DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: b789
Date: October 27, 2025, 1:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you are being scammed. You cannot just simply get a "CCJ".
Even in the extremely unlikely event this were to go to court
and you were unsuccessful, as long as any CCJ amount is paid in
full within 30 days of the judgment, there would be no record of
it on your credit file. It is completely expunged from the
record, so it would have no effect on any mortgage application.
You appeal each PCN to the IAS individually. Just copy and paste
this as your IAS appeal for each PCN:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> My tenancy contains no requirement to display a permit or
submit to any third-party enforcement scheme. Accordingly, no
Parking Charge Notices should ever have been issued to me for
using the resident-only gated parking provided with my tenancy.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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#: 95844--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 27, 2025, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How much of a chance would I have to successfully appeal with
IAS? It seems like they are just a corrupt organisation tied to
the parking companies…
#Post#: 95848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: b789
Date: October 27, 2025, 9:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: satsuki726 link ---
>
> How much of a chance would I have to successfully appeal with
IAS? It seems like they are just a corrupt organisation tied to
the parking companies…
>
--- End Quote ---
Less than 5% chance. However, just submit it anyway because
unless they concede it, it will cost them to have it adjudicated
anyway. If it isn't cancelled, it means nothing and you are not
bound by the decision. You just move on in the process.
#Post#: 95912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 28, 2025, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am actually hesitating right now since I might have not
understood the process fully and I'm not sure whether I would
actually be able to win in court.
Mostly I am concerned about if there would be anything in my
landlord's lease that has a statement that benefits the parking
company. Basically I am renting so I am unsure about the lease
for the flat and how it is going to affect me legally, if I lose
I might need to pay more than 700 pounds from my understanding.
Also after the IAS appeal if I fail do I just wait for debt
collection letters, and court letters? I'm a bit afraid if I am
going to miss one of the important (court) ones and cause big
trouble.
Furthermore, how would this affect my renting? I understand
there will not be CCJs but for private referencing when renting
is what I am concerned about.
Great appreciations for all the help provided so far. I might
just be overthinking but I am a bit scared of what might happen
which is a bit unknown to me.
#Post#: 95914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 28, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another concern being I might be out of the country for a couple
months from May, that seems far but from what I have seen in
other posts the timeline until court procedures is so long that
I might just miss it.
#Post#: 95917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: b789
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are way overthinking this. Who on earth have you been
listening to? You are behaving exactly as these scammers want...
just like the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that will
not resist and pay up out of ignorance and fear.
You’re anxious because this is new, not because you’re wrong.
The tenancy governs your rights. There is no term requiring
permits or agreeing to be bound by a private parking firm’s
“rules”. That’s the core. Everything else (signs, portals,
“estate regulations”) is noise unless your tenancy actually
incorporates it.
Quick reality check:
[indent]• IAS: With IPC operators, IAS outcomes are notoriously
poor. An IAS rejection does not harm your credit, references, or
legal position. It’s optional and mainly for “reasonableness”.
• Court/CCJ: A CCJ only happens if (a) you ignore a claim and
get defaulted, or (b) you lose and don’t pay within one calendar
month. Pay within a month = no CCJ recorded.
• Head lease worry: Your contract is the tenancy. Unless the
tenancy expressly incorporates lease/estate rules, they don’t
bind you.[/indent]
How do you imagine this is going to be resolved? If the sniff
your fear and ignorance, they will go after you even stronger.
Do you imagine that these scammers will somehow relent just
because you are ignorant and/ or fearful of the process? Of
course they won't. You have many years of experience comparing
these scams here and you are wasting our time if you don't ave
the conviction to stand top for your rights.
Bottom line: stop catastrophising. Your tenancy doesn’t say
“permit” or “Napier”. That’s your anchor. Stick to it.
You can tweak the suggested IAS appeal and send the following as
the IAS appeal for each PCN:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> My tenancy contains no requirement to display a permit or
submit to any third-party enforcement scheme. Accordingly, no
Parking Charge Notices should ever have been issued to me for
using the resident-only gated parking provided with my tenancy.
>
> Imposing a third-party permit scheme over resident parking
amounts to derogation from grant and interferes with quiet
enjoyment in a residential context (see Jopson v Homeguard). The
operator must show the tenancy incorporates any ‘estate
regulations’ or permit terms; it does not.
>
> The location is a gated access by resident fob/remote, which
confirms this is tenant amenity, not a public car park.
>
> 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.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the operator must also show that
any ‘estate regulations’ or permit terms are expressly
incorporated into my tenancy. They are not.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 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.)
>
> 6. I note IAS decisions are anonymised and unpublished.
Regardless, the outcome here turns on evidence: no incorporation
into the tenancy, strict proof of landowner authority, clear
signage, and (if alleged) strict PoFA compliance.[/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 ---
Make sure you enclose/attach a copy of:
[indent]A. Tenancy extract – parking clause and absence of
permit/third-party term.
B. Photos of gated resident-only parking / fob access.[/indent]
#Post#: 95921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok thanks, I am now confident about the legal part.
The only thing that I am still concerning is, occasionally I
would be out of UK for a month or two.
So if the court claim would be an email or something online, it
is fine for me.
If it is by post only, there is a big chance that I will miss
the deadline for defense.
So please could you kindly inform how are they going to send the
claim letters?
#Post#: 95923--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: b789
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The court claim will only arrive by post. You are way off that
point.
Before any claim can be issued they're obliged to issue a Letter
of Claim (LoC) that gives you a minimum of 30 days to respond
before they can issue a claim. If you were to receive an loC, in
the response, you can inform them of any dates you will be away
and that any service of a claim during that period will be
challenged and they will be fully aware of the consequences of
serving a claim which they have been made aware of that cannot
be responded to would result in a set side application and the
costs of that would fall on them plus additional costs for
unreasonable behaviour.
Is there no one that could check for post, say once a fortnight?
#Post#: 95926--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: satsuki726
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There might be but I might move home before they send any claim
letters, will they know that I have moved and send to the
correct address? If not would it be voided or still be accepted?
I might even have a month without an UK address at all, if I
live abroad in that month, I might register my car under a
friends address at that point, but would they know it and where
would they send it to if I just don't have an UK address?
I think those situations have made it overly complicated. I have
little concerns about the legal side, just quite anxious after
seeing how long the process was taken on other cases.
#Post#: 95928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on
permit - 7 PCNs received
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: October 28, 2025, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> will they know that I have moved and send to the correct
address?
--- End Quote ---
No, if you move, you must send a Data Rectification Notice to
their data protection officer advising them of your new address.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page