DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 93224--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: DWMB2 Date: October 7, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In this case I'd be more tempted to lead with, and make more of
a point of, #4
UKCPS have openly said they are not using PoFA, it even says
that explicitly on the Notice. We've seen a few successful
appeals at the IAS recently on similar points, so I'd say it's
potentially worth making the point a bit more explicitly.
#Post#: 93228--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Kbr1 Date: October 7, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your help, I'll proceed to make an IAS appeal!
#Post#: 95522--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Kbr1 Date: October 25, 2025, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello, I've made an appeal to the IAS and I've received a
response
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 22/10/2025 11:18:03.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 15/09/2025.
The ticket was issued on 31/08/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The Parking Charge Notice was issued as a result of the vehicle
stopping in an area where stopping is clearly prohibited at all
times. The site in question, located at Leeds City Station, is
under active enforcement due to safety and congestion concerns.
This location is designated as a strict “No Stopping” zone, and
enforcement is permitted in accordance with the IPC Code of
Practice, which recognises that such restrictions may be
necessary in areas with high pedestrian footfall or complex
traffic flow.
The signage on site meets the requirements set out in the IPC
Code of Practice in terms of visibility, positioning, and
clarity of terms. The photographic evidence provided by the
operator shows that multiple warning signs are placed at
prominent positions throughout the location, clearly stating
that stopping is not permitted and that a Parking Charge Notice
will be issued to vehicles found to be in breach. The signs are
legible, in plain language, and displayed in a manner that would
be visible to a reasonable driver. Signage does not need to be
read in full for a contract to be formed; it is sufficient that
the signs are prominent and convey the essential terms clearly.
This is consistent with the findings in ParkingEye v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67, which established that clear signage displaying
a contractual term is enforceable, even in the context of
private land.
Your assertion that the operator must provide strict proof of
signage location, calibration records, and a detailed landowner
contract is noted. However, the IPC appeals process is designed
to assess whether, on the balance of probabilities, a
contravention occurred and the Parking Charge Notice was issued
correctly. Operators who are members of the IPC are required to
hold and maintain valid landowner authority and to adhere to the
obligations set out in Section 14 of the Code of Practice. The
operator has confirmed, as part of their accreditation, that
such authority is in place and that enforcement at this location
is properly authorised. The Appeals Service is satisfied that
the operator has the legal standing to issue Parking Charge
Notices and pursue them in its own name.
In relation to the duration of the stop, it is important to
clarify that grace periods or consideration periods do not apply
in no-stopping zones. These are specifically excluded under the
IPC Code of Practice for locations where stopping is never
permitted. Whether the stop lasted seconds or minutes is not
relevant—the act of stopping in breach of clearly displayed
signage is itself sufficient to constitute a contravention of
the advertised terms.
If the operator is not seeking to rely on the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability, compliance with
the timelines and wording in Schedule 4 is not necessary. The
operator may instead pursue the keeper on the balance of
probabilities if no driver is named, a position that has been
upheld in numerous appeal cases. If PoFA is being relied upon,
then the timing of the Notice to Keeper and its content would be
assessed for compliance. In this case, there is no indication
that PoFA is the basis for liability.
I need to respond by the 29/10/2025 but I'm unsure if I need to
submit a response or refer case to arbitration
Thank you
#Post#: 95527--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: jfollows Date: October 25, 2025, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The operator may instead pursue the keeper on the balance
of probabilities if no driver is named, a position that has been
upheld in numerous appeal cases[/quote]
is a lie.
[quote] You should send the following as your IAS appeal. Not
much chance of that being successful either, but worth a try and
it will cost them to challenges it unless they concede.[/quote]
Be happy that your appeal cost UKCPS something like £23.
You will now get useless letters from debt collectors, which you
should ignore.
Come back here when you receive a Letter of Claim.
This is a well-trodden path which will result in you paying £0.
In the meantime, UKCPS will try and frighten you into paying
them.
#Post#: 95567--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: b789 Date: October 25, 2025, 2:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical IAS kangaroo court, male bovine excrement. I advise you
to respond with the following, verbatim:
[quote]If the IAS assessor is legally trained (questionable),
they would know liability is the threshold issue: this is
railway land governed by byelaws, not “relevant land” under
PoFA, the driver is unidentified, and the operator expressly
disavows PoFA, therefore there is no lawful route to hold the
Keeper liable and the enquiry ends there.
Any attempt to conjure liability by asserting that the Keeper
was “probably” the driver is a legal fiction flatly contrary to
the very purpose of PoFA (which was enacted to remove such
inferences), repeatedly rejected in persuasive authorities
including VCS v Edward (2023) and the consistent line of county
court appeal decisions disapproving Elliott v Loake/AJH Films
misuse, and it would be irrational and perverse to proceed to
signage or “no stopping” merits when the claimant has no cause
of action against the Keeper at all.[/quote]
If it were myself responding, I would go even further and use
this instead, such is my contempt for the IAS:
[quote]If the anonymous IAS “assessor” were genuinely legally
trained, never mind the solicitor or barrister they pretend to
be, they would recognise that liability must first exist before
any alleged contractual breach can even be discussed. The
operator admits PoFA does not apply, as this is alleged
contravention was at a railway station and therefore not
relevant land.
Without PoFA and without an identified driver, there is simply
no lawful route to Keeper liability. To fabricate liability “on
the balance of probabilities” is not only contrary to statute
but flies in the face of persuasive case law such as VCS v
Edward (2023), where the court confirmed that no such
presumption exists. The whole point of PoFA was to prevent
precisely this kind of inference.
To proceed on that basis would expose the IAS’s assessment
process as legally incompetent at best, and institutionally
dishonest at worst — a parody of legal reasoning conducted by
anonymous baristas masquerading as barristers.[/quote]
Your choice.
#Post#: 95589--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Kbr1 Date: October 25, 2025, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect I'll submit and I'll come back when I get the letters
from the collectors!
Thanks everyone
#Post#: 95628--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: b789 Date: October 26, 2025, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please, you do not need to show us or tell us about the useless
debt recovery letters. If the IAS appeal is rejected, just show
us the rejection reason.
Ignore the debt collector letters. Shred them and use as hamster
bedding for all anyone cares. Come back if/when you receive a
Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 97200--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: Imogen Date: November 7, 2025, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Removed.
#Post#: 97201--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: DWMB2 Date: November 7, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you would like advice on your own case, please start your own
thread.
#Post#: 97202--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Parking charge - no stopping - Leeds city station
By: jfollows Date: November 7, 2025, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/house-rules/
[quote]We operate some "house rules" on the site.
1. We operate a "one case, one thread" rule. This means that you
should keep any posts relating to one case (one incident of
speeding, one PCN, etc) to a single thread. Do not start
multiple topics on the same case.[/quote]
Please start your own thread.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page