DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81947--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 21, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, as explained by b789
#Post#: 81949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: Ducato
Date: July 21, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting spin on the usual parking scams, how do they know
the alleged driver and or passengers left the premises? That
must involve some full time person reviewing hours and hours of
CcTV everyday just to identify potential victims!
Crikey!
#Post#: 81962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: b789
Date: July 21, 2025, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even if they have CCTV, they have no idea of the identity of the
person they are observing. It's simply not possible to know.
There is no magical unicorn database you can feed an image of
someone into and it will simply spit out the identity of that
person with their personal details and address! The person
observed in the drivers seat could be anyone!
Then try and get around breaches of GDPR by trying to identify
someone forensically from CCTV if you are not the police.
#Post#: 81984--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: July 21, 2025, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not an 'offence'... :)
#Post#: 82858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: Nufc1993
Date: July 26, 2025, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they've come up with your standard template response despite
providing no evidence anyone left the premises
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 82896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: jfollows
Date: July 27, 2025, 3:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is laughable, especially the idea that the driver can be held
responsible for actions of the passengers.
[member=26]b789[/member] will provide an IAS appeal, which will
be rejected, but will cost “Universal Parking Enforcement Ltd.”
And your opening post is a great example of how to shoot
yourself in the foot!
#Post#: 82898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Drivers received fine but can't find offence
DIR By: b789
Date: July 27, 2025, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If ever there was evidence of how corrupt and stupid these
companies are, you have it there in a nutshell.
I don't understand what the images of the vehicle leaving the
parking bay are supposed to infer? Besides the fact that the NtK
is not PoFA compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable as long as
the driver is not identified, this would never have a chance
should they try to make a claim over it.
Universal Parking Enforcement Ltd’s attempt to hold the driver
liable for a passenger leaving the site is legally flawed. Their
signage does not create a binding or fair contractual term to
support such liability. If the driver remained on-site, no
breach occurred, and any enforcement action is likely to fail if
challenged.
The wording on the sign fails to establish a clear contractual
obligation on the driver for the actions of passengers. It is
vague and does not specify that the driver is liable for
third-party conduct.
The sign does not define what “remaining on the premises”
entails or explain how liability is apportioned between driver
and passenger or provide sufficient notice to form a binding
contract on such a specific term.
Under contract law, liability must arise from a clear breach of
a term by the contracting party — in this case, the driver. A
passenger leaving the site does not constitute a breach by the
driver unless the signage explicitly states that the driver is
responsible for passenger conduct. It doesn't.
The term attempting to impose liability on the driver for a
passenger’s independent action is likely unfair, as it:
[indent]• Creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights
and obligations.
• Is not transparent or prominent enough to be enforceable.
• Is contrary to good faith, especially if the driver remained
on-site.
• Unfair terms are not binding on consumers.[/indent]
In Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ibbotson, the court dismissed
a claim where the driver remained on-site but a passenger left.
The judge found the enforcement attempt unreasonable and warned
the claimant about contempt of court for pursuing baseless
claims. This case is directly analogous and undermines the
legitimacy of UPF’s position.
For now, you can appeal to the IAS. It will be interesting to
see their 'opinion'.
--- 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:
>
> Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> This NtK fails PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does
not specify any “period of parking”. It merely states a
timestamp of 19:14 on 15 May 2025. This is not a period — it is
a moment. The requirement for a “period of parking” is not
optional. I refer the adjudicator to Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions (2023), where this exact failure rendered the notice
non-compliant.
>
> It also fails paragraph 9(4), which requires the notice to be
“given” within 14 days of the alleged contravention. The NtK was
dated 9 July 2025 — 56 days after the event. Keeper liability is
therefore not available. The operator has not identified the
driver, and the keeper cannot be held liable.
>
> These two points alone are sufficient to cancel this joke of a
PCN. If the adjudicator chooses not to uphold the appeal on this
basis, it will be taken as further evidence of the abject
failure of the IAS to operate as a credible or independent
appeals body. This case will be referred to the current
government consultation on the Private Parking (Code of
Practice) Act 2019, which is ongoing. The IAS’s incestuous
relationship with IPC members and its consistent failure to
apply basic legal standards will be highlighted. I won’t be
sorry to see its demise once the new statutory Code of Practice
is enacted.
>
> I also require 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.
>
> The signage states: “Drivers and passengers must remain on the
premises whilst the vehicle is parked on site”. It then claims
that breach of any term will result in the driver being liable.
This is legally incoherent. The driver cannot be held liable for
the independent actions of a passenger unless the signage
clearly and fairly imposes such liability. It does not. The term
is vague, unfair, and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights
Act 2015. It creates a significant imbalance and fails the test
of transparency and good faith.
>
> I also require evidence of 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.
>
> Of course, we all know how the corrupt and fake IAS operates.
Like a kangaroo court in a despotic regime, it will almost
certainly refuse to disclose any actual evidence of a contract
and instead issue its usual boilerplate response: “The assessor
has seen the contract and is satisfied it is valid”. That is not
evidence. That is not transparency. That is not adjudication. It
is a rubber stamp masquerading as legal scrutiny. If the IAS
wishes to retain even a shred of credibility, it must require
the operator to evidence the actual contract or lease,
unredacted and dated, showing the operator’s authority for this
specific site. Anything less is a farce.
>
> The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or
barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are
unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency,
no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess
the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating
their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally
qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner
authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can
succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is
a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only
available where strict statutory conditions are met.
>
> They will also know that in VCS v Ibbotson (2012), the court
rejected a claim where the driver remained on-site but a
passenger left. The judge found the enforcement attempt
unreasonable and warned the claimant about contempt of court for
pursuing baseless claims. This case is directly analogous and
renders the operator’s position untenable.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page