DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92250--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: September 30, 2025, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So they had offered me a reduced charge of £20 dropped from
£100, which I had not seen, as I did not check my emails in
time. They have now officially responded with the below
"The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 30/09/2025
09:45:17.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 22/07/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 18/07/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the
car park.
The vehicle was at the car park for 37 minutes, evidence of this
can be seen in the attached document '70009722'.
The appellant has parked within the car park and did not
register their vehicle.
Signage clearly states "MOTORISITS MUST REGISTER WITH A VALID
E-PERMIT OR HAVE A VALID EXEMPTION BY ENTERING THEIR FULL,
CORRECT VEHICLE REGISTRATION INTO THE KIOSKS LOCATED WITHIN THE
RECEPTION AREAS OR BE REGISTERED VIA SIPPI".
Please be advised, physical permits are not currently in use at
this location. Our records indicate that vehicle registration
GK16BKY was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other
vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of
contravention. This can be seen in the attached document
'70009722'.
The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and
conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to
ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can
determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the
restricted area.
The Appellant accepts that they were the registered keeper of
this car at the time of this incident but has not been prepared
to identify the driver. The provisions of the Protection of
Freedoms Act schedule 4 enable the Parking Operator to recover
against the keeper if they fail or refuse to name the driver.
Please be advised that, in accordance with the Single Code of
Practice, the appellant was offered a reduced payment of £20 as
a gesture of goodwill. However, as this offer has not been
accepted, the full amount of £100 is now due.
We note your point that the primary school car park is managed
by UKCPM (UK Car Park Management). We write to clarify our
position, and confirm that despite UKCPM being the operator, the
legal basis upon which liability is sought remains governed by
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), including its
Schedule 4 — specifically paragraph 9(2)(f) — under which a
registered keeper can be held liable if the driver cannot be
identified.
Under Schedule 4 of PoFA, keeper liability only applies if the
land is “relevant land.” The definition of “relevant land”
excludes, among other things:
Highways maintainable at public expense;
Parking places provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
Any land on which parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory
control.
GOV.UK
Legislation.gov.uk
We assert that Cranbrook Primary School car park, though managed
by UKCPM, is not under statutory control (nor a public highway,
traffic authority controlled parking place, or otherwise subject
to byelaws or similar). Therefore, we consider it “relevant
land” under PoFA. This allows us to lawfully issue a Notice to
Keeper and seek liability under paragraph 9(2)(f) in absence of
driver identification.
Management of a car park by a private operator (UKCPM) does not
in itself change the nature of the land for the purposes of
PoFA. What matters is whether statutory control or public
authority control is present. Being a private operator
contracted to manage the parking does not remove the land from
being “private relevant land” if all criteria are otherwise
satisfied.
For keeper liability to be valid, certain procedural
requirements must be satisfied under PoFA (e.g., signage, Notice
to Driver (if applicable), timely Notice to Keeper, etc.). We
believe these have been met in your case. If you have evidence
disputing any of them (for example, that signage was inadequate,
or that the Notice to Keeper was not issued within the required
timeframe), we invite you to provide that, and we will review.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have
contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice"
Ive tried to get my head around what they've said about the PoFA
but am a bit brain fried from driving 8 hours.. But they see
this as relevant land - Await to get your take on their response
and the reply if any I should submit.
#Post#: 92330--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 1, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond to their prima facie evidence with the following which
you can copy and paste verbatim:
--- Quote ---
> Response to the operators prima facie evidence/case:
>
> 1) No keeper liability: this is not “relevant land” under PoFA
– and in any event PoFA has not been strictly complied with:
> [indent]• Maintained school = public authority site. Cranbrook
Primary is a maintained (community) school of the London Borough
of Redbridge. The premises are under public authority control
and occupation. Private parking firms don’t magic that into
“private relevant land” by stapling on a services contract. PoFA
Schedule 4 excludes land where parking is “subject to statutory
control”. School sites sit within the Council’s statutory
framework and governance; any parking
arrangements/authorisations arise from (and are constrained by)
public law duties, not private whim.
>
> Your “no TRO, therefore relevant land” line is garbage. The
absence of a TRO doesn’t prove relevance. “Statutory control” in
PoFA isn’t limited to TROs or byelaws. Show contemporaneous
documentary proof that, on 18/07/2025, this site wasn’t (a)
owned/controlled by the local authority for the purposes of
education; (b) managed by or on behalf of that authority; and
(c) regulated under any statutory framework/policy that governs
use of school premises (which it is). You’ve produced
nothing—just assertions.[/indent]
>
> Burden of proof is yours. If you want to rely on keeper
liability, you prove relevance with evidence, not bluster. That
means:
> [indent]• Land status/ownership (Land Registry or Council
confirmation);
> • The governing body/LA delegation showing who controls
parking and under what statutory footing;
> • A positive statement (with citations) that the parking of
vehicles at this location is not subject to any statutory
control/policy/instrument on the material date.[/indent]
>
> You’ve filed zero of the above. Keeper liability fails at the
starting gate.
