DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: October 2, 2025, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AS expected. Never mind. The IAS decision is not binding on you.
DO NOT pay anything. You can safely ignore all forthcoming debt
recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything
except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gull
tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
If you want to have a bit of fun with this cabal of incestuous
firm (IPC/IAS), you could try sending the following to The
Independent Appeals Service (IAS) – Head of Adjudication/Head of
Legal:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: IAS decision – proof of assessor’s legal
qualification and authorship
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> PCN: [PCN ref]
> Vehicle: [VRM]
> Site/Date: [Site / Date]
>
> Your decision letter asserts that the adjudicator is “legally
qualified (a barrister or solicitor)”. You also rely on the
proposition that “it is a criminal offence to impersonate a
solicitor”, yet the adjudicator remains anonymous. That position
is untenable. A representation about professional status must be
capable of verification.
>
> Accordingly, please provide—within 14 days—verifiable proof of
the decision-maker’s legal qualification and authorship in this
case, or confirm that the statement about “legally qualified”
assessors is not relied upon in relation to this decision.
>
> Required minimum particulars (this case only):
> [indent]• The full name of the adjudicator who decided my
appeal.
> • Whether they are a solicitor or barrister.
> • Their regulator and public register details sufficient for
independent verification:
> [indent]• If a solicitor: SRA roll number and current
practising status on the SRA register (on the date of decision).
> • If a barrister: BSB register entry and current practising
status (on the date of decision).[/indent]
> • A statement signed by your Head of Legal/Head of
Adjudication confirming that the named individual personally
determined this appeal and that their practising status (above)
was valid on the decision date.
> • Your conflicts policy and confirmation that no conflict of
interest existed for the named adjudicator in relation to the
operator.[/indent]
>
> If you maintain a policy of anonymity, then at the very least
provide a signed attestation from your Head of Legal/Head of
Adjudication (with their own SRA/BSB registration details)
certifying that:
> [indent]• The named decision-maker is identified on your
internal records;
> • That person is (and was on the decision date) a current
solicitor or barrister; and
> • They personally authored the decision in my case.[/indent]
>
> Please note: a generic assertion that “the IAS has seen”
qualifications, or reliance on undisclosed material, is
insufficient. A representation that an adjudicator is “legally
qualified” is a specific, verifiable factual claim. If it cannot
be independently verified for the individual who decided this
case, it risks constituting a misleading commercial practice
under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
(DMCC, Part 4). The CMA can now directly enforce consumer law
and impose significant penalties (including up to 10% of global
turnover) for breaches. I therefore require verifiable
particulars of the decision-maker’s legal qualification, or your
explicit withdrawal of that representation in this case.
>
> If you refuse disclosure, please state the precise legal basis
for refusal and whether you contend that anonymisation overrides
the need to substantiate a professional status claim relied upon
in the decision. In that event, please also confirm whether IAS
withdraws or disapplies the “legally qualified” claim in
relation to my case.
>
> Absent satisfactory verification, I reserve my position to:
> [indent]• refer this to the Competition and Markets Authority
for potential enforcement under the Digital Markets, Competition
and Consumers Act 2024 (misleading commercial practices);
> • notify the SRA or BSB (as applicable) if professional status
has been misrepresented;
> • make a report to Trading Standards regarding misleading
claims presented to consumers; and
> • place your response (or non-response) before the court if
proceedings are issued.[/indent]
>
> Please provide the verification requested within 14 days or
confirm that you withdraw the “legally qualified adjudicator”
representation in this case.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 92607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: October 2, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Love this. Thanks so much for all your help and reassurance.
#Post#: 99736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: November 25, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
As you predicted, my son has now received a letter from Trace
Debt Recovery, which I will ignore. I guess I'm just looking for
some reassurance on his behalf and what's likely to happen next.
Thanks again
#Post#: 99746--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2025, 10:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To reassure you, I repeat the response I gave in the first
paragraph of reply #10
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parking-control-management-pcn-parking-within-a-restricted-area-high-point-villa/msg92544/#msg92544<br
/>above.
A debt collector is not a party other than any contract
allegedly breached by the driver. They cannot issue a claim or
anything. you can safely ignore them. nothing will happen.
Come back when an LoC is issued.
Don't be low-hanging fruit.
#Post#: 108058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: January 30, 2026, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
HTML https://u.cubeupload.com/Stuevs1971/20260130173644.jpg
HTML https://u.cubeupload.com/Stuevs1971/20260130173644.jpg
My son has now received a Letter Before Claim, screenshot in the
link.
Thanks again for all the advice you've provided so far.
#Post#: 108226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: February 1, 2026, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Thinking about this, I thought this was an LoC, but it's a
Letter Before Claim.
I assume that this is therefore different and another scare
tactic that he should ignore until the LoC is sent ?
Thanks
#Post#: 108238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 1, 2026, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They’re the same thing.
“of” or “before” makes no difference
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf
What it’s called does not matter. What it says does.
#Post#: 108346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Control Management PCN-Parking within a restricted
area -High Point Village UB3
DIR By: Faye66
Date: February 2, 2026, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply.
This doesn't look like a standard LoC, more another demand to
pay with a threat to increase the debt if no action is taken.
Can you advise what action he should take, if any, and what's
likely to happen next ?
Thank you
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page