DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97516--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: b789
Date: November 10, 2025, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You’ve done everything you can. Wait and see what you receive
next.
As already pointed out, you cannot be liable as the keeper as
long as the driver is not identified. That’s the law.
#Post#: 97659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: RT
Date: November 11, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You’ve done everything you can. Wait and see what you receive
next.
>
> As already pointed out, you cannot be liable as the keeper as
long as the driver is not identified. That’s the law.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks again b789.
I have today received my appeal response letter from Alliance
Parking. The response is here:
HTML https://ibb.co/Q7VBPPgR
The reverse is a copy of their Tc's and C's as before.
This is odd for a couple of reasons - given that, they clearly
state that they don't accept appeals through their e-mail -
though they must have on this occasion.
The letter is dated 03/11 (issued on 30/10 apparently) and was
sent in a first class pre-paid envelope. Received today (11/11)
Their claim that the machine told us on screen that the
transaction had not been completed is 100% innacurate. It asked
if we would like a receipt, we said yes, it did not give us a
receipt. There was no mention that this hadn't been completed,
and authorised transaction alert on the mobile from my bank
would suggest the same.
Presumably now I must submit a further appeal to the IAS?
I think my main question is, as this progresses - am I likely to
expect debt collectors to be knocking on my door or trying to
'remove' things? Don't fancy having a barny with folks in the
street if they start trying to stick clamps and such on
vehicles.
Many thanks again in advance of any guidance
#Post#: 97662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: jfollows
Date: November 11, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RT link ---
>
>
>
> I think my main question is, as this progresses - am I likely
to expect debt collectors to be knocking on my door or trying to
'remove' things? Don't fancy having a barny with folks in the
street if they start trying to stick clamps and such on
vehicles.
>
>
> Many thanks again in advance of any guidance
>
--- End Quote ---
No, simply put.
These companies have no more power to do this than I have if I
write to you demanding money and you don’t pay.
As this progresses you may get letters from debt collectors, but
they are completely powerless and you will be advised to ignore
them.
#Post#: 97720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: b789
Date: November 11, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RT link ---
>
> I think my main question is, as this progresses - am I likely
to expect debt collectors to be knocking on my door or trying to
'remove' things? Don't fancy having a barny with folks in the
street if they start trying to stick clamps and such on
vehicles.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh dear... and this is how these firms prey on the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree and intimidate them into paying out
of ignorance and fear.
Why no bailiff can knock on your door
1. County Court Judgment (CCJ):
[indent]• A bailiff (enforcement agent) can only get involved
after a creditor has obtained a CCJ against you in a county
court.
• If the CCJ is under £600, the creditor cannot transfer it to
the High Court for enforcement by a High Court Enforcement
Officer (HCEO). Instead, enforcement would remain under the
county court's jurisdiction.[/indent]
2. Threshold for High Court Enforcement:
[indent]• If a CCJ is over £600 (including fees and interest),
the creditor can transfer it to the High Court for enforcement
by an HCEO. This is a common method because HCEOs tend to be
more effective at recovering money.[/indent]
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Creditors:
[indent]• For CCJs under £600, creditors may find it
uneconomical to pursue enforcement through county court
bailiffs, as they are generally slower and less effective than
HCEOs.
• As a result, creditors may opt not to escalate enforcement for
small amounts.[/indent]
4. Private Parking Charges and Bailiffs:
[indent]• In the context of private parking charges, no bailiff
action can occur unless the parking operator has gone to court,
won a case, obtained a CCJ, and you fail to pay the judgment
within the stipulated time (usually 30 days).[/indent]
So, no bailiff will come to your door for a debt under £600
unless the creditor deems it worth pursuing through county court
enforcement. However, even if the debt is over £600, bailiff
involvement only happens after a CCJ is issued, and enforcement
is transferred to the High Court.
Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
So, back to your case... They have no case. The driver is not
identified and they cannot relay on PoFA to hold the Keeper
liable if the driver is not identified. You have a clear cut
case and this would never reach a hearing in court because it
would be struck out before anything else. There is no case to
answer.
Of course, they hope you are to ignorant or fearful to know
that.
