DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87579--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: August 28, 2025, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Response received via email, copied below, I hav highlighted
certain text in bold as per their reply.
CN REFERENCE NUMBER: 70009722
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 18th July 2025
PAYMENT DUE DATE: 11th September 2025
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £100.00
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge
Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We
take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any
evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your
circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone
would like to find themselves in; however, these parking
conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all
motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful
consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today
to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been
unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made
on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can
confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 37 minutes with no
permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park
is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras
which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry
and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on
site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data
from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can
confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient
evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have
considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the
category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of
Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will
deem this to be our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure
and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to
the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
Any thoughts, they mention it doesnt fall under Annex F?
#Post#: 87581--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 28, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Annex F is utterly irrelevant, have you read it?
Either they are being stupid or, more likely, deliberately spout
irrelevant rubbish in the hope that you’re convinced by it and
pay up.
Note from Reply #3 that some kind of fabricated reason for a
rejection of your appeal was expected. You’ve got to continue
the process, as explained in this earlier reply. As long as you
don’t identify the driver they can’t use PoFA 2012 as they
continue to claim.
#Post#: 91377--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 24, 2025, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I have just submitted the following FoI request to
foi@redbridge.gov.uk
>
--- End Quote ---
Did you ever get anything back from the FOI request for this?
#Post#: 91379--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 24, 2025, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am about to submit the exacty same resposne to the IAS appeal,
1. I will be copying and pasting the same appeal as before, I
assume that is all I need to do? As I will not be able to add or
amend anything to the appeal after submitted.
2. The rejection letter states I have 28 days to appeal from
notice of rejection (28th Aug) to the IAS or make payment, thus
making today the last day if I include the date of rejection as
Day 1, however on the IAS page it is saying I have until 29th
Sept to complete my appeal application (Basicailly 31 days?) - I
assume best to appeal today and not delay to play it safe?
3. The IAS Appeal started by asking me to answer two statements
which I've done as follows, hope these are correct:
i. Statement 1: You reported that the appellant was the
registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving
at the time the parking charge was issued.
ii. Statement 2: You reported that the appellant is being held
liable for the parking charge.
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Annex F is utterly irrelevant, have you read it?
>
--- End Quote ---
A quick google AI response said "Annex F, "The Appeals Charter,"
was a component of the original (now withdrawn)
government-proposed Private Parking Code of Practice, not the
current industry-led Single Code of Practice" - Does this mean
it doesn't count as its withdrawn? excuse my lack of
understanding of this topic/charter.
#Post#: 91380--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 24, 2025, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> As long as you don’t identify the driver they can’t use PoFA
2012 as they continue to claim.
>
--- End Quote ---
If at any point I am asked if I was the drive, would that mean
one has to say no or decline to comment, ie nor confirm nor
deny?
#Post#: 91381--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 24, 2025, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also I know it stated taht most of these will eventually have
some form of debt letter then fail to go through to County
Court, however I've just seen a post that's before mine for
'Gladstones' where OP states they've received a County Court
Claim from Euro Parking Services Limited :O and it totals
£257.50 - So worst case scneario I could end up having to may a
similar amount if I am unable to fight the final stage at county
court?
#Post#: 91448--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: September 25, 2025, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LondonTraveller84 link ---
>
> Also I know it stated taht most of these will eventually have
some form of debt letter then fail to go through to County
Court, however I've just seen a post that's before mine for
'Gladstones' where OP states they've received a County Court
Claim from Euro Parking Services Limited :O and it totals
£257.50 - So worst case scneario I could end up having to may a
similar amount if I am unable to fight the final stage at county
court?
>
--- End Quote ---
Just because a claim is issued does not mean that it will ever
get as far as a hearing. These companies all rely on you being
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who can be intimidated
into paying up out of ignorance and fear. Unless you understand
their modus operandi and your lawful rights like we do, then
good luck to you.
--- Quote from: LondonTraveller84 link ---
>
> [quote author=jfollows link=topic=7474.msg87581#msg87581
date=1756403924]
> As long as you don’t identify the driver they can’t use PoFA
2012 as they continue to claim.
