DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93711--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 11, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
All,
Thank you for your detailed insight into the IAS and
explanation, does look like a shambles and is a shame that no
one can do anything and that they have backing from a partner
law firm which basically make it even harder for your average
joe who decides to appeal :( and I shall not refer to it as a
fine again (promise)
1. I received the following on 7th October, I assume the parking
agency have sent this onto the IAS now.
'We can confirm that we have received notification of your
appeal lodged with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). As a
result, we are unable to address the points raised in your
recent contact.
Please note that you have now reached the end of our internal
appeals procedure. Any further correspondence regarding your
appeal will come directly from the IAS upon completion of their
review. '
2. I received the following a Debt recovery letter! dated 29th
September, but received it in the post a day or two ago on the
7th/8th October. This has been sent out while I am still in the
appeal process ie my reply to the IAS below was sent on 3rd
October - I thought this stage wouldn't be till well after the
IAS has made their judgement?
- It also says that 'This is your 4th October', not sure what
this implied?
- That I have until the 13th October to pay?
HTML https://ibb.co/HL53fkhS
HTML https://ibb.co/wND9VPsW
I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them
know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was
sent out? Also I'll have to wait for teh IAS to reply with their
judgment.
[member=26]b789[/member] just seen your signature and that
you're away for the bulk of this month *I've gone into panic
mode* needed your guidance as I can see them responding and
letters like the above appearing :(. Appreciate you have limited
access but hopefully you'll be able to review alongside others
on this forum.
#Post#: 93717--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 11, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LondonTraveller84 link ---
>
> I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them
know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was
sent out?
>
--- End Quote ---
You DO NOT make any contact whatsoever with a useless debt
recovery company, EVER!!!! The debt collector is not a party to
any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are
powerless and their only function is to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of
ignorance and fear.
#Post#: 93726--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: October 11, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=LondonTraveller84
link=topic=7474.msg93711#msg93711 date=1760199838]
> I assume I'll call this debt recovery on Monday and let them
know we are still in the appeal stage, so not sure why this was
sent out?
>
--- End Quote ---
You DO NOT make any contact whatsoever with a useless debt
recovery company, EVER!!!! The debt collector is not a party to
any contract allegedly breached by the driver. They are
powerless and their only function is to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of
ignorance and fear.
[/quote]
Great to hear from you :D - There will be two things going on at
the same time, the IAS appeal and the debt company following up
with letters and raising their 'invoice' unware there is a
appeal ongoing?
If the IAS come back stating they go against my appeal, what do
I do next? I assume at this stage the debt recovery letters were
supposed to arrive?
#Post#: 93793--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 12, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to be clear - The debt company can be totally ignored. Do
nothing. Do not answer calls from them. Do not write letters to
them. Do not even go to their website.
#Post#: 93813--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: October 12, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the IAS appeal is unsuccessful, so what? The IAS is nothing
but a kangaroo court. Their decision is not binding on you.
You continue to ignore all debt recovery letters and wait and
see if they ever issue a Letter of Claim (LoC). If they do, you
come back here and we will advise further.
#Post#: 100554--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: December 1, 2025, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay so heres the IAS final decision - Which I am sure you
expected no difference.
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in
a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where
the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and
to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Appellant has
provided no documentary evidence in support of her claim that
the school is subject to statutory control and therefore does
not fall within the definition of relevant land within PoFA. The
onus is on the Appellant who is making this argument to do so.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established
that this site is not relevant land.
Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the
signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am
satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the
attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply
to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such
that either vehicles must be registered with a valid e-permit or
have a valid exemption which is obtained by drivers entering
their full, correct VRN into the kiosks located in reception or
being registered via Sippi. In the photographs provided to me I
can see that the Appellant remained on the site for 37 minutes
and in the data provided I can see that the Appellant's VRN was
not registered for a valid e-permit or exemption, which the
Appellant does not dispute. It is the driver's responsibility to
ensure that they conform with the terms and conditions of the
Operator's signage displayed at this site.
Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into
account. The Appellant has misunderstood the application of the
10 minute grace period. This only applies to a permitted period
of parking, which this was not. It cannot simply be added to the
30 minute consideration period that the Operator affords drivers
on this site, in the way that the Appellant has done. The
signage clearly sets out the terms and conditions that apply on
this site and the Appellant has provided no adequate
justification for remaining for 37 minutes without complying
with those terms and conditions. As such, on the basis of the
evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked
in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN
was correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this
Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that
the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with
the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed."
Any point in assessing their response to see if any points are
incorrect and flawed?
Also what happens now, do i await the parking company to contact
me again and I ignore?
#Post#: 100565--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You were warned that the IAS is a corrupt arm of the same
company that owns the IPC.
Yes, the supposed assessors response is riddled with errors you
can bank for complaints and any later pre-action/court stage.
Key faults:
1. Burden of proof inverted on “relevant land”
They say you had to prove the site is under statutory
control. Wrong way round. The operator is asserting PoFA keeper
liability; therefore the operator must prove the land is
“relevant” (not excluded). The adjudicator accepted bare
assertions (“not under statutory control/no TRO”) with zero
primary evidence (title, delegation, byelaws/policy position).
That’s a material error of law/principle.