So, on to the useless IAS kangaroo court appeal. For what it is
worth, just send the following:
--- Quote ---
> Preliminary issue – non-relevant land / no keeper liability:
>
> This PCN concerns Padstow Harbour car park, which forms part
of the Padstow Harbour “harbour estate” (defined in the byelaws
as “the docks, piers, wharves, quays… roads… and the lands,
buildings and property… vested in or occupied by the
Commissioners for the purposes of the Port”). Parking on the
harbour estate is controlled by local byelaws. In particular,
Padstow Port & Harbour Byelaws 1991 byelaw 43 provides:
>
> [indent]“43. (1) No person shall park or leave a vehicle in
any place where it is likely to obstruct or interfere with the
use of the harbour estate, or in any part of the harbour estate
where the parking of vehicles is prohibited and notice of such
prohibition has been erected by the harbour master.
> (2) Any notice erected under paragraph (1) of this byelaw
shall be conspicuously posted in or in proximity to the place to
which it relates.
> (3) If the harbour master so directs, the owner of a vehicle
parked or left in contravention of paragraph (1) of this byelaw
shall remove the same… and if the owner fails to comply… the
harbour master may remove the vehicle.”[/indent]
>
> The Commissioners’ statutory power to make byelaws “for
regulating the movement, speed and parking of vehicles within
the harbour estate” derives from the Padstow Harbour Revision
Order 1987, article 18(m).
>
> Under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
“relevant land” expressly excludes “any land… on which the
parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”: see para
3(1)(c), with para 3(3) defining “statutory control” to include
liabilities imposed by statutory provisions (criminal or civil)
in respect of parking. Padstow Harbour car park is therefore not
“relevant land” and there is no statutory route to hold the
registered keeper liable. Unless the operator produces
admissible evidence identifying the driver, this appeal must be
allowed at the threshold.
>
> However, I am led to believe that the IAS is not truly
independent and that the adjudicators are not really solicitors
or barristers. If they were, they would not be so hesitant as to
keep their identity secret. So, if the "Preliminary Issue" is
not enough to get this PCN cancelled, I continue with the
following:
>
> 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.
>
> 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 ---
Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for the
record, not for their approval.
#Post#: 97733--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: RT
Date: November 11, 2025, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
>
> Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for
the record, not for their approval.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your efforts yet again b789. I have submitted the
IAS appeal online just now.
I had to trim the middle and end a little, as there is a 1000
word limit on their appeal.
I also attached the same screenshots that have previously been
pooh-pooh'd by AP.
Interesting that they immediately try to capture driver details
in the process of registering- I say interesting, why woulnd't
they! And that by submitting online, you also waive your right
to appeal physically, rather than digitally.
Oh - and one also has to agree to cookies and sign up to their
site as well in the process. Magical.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Thanks again
#Post#: 99470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: RT
Date: November 24, 2025, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry about the tone. This is a challenge written for the
record, not for their approval.
[/quote]
Morning B789 - Unfortunately, due to work commitments I have
only just now noticed the appeal response - which only gives me
today to reply further. Any further advice will be greatly
appreciated -
See their response below - they are it seems assuming I was the
driver, and neglecting to accept the basic principal that their
terminal offered no such message of failed payment, or that the
merchant services have failed to accept the authorised payment
presented to them.
They have also stated their records show the payment to have
been 'aborted' and then infer that this is the same as failed -
two completely different things, at least as far as I'm aware
and according to the english dictionary. Link to their 'proof'
on this matter:
HTML https://ibb.co/0yL8L2d2
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 18/11/2025 21:12:10.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 30/10/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 30/10/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
As detailed on the clear and prominent signage (the contract),
drivers agree to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if 'payment for
the duration of your vehicle's stay has not been made in full'.
The appellants' vehicle occupied the car park for 58 minutes on
22/10/2025. The attached search of our payment records details
that no payment was made; therefore, the Parking Charge was
issued correctly.
In response to the appellants' pertinent comments:
* The appellants' multiple references to POFA are of no
relevance to this matter, as we are not utilising the Act, nor
have we suggested that we are. The use of POFA is not mandatory,
as per para 4(6) of the Act:
"Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor
may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person
in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be
read as permitting double recovery)."