>
--- End Quote ---
If at any point I am asked if I was the drive, would that mean
one has to say no or decline to comment, ie nor confirm nor
deny?
[/quote]
There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the
driver to an unregulated private parking firm. There is no need
to lie either. All you do is refer to the driver in the third
person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or
that". Understood?
If the operator is unable to rely on PoFA to transfer liability
from the unknown (to them) driver to the known Keeper, the
burden of proof is on them, not you. How do you imagine that can
prove you were the driver if you decline to assist them by
identifying the driver for them?
--- Quote from: LondonTraveller84 link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=7474.msg83594#msg83594
date=1753973452]
> I have just submitted the following FoI request to
foi@redbridge.gov.uk
>
--- End Quote ---
Did you ever get anything back from the FOI request for this?
[/quote]
Yes, and it was a non answer which I have complained about and
asked for a review:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/8QGNRuh.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Mb797av.jpeg
And my response, to which they have not yet replied:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Request for Internal Review – FOI Ref: 29095861
>
> Dear FOI Team,
>
> I am writing to request an internal review of your response to
my Freedom of Information request regarding the contracting of
UK Car Park Management (UKCPM) at Cranbrook Primary School.
>
> Your reply stated that the information I requested is not held
by the London Borough of Redbridge and advised me to contact the
private parking firm directly. I believe this response is
inadequate for the following reasons:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to confirm land ownership and delegation
> Even if the Council does not hold the UKCPM contract itself,
you are still able – and obliged – to confirm whether the land
in question is Council-owned or controlled, and if so, whether
any delegation has been granted to the school governing body to
enter into such arrangements. This is relevant context squarely
within the scope of my request.
>
> 2. Duty to advise and assist (s16 FOIA)
> The Section 45 Code of Practice requires public authorities to
advise and assist applicants. Directing me to contact a private
company that is not subject to FOIA does not satisfy this duty.
You should instead have identified or signposted the correct
public body likely to hold the requested information – in this
case, the governing body of Cranbrook Primary School – or
considered whether a transfer under FOIA was appropriate.
>
> 3. Incomplete handling of the request
> My request covered not just the specific contract with UKCPM
but also any agreements, delegations, or authorisations by the
Council concerning parking enforcement at this location. These
are matters the Council is in a position to confirm.[/indent]
>
> I therefore request that the internal review addresses:
>
> [indent]• Whether the land at Cranbrook Primary School,
including the car park, is owned or controlled by the Council.
>
> • Whether the Council has delegated authority to the school
governing body to enter into parking enforcement arrangements.
>
> • Whether the Council holds any records, correspondence, or
authorisations relating to the introduction of private parking
enforcement at this site.
>
> • Proper signposting or transfer to the public body that does
hold the requested contract (likely the school/governing
body).[/indent]
>
> Please ensure this review is conducted in line with the FOIA
Code of Practice and completed within 20 working days.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> B789
--- End Quote ---
For now, you can submit the following as your IAS appeal (for
what it's worth):
--- Quote ---
> This appeal addresses the operator’s rejection and explains
why this PCN cannot lawfully be enforced.
>
> 1. Keeper liability cannot apply (land is not “relevant land”)
> Under PoFA Sch 4 para 3(1)(b), a parking place provided or
controlled by a traffic authority is excluded from “relevant
land.” Para 3(2) defines a traffic authority to include a London
borough council. Cranbrook Primary School is a community school
on land owned and controlled by the London Borough of Redbridge.
Control therefore rests with a traffic authority, excluding the
site from relevant land. In the alternative, para 3(1)(c)
excludes land where parking is subject to statutory control;
this site is governed under the Education Acts and controlled by
a London borough exercising statutory powers. PoFA keeper
liability cannot arise on this land.