2. Keeper liability accepted without strict PoFA proof
They don’t cite or analyse the NtK line-by-line against
Schedule 4 para 9. No findings on: period of parking (vs
entry/exit), creditor identity, mandatory invitation/warning
wording, service within the relevant period with proof of
posting (not generation). They simply declare compliance. That’s
inadequate reasoning and contrary to the “strict compliance”
test.
3. 30-minute allowance mischaracterised as “consideration” to
dodge the 10-minute grace
They state the 10-minute grace only applies to a “permitted
period of parking” and claim your 30 minutes is just
“consideration”. That’s a factual/legal misstep. The site’s own
regime describes a 30-minute drop-off/collection allowance—a
permitted stay, not pre-contract browsing. If it’s permitted
time, the PPSCoP 5.2 grace applies (unless the site is a true
≤30-minute “short stay area,” which this isn’t). Their
entire dismissal hinges on that relabelling.
4. “Short stay area” carve-out never established
They rely on “no grace because not a permitted period,” but
don’t find (with evidence) that this location is a Note-2
short-stay site (global max ≤30 minutes). The operator’s
own model allows much longer Sippi/e-permit stays. Without a
finding that this is universally capped at ≤30 minutes,
the carve-out can’t apply.
5. Landowner authority waved through on assertions
They make a conclusory finding that the operator has
authority, while the operator refused to exhibit the agreement
(or PPSCoP s14 minimums). Accepting “secret” or non-exhibited
authority is procedurally weak and contrary to the Code’s
requirement to evidence landowner authority (albeit redactions
allowed for sensitivities).
6. Signage: no analysis of entrance prominence/onerous term
They state signage is “sufficient” without addressing whether
the onerous requirement to go inside to kiosks or use a
beacon/app was clearly and prominently communicated at the point
of entry (and whether the charge was prominent). “Sufficient” is
conclusory; it doesn’t grapple with the Beavis prominence test
for unusual/onerous terms.
7. ANPR ≠ parking period; no continuity finding
They equate perimeter timestamps to a proved contravention,
ignoring that ANPR does not record a period of parking (PoFA
language) and that the alleged 37 minutes is within
30-plus-grace if the 30 minutes is a concession (as above). The
decision sidesteps that logic error by re-labelling the
concession.
8. Debt-recovery escalation during ADR ignored
You evidenced a DRA letter dated 29/09 while IAS was live.
The decision takes no account of prejudicial escalation during
ADR—useful for IPC complaint / later conduct arguments
(unreasonable behaviour).
The decision. It’s not binding on you. In the meantime,e ignore
all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless
to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear.
If they later send a Letter of Claim (LoC), we will deal with
that. Still waiting for a response to the FoI and the councils
view on the status of the land.
#Post#: 100590--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: Kharas1
Date: December 1, 2025, 3:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Stick with it as regards fighting this one, the advice on here
is spot on and if followed will be successful in this case. It’s
important to hold your nerve, it can seem scary and it certainly
isn’t a quick process but it will be successful in the end.
We all have to fight back against the parking scum and their pet
debt collectors and legal wannabes- you’re in the right place to
do so.
Put them through all the hoops until they finally give up and
with the help of this forum, look for and exploit any
opportunity to complain, maybe even seek compensation for any
illegal actions, the support will be there if you have the will
to see it through.
I’ve helped a couple of people using advice on here and have a
couple ongoing currently, steel yourself and join the fight
back.
#Post#: 128791--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: Megafish7272
Date: August 25, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
First time using this forum, so not sure i should be putting
this as a reply or a new post but i think it will help anyone
else having issues with this same parking area and who’ll
probably follow the same path as me.
NtK was issued 16/08/25 with the incident occurring 09-10/08/25.
The first NtK was received 22/08/25.
A NtK/PCN was issued which was appealed using the following:
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, 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. CPM 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.
CPM have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate,
so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and
cancel the PCN.
As expected, the appeal wasn’t accepted and I have ignored all
the debt collection letters.
Just to clarify, at no point in this process has the driver been
identified.
I’ve now received a letter of claim from bwlegal which notes
‘letter of claim-final notice before legal action escalation’.
They expect a reply via a reply form or for me to pay off the
NtK.
Firstly, is this the actual letter of claim or just the
precursor to it?
The reply form does allow me dispute the debt, which i intend to
do, but i was hoping i could get some advice to avoid making a
complete arse out of myself.
There’s a box for disputing the debt (box D) and a box where i
can request more documents or information (box I).
For box D, i plan on writing:
I dispute the debt because 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. As your
Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the
requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of
the vehicle liable for the charge.
For Box I, what would be the best documents to request? Land
ownership details?
Any advice will be appreciated
#Post#: 128794--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 25, 2026, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you've received a Letter of Claim, firstly please post it
here, and secondly it's just a letter. You do not have to and
should not use their silly "form" to send your reply. You simply
send a letter according to
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1,
--- Quote ---
> the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14 days in
a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a very
complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to whether
the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the reasons
why, together with an explanation as to which facts and parts of
the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
and in which you say what you want to say.
They will essentially ignore anything you say anyway. At this
stage you're just creating a paper trail so that in due course
the courts can see that you engaged properly.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page