* The appellant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The
image of the vehicle entering the car park shows a male driver
and a female passenger. The appellant has confirmed that they
were present; indeed, they have submitted a screenshot of an
attempted payment from their own mobile phone. As such, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is 'more probable
than not' (the standard of proof in these matters) that the
appellant was indeed the driver.
* It is nonsensical to suggest that we do not have authority
from the landowner. No landowner would tolerate the installation
of signage and 4 ANPR cameras. Not to mention the fact that we
use their power supply. That said, the Adjudicator has sight of
our contract with the landowner, which meets the requirements of
the applicable Code of Practice, which is not the "PPSCoP" as
this is not a new site.
* The time and date of the ANPR is updated in real time via the
Network Time Protocol, much like a mobile phone; therefore, it
is always 100% accurate. No 'Grace Period' applies, as no
payment was made for parking.
* The screenshot of a payment submitted by the appellant is a
'Pending Payment', as the attached 'RK66LDN-Aborted Payment'
confirms that this transaction was aborted (i.e. failed), as
confirmed by the appellant's own 'PHC Bank Alert' that they have
uploaded. The appellant was informed that their transaction had
failed via the terminal's LCD screen, with the appellant
conceding in their initial appeal to us that the terminal did
not issue a receipt.
In light of the above and attached, we trust that this appeal
will be dismissed as it has no merit.
#Post#: 99487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No one really cares what the IAS are going to think or decide.
There is one simple fact that you must remain aware of, and that
is that as long as the driver has not been identified, there is
no Keeper liability.
Who cares whether they claim that the Keeper identified as the
driver. Put them to strict proof. They will always simply say
the driver is identified.
You seem to have put in your head that the IAS and this scamming
unregulated private parking firm of ex-clampers are somehow
going to play fair. Stop being so gullible. You have been warned
that the IAS is nothing but a corrupt arm of the IPC and their
adjudicators are anonymous liars pretending to be solicitors.
They aren't.
Simply say the following as your response to their prima facie
case:
--- Quote ---
> Before any alleged “breach of contract” can be entertained,
the assessor must first determine whether the appellant can be
liable at all:
>
> Padstow Harbour car park is on harbour-byelaw land (Padstow
Port & Harbour Byelaws; Padstow Harbour Revision Order 1987).
Land under statutory control is not “relevant land” for Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Sch 4, para 3(1)(c)
and 3(3)). The operator expressly states it is not relying on
PoFA. There is therefore no statutory route to hold the
registered keeper liable. Unless the driver is identified with
admissible evidence, the appeal must be allowed at this
threshold stage without considering any alleged contractual
terms.
>
> Operator’s false assertion about driver identity:
>
> The operator’s statement that “the appellant was the driver”
is untrue. The appellant has never identified as the driver.
ANPR stills and speculation about who was at the wheel do not
constitute driver identification. There is no legal presumption
that the keeper was the driver; courts have rejected attempts to
infer identity or to misuse Elliott v Loake / CPS v AJH Films.
Persuasive appellate authority (e.g. VCS v Edward (2023))
confirms that, absent a clear admission or cogent identification
evidence, a claimant cannot meet its burden merely from keeper
status or photos of occupants.
>
> Assessor’s duty and transparency:
>
> The IAS represents that appeals are decided by legally
qualified assessors. If the assessor is a solicitor (or higher),
they will know that, on non-relevant land with PoFA not invoked,
there is no keeper liability; only an identified driver can be
pursued. If the appeal is to be rejected notwithstanding these
fundamentals, the decision should state plainly (a) the
admissible evidence said to identify the driver, and (b) the
legal basis for any keeper liability on non-relevant land when
PoFA is not relied upon.
>
> Outcome:
>
> Non-relevant land + no PoFA + no driver identification = no
claim against the keeper. Cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
If they accept and cancel the PCN, great. GO and buy a lottery
ticket because you have beaten the odds. If they reject, which
is the most likely scenario, who cares? Their decision is not
binding on you and you do not pay.