>
> 2. Standing not evidenced (PPSCoP §14)
> The operator refuses to disclose the landowner agreement yet
relies on it to found authority. PPSCoP §14.1(a)–(j) requires
written confirmation from the landowner covering identity,
boundary plan, applicable byelaws, permission and duration,
applied terms, method of issuing charges, responsibility for
consents, Code-compliance obligations, documentation to be
supplied on request, and approach to appeals. These are core
standing documents. Redactions for pricing are acceptable, but
the authority clauses, boundaries, byelaw status,
scope/duration, operative terms, and method of charge must be
evidenced. Absent this, standing is not proven.
>
> 3. Contravention not proven: ANPR and “37 minutes”
> ANPR records site entry/exit, not a period of parking. The
operator must evidence a period of parking and also demonstrate
compliance with consideration and grace periods required by the
PPSCoP. Strict proof is required of ANPR reliability,
maintenance, calibration, and clock synchronisation, and (if
relevant) patrol notes. None has been produced. Assertions are
not evidence.
>
> 4. “No permit found” requires strict proof
> If relying on a permit system, strict proof is required of the
audit trail: the query performed, timestamps, system clock
synchronisation with ANPR, and the data extract showing no valid
permission at the material time. A generic “no permit found”
statement is insufficient.
>
> 5. NtK service and PoFA compliance (only if PoFA is claimed)
> If the operator seeks to rely on PoFA notwithstanding point 1,
strict proof is required of a fully compliant NtK (including
para 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f)) and proof of posting/service
within the relevant period (PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires a
record of the date of posting, not merely the date of generation
or consolidator handover). No such proof has been provided.
>
> 6. Annex F “Appeals Charter” is irrelevant to liability
> Whether the case falls within Annex F does not determine
enforceability. Liability depends on (i) applicability of PoFA,
(ii) operator standing, and (iii) proof of contravention with
compliant evidence. None is satisfied here.
>
> Conclusion
> Because the site is not relevant land, PoFA keeper liability
cannot arise. In any event, the operator has not proven standing
under PPSCoP §14, has not proven a period of parking or ANPR
reliability, has not strictly proven the “no permit” allegation,
and has not proven NtK service/compliance if they seek to rely
on PoFA. The PCN should be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 91555--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 25, 2025, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your details reply and assistance, unfortunately I
replied yesterday as I was worried yesterday was the last day to
appeal, I used the same reason you provided at the start, as I
did in the first appeal.
The additional reasons you have mentioned in the previous post
give much more of a defence, although confident IAS will just
discard and ignore still. Unfortunately I am unable to add or
update according to the IAS appeal process, that once submitted
nothing can be added to it after, which is a shame :(
Also a shame the council have not provided the information
requested as it would have helped.. If the land is council
owned/controlled, however a delegation was/is provided to to the
governing body to give permission to the parking operator, then
I guess I have no leg to stand on?
#Post#: 91560--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 25, 2025, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I may have one chance to still respond, although I
will have to wait for the operator to reply first, to which I
can provide a response, below extract from the IAS email
received following the submission
Your appeal has been sent to the parking operator so that they
can provide their account.
The Parking Operator is now provided 5 working days to upload
sufficient evidence to show that you are liable for the charge.
Once they have submitted their evidence you will be able to log
in and see it. You will then have 5 working days to respond in
one of TWO ways:
1) SUBMIT YOUR APPEAL - 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 photographs
or other evidence that you may have. Once you submit your
response it will go back to the operator who may wish to respond
or send the appeal straight to arbitration. In the case of the
operator responding, you will receive another chance to respond.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - 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. The Adjudicator will assess the evidence
provided by the operator and appellant. You will not have the
opportunity of making representations and the Adjudicator will
decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable
for the parking charge.
#Post#: 91597--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about not having a "leg to stand on"? You
are assuming that the IAS is anything but an incestuous firm of
corrupt and mendacious scammers. If the IAS do not uphold your
appeal, so what? They are a kangaroo court and their decisions
are not binding on you and have absolutely no bearing on
anything going forwards.
The very simple fact is that without the drivers identity, they
don't have a "leg to stand on" if this were to ever reach a
hearing in the small claims court. The simple fact is that PoFA
does not apply. The driver is not identified. Liability for the
charge cannot be transferred to the Keeper. End of!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page