DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97902--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 12, 2025, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So move onto the appeal to IAS.
Same points.
The bit where they say, "When the driver decided to park and/or
remain on the contacted land (“The Site”) whilst failing to
comply with the clearly displayed T&C’s the driver automatically
entered into a contractual agreement with OPS and agreed to pay
the amount stated on the parking contract to The Creditor (OPS)"
is utter brown stuff.
#Post#: 97904--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 12, 2025, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> utter brown stuff
--- End Quote ---
Yeah it felt very copy/paste pre-canned BS.
#Post#: 97979--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: November 13, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OPS are the equivalent of brown smelly stuff you don't want to
step in. They really are a bottom-dwelling g firm of ex-clamper
thugs and their "decision" means absolutely nothing.
They are also members of the IPC, another self serving firm that
masquerades as an Approved Trade Association (ATA) which is
owned by a private company who also own the IAS. Do you see the
connection here?
However, we still suggest going through the kangaroo court that
the IAS is, just for the record and with the satisfaction of
knowing that if they don't concede the appeal, they have to pay
the IAS a small fee for them to adjudicate it with their fake
solicitors and barista.
So, just appeal to the IAs with the following and wait for their
guaranteed rejection and then you can move on to the next stage:
quote]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.[/quote]
#Post#: 97992--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 13, 2025, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure if I can update my appeal now because I was advised to
appeal with the same points as the OPS appeal.
#Post#: 98085--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 14, 2025, 2:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's grist to the mill.
See if you can update the appeal or add further evidence?
You may be asked to comment once the operator has uploaded their
evidence.
It won't make much difference - IAS only uphold 4% of appeals.
Additionally, IAS and POPLA rarely accept appeal points which
are not in your original appeal to the operator especially if
those points trip the operator up.
#Post#: 98854--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 19, 2025, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's the update from the operator on the IAS
--- Quote ---
>
> The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/11/2025
14:08:01.
>
> The operator reported that...
> The appellant was the keeper.
> The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
> 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 25/10/2025.
> The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
> The charge is based in Contract.
>
> The operator made the following comments...
> We note the appellants comments, however it does not exempt
them from the terms and conditions of the site. We are
instructed by the freehold landowner to enforce parking on site
in accordance with the displayed terms. There are numerous signs
on site and It is the motorists responsibility when parking on
private land to review the terms and conditions of the site and
park accordingly. The displayed terms state that parking is only
permitted for pre-authorised Autodeals vehicles. The exemption
data shows that the vehicle was not pre-authorised and therefore
was not permitted to park on site.
>
> We note the appellants comments, however they do not affect
the validity of the charge.
>
> The contravention photos provided show that the appellant
parked on site. After a period of time a passenger is seen
entering the vehicle with goods before the vehicle proceeds to
leave. The appellant has therefore parked and made use of the
land.
>
> The appellant makes reference to a consideration period. A
consideration period is afforded to every motorists to review
the terms and conditions of a site and decide whether to park.
It is not for motorists to make use of the land. By parking and
making use of the facilities the appellant has parked and
accepted the displayed terms and therefore is no longer afforded
a consideration period.
>
> All notices were sent in accordance with POFA and therefore
the registered keeper can be held liable.
>
> By parking on site and making use of the facilities without
being pre-authorised the appellant is in direct contravention to
the terms and conditions of the site and therefore contractually
agree to pay a parking charge.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98859--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 19, 2025, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have the opportunity to update the appeal so I will add the
comments from [member=26]b789[/member] for burden of proof
#Post#: 98865--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: November 19, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste the following as your rebuttal, for what it's
worth. When they reject, you do not pay. You simply move on to
the next phase.
--- Quote ---
> The operator’s case contains multiple errors. The vehicle was
recorded for only 98 seconds, which is not a period of parking.
A vehicle that remains occupied and stationary for under two
minutes is not parked and this is consistent with the driver
reading signs or briefly collecting a passenger. The Private
Parking Single Code of Practice requires a minimum five-minute
consideration period for all motorists to read the terms and
decide whether to stay. The driver left before this period
elapsed. A charge cannot be issued for conduct that ends within
the mandatory consideration period.
>
> The operator’s statement that the consideration period ends if
a passenger leaves the vehicle is untrue. The Code contains no
such rule. A passenger momentarily leaving and re-entering the
vehicle does not extinguish the driver’s entitlement to the
five-minute period.
>
> The signage at the site is prohibitive. It states that parking
is only permitted for pre-authorised vehicles and that no
parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting is allowed. This
wording does not make any contractual offer to non-permit
drivers. It forbids them from parking. A contract cannot be
formed on the basis of a prohibition. If the operator wishes to
allege trespass, only the landowner could bring such a claim and
only nominal loss would be recoverable.
>
> The landowner authority is unproven. Stating that the operator
is “instructed by the freehold landowner” is not evidence. The
assessor requires an actual agreement showing the operator’s
authority to issue charges and pursue keeper liability. Until
produced, standing is not established.
>
> The site layout is ambiguous. The land directly adjoins a
Tesco Express car park and the boundary is unclear. A driver
entering from the Tesco side could reasonably believe the area
formed part of the Tesco car park. Any ambiguity must be
interpreted against the operator.
>
> The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA. It refers to
a “period of parking” that lasted less than two minutes, which
is not a period in any meaningful sense. It does not specify
clearly how any contractual terms were breached beyond stating
“No E-Permit,” which, due to the forbidding signage, cannot
constitute a contractual breach by a non-permit driver. Keeper
liability cannot arise where no valid underlying parking charge
exists.
>
> For these reasons, the charge is not valid. The operator has
not shown a period of parking, has misstated the rules on the
consideration period, has relied on prohibitive signage that
cannot create a contract, has not proven landowner authority,
and has failed to comply with PoFA. The appeal should be upheld.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99904--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 26, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
>
> We re-iterate our prima facie comments;
>
> The appellants comments do not affect the validity of the
charge,
>
> The Single code of practise defines being parked as a vehicle
being stationary other than in the course of driving with a note
that a vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the
driver has left the vehicle and/or turned off the ignition.
>
> The vehicle has parked in contravention to the terms and
therefore a charge is now due
>
--- End Quote ---
I have the option to update and add more comments or refer the
case to the arbitrator
#Post#: 99909--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: November 26, 2025, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The only addional thing I can think to say, in relation to the
consideration period expiring:
--- Quote ---
>
> It is important to note that where there is evidence the
consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for
the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should
retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not possible to assert that the driver had accepted the
terms on the basis the a passenger enters the vehicle. The
driver can have read the terms, decided not to agree with them,
and request that the passenger returns to the vehicle so as to
leave within the consideration period.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page