayed on signage) offered the driver a
contractual licence and was accepted by the driver upon entry,
and subsequently breached. Driver's breach:
Parked after the expiry of the time paid for
D is liable as driver, or keeper per Sch. 4 PoFA2012. C also
claims £60.00 contractual recovery costs as set out in its terms
and conditions and the ATA Code of Practice."
The claimant is KBT Cornwall Limited. The claim amount is for
£160 + court fee of £35 + legal representative's costs of £50 =
£245
Issue date 18 February 2025. Of course, I wish to dispute the
claim in full and will respond accordingly online. I was
intending to submit the following as my defence:
"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability
for this parking charge. I rely upon the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA). In this case, a Notice to Driver (NtD) was
issued on 09/05/2025. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been served
to date. 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 Claimant 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."
I feel this should be adequate as this is the legal crux of the
matter, but would welcome any advice / whether it's worth
seeking evidence of their ownership of the land etc.
#Post#: 111090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: Mustek
Date: February 25, 2026, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From the POC, italicised text added for context
--- Quote ---
> D (defendant) is liable as driver
--- End Quote ---
You're fully sure you've never identified the driver in any
appeals or other communication?
If so, the onus would be on them to prove that the RK was the
driver and this part of the claim should be absolutely defended,
as that seems to be what they are going on.
They can't rely on POFA to put liability on the keeper as
they've never served the NTK
Please wait on people with more experience to help draft a
response.
#Post#: 111091--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 25, 2026, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show us the claim form - redact your name and address,
claim number and MCOL password. Leave the rest visible - we only
need to see the actual Claim Form, not any of the enclosed forms
etc.
#Post#: 111094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Maenporth Beach PCN - overstay - Armtrac Security
DIR By: richonlybyname
Date: February 25, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Please show us the claim form - redact your name and address,
claim number and MCOL password. Leave the rest visible - we only
need to see the actual Claim Form, not any of the enclosed forms
etc.
>
--- End Quote ---
Claim form PDF viewable here:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sCi5YWKas54mkSd4dLvloGszxxT-6_Sw/view?usp=sharing
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page