>
> Even if (which is denied) this were relevant land, PoFA still
isn’t met. You haven’t exhibited the NtK or walked the assessor
through strict Schedule 4 compliance. Fail any of these and
keeper liability is dead:
> [indent]• 9(2)(a): A period of parking (ANPR entry/exit
≠ parking period).
> • 9(2)(b)–(d): Circumstances/charge/when payable (exact
statutory content).
> • 9(2)(e)(i): The invitation to the keeper (correct wording).
> • 9(2)(f): The warning of keeper liability after 28 days
(correct wording).
> • 9(2)(h): Creditor identity (who is the creditor?).
> • 9(2)(i), 9(5): Service within the relevant period and proof
of posting (PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2 = record of date of posting,
not just “generated”).[/indent]
>
> You’ve dumped a narrative and hid the paperwork. That’s not
compliance.
>
> Your boilerplate about PoFA 9(2)(f) is meaningless without the
actual notice. Put the full NtK in evidence and point to the
precise lines that meet each statutory limb—or stop pretending
you’ve established keeper liability.
>
> Reality check for the IAS: an assertion that “this is relevant
land” is not evidence. If the IAS is prepared to accept keeper
liability on a maintained school site without hard proof of
relevance and without line-by-line PoFA compliance, then you’re
not applying PoFA—you’re just waving it around.
>
> 1) 30-minute site concession + mandatory 10-minute
end-of-parking grace (PPSCoP 5.2) = still no breach
> Your own numbers now say 37 minutes on site. This location
runs a 30-minute drop-off/collection concession. Under PPSCoP
5.2, when a permitted period ends the motorist must be given a
minimum 10-minute grace period to leave—unless this is a genuine
“short stay area” where parking is never allowed for more than
30 minutes for anyone. It isn’t.
>
> Not a short-stay zone, so Note 2 doesn’t apply. This site’s
normal regime allows longer stays via Sippi/e-permit (selecting
up to 12 hours for £0.00 has already been documented). A car
park that routinely permits multi-hour stays is by definition
not a Note-2 “short stay area”. So the 10-minute end-of-parking
grace applies.
>
> Concession = permitted time. The 30-minute drop-off/collection
is an express permission the site advertises. It’s part of the
terms. The grace sits on top of that permitted time. Maths even
the IAS can follow: 30 + 10 = 40 minutes before any charge can
lawfully be triggered.
>
> Your figure buries your own case. You now claim 37 minutes
total. That’s within the 40-minute allowance. End of story: no
contravention on your own evidence.
>
> If you want to wriggle out of your own concession, prove it.
Produce dated, contemporaneous signage and policy for 18/07/2025
showing (a) the 30-minute concession didn’t apply on that date
or (b) this site was operating as a true Note-2 short-stay area
with a universal ≤30-minute max stay. If you can’t, you
don’t get to pretend the concession vanishes when you fancy
issuing a PCN.
>
> Ambiguity = your problem. Any fuzziness in your signs or
“policy” about when the concession applies is construed against
you. You drafted it; you live with it.
>
> Bottom line: 37 ≤ 40. Your own timing nukes the charge.
>
> This PCN has been issued incorrectly and must be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92372--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 1, 2025, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey!
Wow! that response looks epic and should make the other party
cry and give up, I forsee them ignoring any valid reason given
(based on my many interactions with councils, I assume these
guys would be the same if not worse)
1. I went to the school and took a photo of the signage, see
attached.
HTML https://ibb.co/dsb2Qbpz
HTML https://ibb.co/SwQN26Db
2. I asked the headteacher about ownership of the land/carpark,
he wasn't sure but said that the whole transition to the car
park being monitored had to go through the redbridge council.
The schools job is to ensure the upkeep of the car park as well
as use by parents but it is shared by the Fenford clubs next
door in the same block.
3. I installed SIPPI to see what it says for that location, but
I can't seem to find it each time I try and search, odd -
officialy if you are to stay more than 30 minutes (a time we
only known by asking the school) you have to register at the
Kiosk located in the school office. I see no mention of the
timing on the display, other than what they've stated in their
IAS reply.
Not sure if the above three points aid or means we can add to
the response you've written? Before i send it out
#Post#: 92423--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 1, 2025, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are dealing with an unregulated private firm of ex-clamper
thugs. Do not expect anything to do with rational thought.
