DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91768--------------------------------------------------
F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: joebloggs90
Date: September 27, 2025, 2:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bewl Water FAQ itself says parking is charged from 08:00:
HTML https://www.bewlwater.co.uk/faq/
Registered keeper has now received a £100 PCN from First Parking
LLP for Bewl Water.
The notice says the car entered at 06:46 and left at 09:17 (151
minutes). The allegation is that payment wasn’t made for the
full duration.
The alleged driver has a Ringo receipt showing payment from
08:03–09:03. The car left at 09:17.
So it looks like 3 minutes late to start and 14 minutes over at
the end. But surely there should be a grace period either side?
It’s highly confusing – the website itself shows 08:00, which is
exactly why payment wasn’t made before then. Registered keeper
has no idea what this clear signage is outside Bewl Water about
private land that letter aludes to. Keeper is only aware that
there is on grounds parking which begins at 08:00 which was
largely respected.
To make things worse, the letter is dated 17/09/2025, but it was
only found on the doormat this morning (27/09/2025). It says the
£100 full charge must be paid by 01/10/2025 at 11:42am, which
doesn’t leave much time to deal with it properly.
How does this add up to a £100 bill? It makes no sense at all.
HTML https://ibb.co/NgxGH8K8
#Post#: 91782--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: jfollows
Date: September 28, 2025, 1:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First off, search the forum, you’re not the first, for example
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/f1rst-parking-pcn-late-payment-bewl-water/msg85149/#msg85149
#Post#: 91822--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: b789
Date: September 28, 2025, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT identify the driver. There is no legal obligation on the
unknown (to them) driver to identify the known Keeper.
The reservoir is subject to reservoir safety legislation,
including the Reservoirs Act 1975, which imposes duties on the
undertaker regarding inspection, maintenance, and emergency
planning. While the leisure and parking operations are run by
Salomons UK Ltd, a private company, the underlying land remains
part of a statutory utility asset. Because the land is governed
by a specific statutory Act and is part of a statutory water
undertaking, it is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This means that keeper
liability for private parking charges cannot be enforced under
PoFA at this location.
See the linked thread above for how to word the appeal. Note the
hook: PoFA Sch 4, para 3(1)(c) excludes land “on which the
parking... is subject to statutory control.” If there are
byelaws or other statutory controls in force at Bewl Water, PoFA
keeper liability is unavailable.
The Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1968/33/pdfs/ukla_19680033_en.pdf<br
/>is the local Act that established and governs the Bewl scheme
and authorised land acquisition/works. It evidences that the
reservoir forms part of a statutory water undertaking, i.e.,
land under statutory control. Read together with the Reservoirs
Act 1975 regime (which imposes statutory duties on the
undertaker for inspection, maintenance and emergency planning)
this places activities at Bewl within a statutory framework.
Under PoFA 2012 Sch 4, land where parking is “subject to
statutory control” is excluded from “relevant land,” so keeper
liability cannot arise there.
#Post#: 91825--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: b789
Date: September 28, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the following email to First Parking by first class post
and get a free certificate of posting from any post office to
First Parking LLP, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal complaint – Breach of PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) and
KADOE (Keeper liability misrepresented at Bewl Water)
>
> Dear First Parking LLP Complaints Team,
>
> I write as the registered keeper in relation to Parking Charge
Notice [PCN ref], issued at Bewl Water on 17/09/2025.
>
> Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) states or implies that you are
able to hold me (the Keeper) liable under Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That statement is
incorrect for this location and places you in breach of the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section
8.1.1(d). As you know, a breach of the PPSCoP is also a breach
of your DVLA KADOE contract.
>
> Why PoFA keeper liability cannot apply at Bewl Water
> PoFA Sch 4 excludes “relevant land” where parking is “subject
to statutory control” (Sch 4, para 3(1)(c) and 3(3)).
>
> Bewl Water is a statutory reservoir/undertaking created and
governed by specific legislation, including:
>
> [indent]• Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (local
Act establishing the scheme; authorising works and land
acquisition).
> • Reservoirs Act 1975 (statutory safety regime imposing duties
on the undertaker for inspection, maintenance and emergency
planning).[/indent]
>
> The presence of this statutory framework means the land is
under statutory control for PoFA purposes, irrespective of
present operational or ownership arrangements.