They have absolutely no basis in law to pursue you as the
Keeper. End of. Let them try and take you to court. They would
receive a spanking if they tried that.
Trust me, if I lived near Padstow, I'd go and get a PCN from
them at the same location and let them take me to court and then
slap them with a Summary Judgment application and get my costs
and £750 because I'd do it before allocation to track.
#Post#: 99604--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: RT
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Trust me, if I lived near Padstow, I'd go and get a PCN from
them at the same location and let them take me to court and then
slap them with a Summary Judgment application and get my costs
and £750 because I'd do it before allocation to track.
[/quote]
Thank you again b789 - very much appreciated. Further details
added word for word. Though, again, they didn't make it easy as
they have disabled copy + paste, so requires typing out, again
with a 1000 word limit. I'll endeavour to keep a closer eye on
my inbox this time!
Thanks again
#Post#: 99607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How to bypass no paste controls on a web form (DEV Community)
HTML https://dev.to/eviltester/how-to-bypass-no-paste-controls-on-a-web-form-id8
It explains why some sites block pasting and shows practical
workarounds using browser developer tools. It’s written for
testers and everyday users, not just developers, so it’s
accessible to anyone encountering this problem.
#Post#: 105903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given,
screen shot of debit, money not taken
DIR By: RT
Date: January 14, 2026, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> No one really cares what the IAS are going to think or
decide.. . .
>
--- End Quote ---
Evening - I've finally received an update from the IAS - and -
as you suspected - the appeal outcome is Dismissed and common
sense has not prevailed. See below for their full response.
I'd love some guidance on where I go from here - presumably the
original oporator will waste no time at all and be in touch
swiftly, no doubt trying to obtain hundreds of pounds - or will
that happen after the 28 day period? I can only assume I now
ignore that and wait for them to take me to some sort of court?
Your help is always very much appreciated. . .
Dear Richard,
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision
from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal
for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): 583280
Vehicle Registration: R###
Date Issued: 30/10/2025
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in
a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where
the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and
to take the necessary steps to enforce them.
The Appellant accepts that he was the keeper of this vehicle but
denies that at the time of the incident he was the driver. In
the case of ELLIOTT v LOAKE in 1982 the principle was
established that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary the keeper of a vehicle is assumed to be the driver of
that vehicle at the time of an incident such as arises in this
Appeal. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle
to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she was not the
driver at the time of the incident. In this case such evidence
has not been provided by the Appellant to establish that he was
not the driver and therefore the Operator is entitled to assume
that as the registered keeper he was also the driver.
Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the
signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am
satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the
attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply
to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such
that drivers must make a valid payment for the full duration of
their stay. In the photographs provided to me I can see that the
Appellant entered the site at 10:33 and exited at 11:32; a total
stay of 59 minutes. In the data provided I can see that no
payment was made for the Appellant's VRN. It is the driver's
responsibility to ensure that they make a valid payment for
their parking session and otherwise conform with the terms and
conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site.
Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into
account. Whilst I appreciate that an attempt at payment may have
been made by the driver, evidence of a pending payment e.g. on
mobile banking, is not sufficient. The Appellant has not
provided any other evidence that he/the driver was entitled to
believe he had purchased a valid parking session. The Appellant
raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and
purports that the site is not relevant land within the meaning
of Schedule 4 as well as suggesting that the Operator has not
complied with the other requirements therein such as the
timescale to send the NTK. I must point out that whilst the Act
does need to be complied with including the site being within
the definition of relevant land, in cases where the Operator
wishes to avail themselves of the keeper liability provisions
under Schedule 4, they are not obliged to do so where they do
not. Instead, the Operator is entitled to rely either on the
legal presumption that the keeper of the vehicle was also the
driver (which they are entitled to do in the absence of credible
evidence to the contrary) or on an acceptance that they were
driving at the material time. On the present facts, the
compliance or otherwise with the Act, is not a relevant issue.
As such, on the basis of the evidence provided, I am satisfied
that the Appellant breached the displayed terms and conditions
and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this
Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that
the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with
the law and therefore 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 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page