Just send the appeal as advised.
#Post#: 92755--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 3, 2025, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Just send the appeal as advised.
>
--- End Quote ---
Appeal sent - it wouldnt let me copy and paste, literally had to
retype it all word for word.
1. Aside from me mentioning that there is a 30 minute free wait
time as advised to us by the school, was there anywhere else
that you were able to see this? as their PCN, prima facie
evidence and their signage has no mention of this, yet we've
stated or used this in our appeal?
2. I came across the following under 5.2 of the link below,
which states that even short-stays have the 10-minute grace
period applied.
We have concluded that the Code should require a grace period of
at least 10 minutes, in addition to the parking and
consideration periods, for all private parking before a parking
charge can be issued. This was generally considered to be a
reasonable period and aligns with the grace period for local
authority parking. It is required for all private parking,
including short stay areas, as drivers are equally as likely to
experience problems that lead to them overstaying in those
circumstances.
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice-explanatory-document-how-was-it-developed-and-what-will-it-change
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Do not expect anything to do with rational thought.
>
--- End Quote ---
Quite scary if the IAS does rejects this appeal, with the
reasoning and counter arguments provided, imagine one that
doesn't have the assistance and advice like that provided by
FTLA and yourself, as many including my self would have replied
with basic response using rational thought, what chance would we
have, 0!
#Post#: 92766--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 4, 2025, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IAS favour less than 1 in 20 appeals.
In particular, IAS hate appeals based around non PoFA compliant
NtK's.
If there's one thing they hate more, it's appeals based on the
'not relevant land' argument.
We've all seen appeals to IAS rejected where the alleged
contravention has happened smack bang in the middle of an
airport (ie clearly not relevant land.)
Some parking companies (who deal with airport parking etc) have
deliberately moved from POPLA to IAS as POPLA started to
correctly apply the law in said situations.
If your argument is strong then IAS will simply skip over that
argument in their response.
Your argument is strong so don't expect it to be correctly
addressed - meaning, don't expect IAS to ask the parking company
to provide strict proof that the area under control is not under
statutory control.
IAS are in fact part of the mechanism which is used to place
members of the public under pressure to pay.
It is better that you start to get these facts firmly placed in
your mind at this stage rather than hanging out for a 1 in 20
decision from a non-independent appeals company who have no
interest in your true legal position.
They just want the money.
#Post#: 92775--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 4, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> IAS favour less than 1 in 20 appeals.
>
> If your argument is strong then IAS will simply skip over that
argument in their response.
>
> Your argument is strong so don't expect it to be correctly
addressed - meaning, don't expect IAS to ask the parking company
to provide strict proof that the area under control is not under
statutory control.
>
> It is better that you start to get these facts firmly placed
in your mind at this stage rather than hanging out for a 1 in 20
decision from a non-independent appeals company who have no
interest in your true legal position.
>
--- End Quote ---
Wow! that's my optimisim and hope changed instantly lol :( A
shame, meaning I'll be in this for the long run.. I know you'll
hate this, but I think that maybe I should have taken them up on
the £20 offer to close the case, and it wouldn't have been me
payign £60 or £100 or more. Although I'm baffled as to why they
offered such a low reduction, to avoid going down the IAS route,
do they get hit with some fees if it goes via IAS?
#Post#: 92776--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 4, 2025, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IAS costs them £23 each time, I believe.
It’s completely normal that parking companies, and then the IAS
in particular, completely ignore totally valid appeal points.
It’s a numbers game. Significant numbers of people then pay up.
Generally people who don’t and play the game with support from
people here pay nothing.
Yes, £20 might have been a good deal given the time you will now
need to spend on this, but if you don’t believe you should pay a
penny then it’s worth sticking with on principle.
#Post#: 92779--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 4, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Yes, £20 might have been a good deal given the time you will
now need to spend on this, but if you don’t believe you should
pay a penny then it’s worth sticking with on principle.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm all for principal, hence why I'm going the long haul on
this, as I had started doing with council PCN's and learnt a
lot, although this is the first with private PCNs, hence a lot
of nervousness as the concepts/rules/regs are above my head -
just hope that get through this with £0 payment and not
something where I end up having to pay more then the original
fine.
The advise on what to put in appeals received so far from this
forum has been huge, I can tell the likes of b789, has spent
time to knock up the response and that to very quickly, as
opposed to a copy and paste, which means a lot.
#Post#: 92786--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 4, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the IAS reject the appeal, so what? You have been told that
this is a kangaroo court.
