DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81509--------------------------------------------------
PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: sofnet2000
Date: July 17, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All
I received a PCS pcn claiming that I was parked in a bay behind
my building without displaying a valid permit, guess what there
is no permit where I live, they claim that they are acting on
behalf of secure A space and issued me the pcn 10 days ago on
the 07/07 and I only have 14 days since the date of issue to
appeal. and there is no evidence of the PCN no picture no video
nothing at all, they claim that their warden observed the
contrention and that is it, I/ have to take their word for it
lol
anyone know about these cowboys? shall I appeal on their
website?
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81539--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 18, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, you say that it was claimed you were parked “in a bay
behind my building”. So I guess you own or rent property, and
will have some kind of lease or tenancy agreement describing the
property and its parking spaces. What does it say - or not say -
about parking spaces and is the space you were alleged to have
parked in covered by this?
Secondly, do not identify the driver. See
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Thirdly, following on from the second point, if the parking
space is not covered by a lease or similar, the PCN from PCS
does not comply with the legislation
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
to hold
the registered keeper liable. In particular, no “period of
parking” is specified, and the vague statement about this is not
good enough.
#Post#: 81567--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: b789
Date: July 18, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As above, what does your lease say about parking. What it does
not say is equally important.
However, this is an easy one to deal with… as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal
obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and
no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a) in particular,
you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the
charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and
no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PCS has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
PCS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
Comeback when the appeal is rejected.
#Post#: 81624--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: sofnet2000
Date: July 18, 2025, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Firstly, you say that it was claimed you were parked “in a bay
behind my building”. So I guess you own or rent property, and
will have some kind of lease or tenancy agreement describing the
property and its parking spaces. What does it say - or not say -
about parking spaces and is the space you were alleged to have
parked in covered by this?
>
> Secondly, do not identify the driver. See
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
>
> Thirdly, following on from the second point, if the parking
space is not covered by a lease or similar, the PCN from PCS
does not comply with the legislation
(
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4)
to hold
the registered keeper liable. In particular, no “period of
parking” is specified, and the vague statement about this is not
good enough.
>
--- End Quote ---
We have 4 bays behind our building, first come first served with
only restriction not park outside bays, there is no permit
required. secure a space have put up their signs out but they
never come because is not worth it for them (the chance of them
giving tickets out very minimal). the lease says we are all
allowed to use the parking spaces as long as we park within
marked bays.
I added pictures of signage and the 2 bays where I was parked in
one of them.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81626--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: sofnet2000
Date: July 18, 2025, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> As above, what does your lease say about parking. What it does
not say is equally important.
>
> However, this is an easy one to deal with… as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal
obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to
Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and
no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA
which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they
cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver
to the known keeper.
>
> Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or
remove anything from it:
>
> [quote]I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your
'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement
and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to
your client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a) in particular,
you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the
charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and
no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PCS has relied on
contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
PCS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
Comeback when the appeal is rejected.
[/quote]
As I said in previous post, the bays are to be used by any
resident first come first served, I asked one of the director
who said secure a space contract had expired and they haven't
renewed, he also denied any knowledge of PCS or any parking
permit existence.
#Post#: 81628--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: sofnet2000
Date: July 18, 2025, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just trying appealing on their website, impossible to do it,
everytime I upload a picture it gives me error message and
without uploading appeal doesn't go through. I gues they do not
want appeals, they want scamming people
#Post#: 81629--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 18, 2025, 2:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> the lease says we are all allowed to use the parking spaces as
long as we park within marked bays.
--- End Quote ---
Can you please share with us the exact wording of this clause
within your lease? It will potentially be a very useful argument
in your favour.
#Post#: 81631--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: sofnet2000
Date: July 18, 2025, 2:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> [quote]the lease says we are all allowed to use the parking
spaces as long as we park within marked bays.
--- End Quote ---
Can you please share with us the exact wording of this clause
within your lease? It will potentially be a very useful argument
in your favour.
[/quote]
attached parking clause of the tenancy agreement
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81649--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: b789
Date: July 19, 2025, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCS say they acting on behalf of the Creditor, Secure a Space.
When the initial appeal is rejected, you can appeal to POPLA and
put them to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing
from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the
location. I the 'director' says they are no longer contracted,
also try and get that in writing from them.
Either way, there is nothing in the lease that appears to
mention any requirement to display a permit or that any third
party can apply terms and conditions that supersede your lease
agreement terms.
#Post#: 81658--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCS pcn , are these scammers?
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 19, 2025, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From the lease you've shown us, "Premises" is capitalised,
suggesting it's a defined term. Is the meaning of "Premises"
listed anywhere in the lease, as this might strengthen your
argument further by showing that the parking space forms part of
your lease?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page