DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85242--------------------------------------------------
Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted area
-High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 11, 2025, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
My son has been sent this PCN for an apparent parking
transgression at High Point Village.
The evidence they have shows six shots of him one second apart,
stopping in a bay to let his girlfriend out. He was stationary
in the bay for less than a minute, letting her out then leaving
the site.
I have read the other threads on this forum but would be
grateful for a draft appeal reply he can send to make it clear
that he will defend this charge. The PCN also states that a
Notice to Keeper was previously sent, but this is the first
correspondence he has received.
Appreciate any help with this.
Thanks
#Post#: 85337--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal anyway, with the following, but only as the Keeper. If
you are handling this on behalf of your son, then it has to all
be done in his name. You cannot sign off on anything "on behalf
of...".
This bottom-dwelling firm is an IPC member so this is most
likely going to go all the way to a county court claim. However,
the odds of it ever reaching a courtroom are minimal. If you
follow the advice, the Keeper won't be paying a penny to UKPCM.
For now, simply send the following appeal, preferably by email
or using their appeals webform:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Appeal against PCN [PCN Number] – Vehicle [VRM]
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I dispute
your Parking Charge Notice in its entirety.
>
> This is the first correspondence I have received regarding
this matter. Your letter claims that a previous Notice to Keeper
was sent, but I have never received it. You are therefore put to
strict proof of posting and service.
>
> No parking occurred. The vehicle stopped briefly in a bay
solely to allow a passenger to alight, remaining stationary for
less than one minute before leaving the site. Such a short,
incidental stop is not "parking" and cannot give rise to any
contractual charge.
>
> Furthermore:
>
> [indent]• Your own timestamped images show a period of less
than one minute between the first and last photograph. This
falls well within the consideration period required under
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP). Issuing a PCN in such circumstances is predatory and
contrary to the Code.
> • As the location is subject to vehicle access and stopping
restrictions, your reliance on PoFA to hold the keeper liable is
also defective. If you believe PoFA applies, you are put to
strict proof of full compliance with every requirement of
Schedule 4. Absent a valid NtK served within the statutory
timeframe, there is no keeper liability.
> • The driver will not be identified and no assumptions may be
drawn.[/indent]
>
> Given the above, this PCN must be cancelled. Should you reject
this appeal, you are required to allow me the right that I may
refer the matter to independent adjudication.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
>
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 12, 2025, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much for this b789. I'll follow your valuable advice
and keep you updated.
Much appreciated
#Post#: 86488--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, as expected they have rejected the appeal, I've attached
their response which was emailed to me today.
Is it best to do nothing now and ignore the expected threatening
letters ?
They mention various signs on site prohibiting drop
off/collection. Unfortunately I can't verify what is displayed,
but is this anything to be concerned about ?
Again, all advice very much appreciated.
#Post#: 86493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: August 20, 2025, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Use the following as your IAS appeal:
--- Quote ---
> IAS Appeal Submission – PCN [PCN Number] – Vehicle [VRM]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]1. 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.
>
> 2. 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.
>
> 3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP. In this case, the operator’s
own timestamped images show a stop of less than one minute—well
within the minimum consideration period required under Section
5.1 of the PPSCoP. Issuing a PCN in such circumstances is
predatory and contrary to the Code.
>
> 4. 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. In my original appeal, I
made clear that no valid NtK was ever received. The operator is
therefore put to strict proof of full compliance with every
requirement of Schedule 4 of PoFA, including mandatory wording,
timelines, and service. If the NtK was not properly served
within the statutory timeframe, then keeper liability does not
apply.
>
> 5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system). The operator
has failed to provide this in response to my initial appeal.
>
> 6. 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.[/indent]
>
> 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 ---
#Post#: 86594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 21, 2025, 1:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again b789 for your detailed response.
I'll let you know how it goes.
#Post#: 86771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 22, 2025, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I submitted my son's IAS appeal and the parking operator has now
responded. Is there anything I should add before submitting for
arbitration? Is there anything in their evidence we should be
concerned about ?
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ftlA1TV
Thank you
#Post#: 86778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: August 22, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is an IAS appeal. The odds of the IAS accepting your appeal
are less than 4%. They have not evidenced their contract with
the landowner to operate. Their signs are prohibitive and cannot
form a contract.
You can respond with the following, for what it's worth:
--- Quote ---
> The operator has failed to provide any evidence of a contract
flowing from the landowner that grants them the legal authority
to issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name. This is not a
technicality — it is a fundamental requirement. Without it, they
have no standing and no cause of action.
>
> I expect the IAS’s usual trick will be to claim they have
“seen” the contract but that I am not allowed to see it. This is
laughable. In any court of law, such a stunt would be thrown out
instantly. Evidence that cannot be tested by the other party is
not evidence at all — it is hearsay dressed up as procedure. The
idea that a supposedly independent appeals body can rely on
secret, unseen documents is yet more proof of the IAS’s
deceitful and opaque practices. If the operator truly had the
authority they claim, they would have no hesitation in producing
the contract in full, unredacted, for scrutiny. Their refusal
speaks volumes.
>
> Even if they could prove authority, their signage is incapable
of forming a contract. It does not offer anything — it simply
threatens:
>
> [indent]“No stopping on this road. £100 parking charge if you
stop. Payable within 28 days. Non-payment will incur an
additional £60. DVLA data may be obtained.”[/indent]
>
> That is not an offer; it is a prohibition backed by a penalty.
There is no service, no facility, no benefit — nothing that
could amount to consideration under contract law. The only way
to “accept” this so‑called offer is to commit the very act
the sign forbids. That is not contractual consent; it is
entrapment.
>
> The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis upheld a charge only
where there was a clear benefit to the motorist — in that case,
a free period of parking — and where the charge served a
legitimate interest. Here, there is no benefit whatsoever, and
the only “interest” served is the operator’s own revenue
generation. The Beavis ruling specifically warned against
applying its reasoning to cases involving pure penalties.
>
> The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that terms be fair and
transparent. A sign that threatens a charge without offering
anything in return is neither. It is misleading, aggressive, and
fails the test of fairness.
>
> If the IAS chooses to accept this as a valid contract despite
the absence of landowner authority and the absence of any
genuine contractual offer, it will be ignoring established
principles of contract law, consumer protection legislation, and
the clear limits set out in Beavis. Such a decision would be
further evidence of the IAS’s bias and lack of credibility, and
will be cited in submissions to the government’s ongoing enquiry
into the deceitful practices of the private parking industry
ahead of the implementation of the Private Parking (Code of
Practice) Act 2019.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 86829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: August 22, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is brilliant, thanks so much b789.
#Post#: 92470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: October 2, 2025, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, as you predicted,the IAS dismissed my son's appeal. What
should I expect to happen next ?
IAS response pasted below
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the
adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The
adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has
a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of
each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally
binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they
are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or
solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their
understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider
the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other
drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal
also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and
can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating
circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which
was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear
that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that
a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the
terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being
on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments,
it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the
Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in
accordance with the displayed terms as alleged by the Operator,
having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to
the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third
party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions
of parking are properly complied with. Due to the nature of the
terms, whether the vehicle was left unattended at any point is
largely irrelevant to this appeal. I am satisfied on the
evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue
and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the
location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been
identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided
and that the correct Appellant is pursued. I note the
Appellant's comments with regards to the Adjudicator's identity
however there is no requirement for me to be named and I would
further point out to them that it is a criminal offence to
impersonate a solicitor.
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie
case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's
circumstances, once liability has been established, only the
Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge
based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is
dismissed. "
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator
has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge
was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is
unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment
of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should
consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page