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is not independent in any
meaningful sense. “IAS” and the “International Parking
Community” (IPC) are trading names of the same company, United
Trade and Industry Limited (UNITI). In its own privacy notice
the IPC states that it also “uses” the trading names “The
Independent Appeals Service (IAS)” and “The Independent Parking
Committee (IPC)”. In other words, the trade association that
sets the rules (IPC) and the appeal body that judges compliance
(IAS) sit inside a single corporate vehicle. That is a textbook
structural conflict of interest.
The venture was created and fronted by the same small circle.
Companies House records show that UNITI was previously called
“Independent Parking Committee Ltd”; its officers have included
William Kenneth Hurley (current director/secretary) and John
Llewellyn Gladstone Davies (director until 28 May 2017). The
person with significant control today is Will Hurley Ltd, with
≥75% of shares/votes and the right to appoint/remove
directors. This concentration of control over both the trade
body and the appeals arm undermines any claim of independence.
Crucially, there is a direct, documented link to Gladstones
Solicitors—the bulk-litigation firm widely used by private
parking operators. Companies House confirms that John L G Davies
is a current director of Gladstones Solicitors Limited and that
William K Hurley served as a director there from 23 May 2011
until 28 May 2017. This is the same pair who founded and led the
IPC/IAS ecosystem. The IPC itself promotes Gladstones as a
partner and headline conference sponsor, describing them as a
firm specialising in enforcement and litigation of unpaid
private parking charges for both IPC and BPA operators. The
practical effect is an ecosystem in which the trade body (IPC)
and its appeals badge (IAS) are housed in UNITI, and—when an IAS
appeal fails—operators instruct a closely associated law firm
(Gladstones) to issue or threaten county court claims. Whatever
the formal Chinese walls, the optics are “judge, rule-maker, and
prosecutor” rolled together.
Process features amplify the concern: IAS assessors are
anonymous; decisions are brief; there is no open body of
precedent; motorists have no appeal from a rejection, while
operators retain the option to litigate even after a motorist
“win”. None of that resembles a balanced, open tribunal.
Combined with the ownership and partner links above, it is
bleedin’ obvious this is not a fair, arm’s-length arrangement.
Finally, from a consumer-protection lens, the set-up raises
clear red flags. The same corporate group brands the rule-setter
(IPC) and the adjudicator (IAS), while a partner law firm that
has been led by the same principals handles bulk enforcement for
the operators. That structure invites scrutiny under modern UK
consumer and competition principles (now consolidated in the
DMCC regime) as to whether independence claims and fairness
representations are potentially misleading. To be clear, the
point here is structural: it is the documented cross-ownership,
officer history, and commercial partnering that create the
conflict.
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Yes, £20 might have been a good deal given the time you will
now need to spend on this, but if you don’t believe you should
pay a penny then it’s worth sticking with on principle.
>
--- End Quote ---
What time to spend on this? We do the bulk of there work and all
you have to do is follow the advice. The vast majority of the
advice is template stuff.
--- Quote from: LondonTraveller84 link ---
>
> I'm all for principal, hence why I'm going the long haul on
this, as I had started doing with council PCN's and learnt a
lot, although this is the first with private PCNs, hence a lot
of nervousness as the concepts/rules/regs are above my head -
just hope that get through this with £0 payment and not
something where I end up having to pay more then the original
fine.
>
--- End Quote ---
I note you are still referring to this as a "fine". I will give
you £50 for every occurrence of that word you can evidence in
any of the correspondence you've received over this to date. By
calling it a "fine", you are indicating to these skank companies
that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and can
likely be intimidated into paying up out of ignorance or fear.
Why would you want to pay a speculative invoice for £20 from an
unregulated private parking firm for an alleged breach of
contract by the driver? Do you simply pay any old "invoice" just
because it offers a discount, even if you don't owe anything in
the first place? Of course you don't.
You are the victim an attempted scam to fleece you of anything
they can get from you. These private parking firms issue over
40,000 PCNs every single day. Think about how many recipients
simply think of them as a "fine" and simply pay up at the mugs
discount rate. Most are never challenged and the vast majority
that end up being challenged int he small claims court end up as
CCJs in default because the recipient has no idea how to deal
with this.
Here, we deal with this day in and day out. We are well versed
in the tactics used and have a good armoury to challenge them.
There are extremely few that are not won and of the those very
few, most end up paying far less than the amount being claimed.
These firms never really want it to go all the way to a hearing
in front of a judge because they know they are more likely to
get a spanking. Even when they win, it's usually a pyrrhic
victory as it has almost certainly cost them much miore than
they can hope to recover.
But you are dealing with a very greedy cabal of incestuous firms
whose snouts are well embedding in the trough that is this
industry.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page