>
> References (official sources)
>
> [indent]• PoFA 2012]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4,
para 3(1)(c), 3(3)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted:
> • Medway Water (Bewl Bridge Reservoir) Act 1968 (1968 c.
xxxiii)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1968/33/pdfs/ukla_19680033_en.pdf<br
/>(official PDF available)
> • Reservoirs Act 1975: legislation.gov.uk
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/23[/indent]
>
> Breach of PPSCoP and KADOE
> PPSCoP 8.1.1(d) requires that operators must not state or
imply that keeper liability applies where Schedule 4 does not.
By asserting PoFA keeper liability at Bewl Water, your NtK
misrepresents the legal position. This is a Code breach and,
consequently, a breach of the DVLA’s KADOE terms, which require
adherence to the applicable Code as a condition of data access.
>
> Required remedies
> As this is a formal complaint, please confirm within 14 days
how you will rectify this compliance failure. At minimum, I
expect you to:
>
> [indent]1. Cancel PCN [PCN ref] and confirm in writing that no
keeper liability is pursued at Bewl Water.
> 2. Cease and correct all NtK templates and website wording for
sites under statutory control to remove any assertion (or
implication) of PoFA keeper liability.
> 3. Conduct an immediate audit of outstanding NtKs issued for
Bewl Water (and any other sites under statutory control) and
notify affected keepers accordingly.
> 4. Provide details of staff guidance/training updates to
prevent recurrence.[/indent]
>
> If you do not provide a satisfactory response, I will escalate
this complaint to the British Parking Association and to the
DVLA for investigation of a PPSCoP/KADOE breach.
>
> Your published complaints policy states complaints must be
submitted by post. For the avoidance of doubt, I will only
accept your response by post or by email (your choice). Do not
require telephone contact, web portals or third-party platforms
for complaint handling or evidence review. Please treat this
email as a formal complaint and provide your written response by
[date – 14 days from today].
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Full name]
>
> [Postal address]
> [Email]
> Registered Keeper of vehicle [VRM]
> PCN: [reference]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96651--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: joebloggs90
Date: November 3, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Registered Keeper followed the sticky advise and first emailed
the managing agent of Bewl Water to tell them about this charge
to dispute and request cancellation. They replied to say they
would look into it but never got back.
Now just today I have received this letter from DCBL...
What do I do? Stressing me out.I still dont even understand what
this charge is about based on thread above.
Pic link here:
HTML https://ibb.co/cXvg7TWF
#Post#: 96654--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 3, 2025, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you appeal as in Reply #3 and the link given in Reply #1?
In the meantime, ignore DCBL, do not contact them in any way.
DCB Legal, on the other hand, should not be ignored.
#Post#: 96678--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: b789
Date: November 3, 2025, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can safely ignore any debt recovery letters. Debt collectors
are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of
ignorance and fear. You can safely shred those letters and use
them as hamster bedding for all anyone cares. Stop stressing.
Did you send the formal complaint as advised to First Parking?
#Post#: 96717--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: joebloggs90
Date: November 4, 2025, 12:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your answers. Apologies but I did not send the letter
above. I opted for another forum advice of first contacting Bewl
Water themselves and asked them to cancel this as it was
predatory. They said they would look into it and never got back
to me then I received this letter yesterday.
On the next letter I receive from DCBL, I will post the letter
above to them. Or do you think I should just post it now before
they contact again?
Thank you for your help.
#Post#: 96718--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 4, 2025, 1:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To repeat: do not contact DCBL in any way, do not call them, do
not send them a letter, ignore them.
The reason they wrote to you is because you did not take our
advice and appeal on the basis of non-compliance with PoFA 2012
because it is not “relevant land”.
However you would have ended up here anyway, it’s just that you
would have stated your position and submitted a valid appeal
which would have been rejected anyway.
Wait for a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal and come back here
when you do. In the meantime, search the forum to see that in
>99.9% of similar cases DCB Legal will eventually discontinue
rather than pay the court fee. You will be given advice on the
process between now and then.
#Post#: 96778--------------------------------------------------
Re: F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still
charged £100
DIR By: b789
Date: November 4, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was a formal complaint that I took time to research for you.
Thank you for wasting my time. I hope someone else doesn't waste
their time trying to assist you, if you can't be bothered
following the advice given.
I saw your thread on MSE and you have decided to follow their
advice instead, where they didn't even know about the status of
the land in question, even after I had already given it to you.
Good luck. I'm not going to bother with this thread from now on.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page