DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99910--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would respond as follows:
--- Quote ---
> It is noted that the operator has attempted to submit further
argument after my rebuttal to their prima facie case. The IAS
process does not provide for continuous back-and-forth
exchanges, and the operator’s attempt to reopen submissions does
not strengthen their position. It merely highlights that they
have still failed to address any of the substantive defects
identified. The charge remains invalid for the reasons already
stated, and no amount of repeated assertion alters the facts or
the applicable rules.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the operator has still not
addressed the core issues. The Single Code of Practice
definition they rely on does not override the mandatory
five-minute consideration period. A vehicle recorded for only 98
seconds cannot be treated as parked in breach of terms because
the driver was still within the allowed time to read the signs
and decide whether to stay. The operator’s photos do not show
any use of the land beyond a brief occupied stop. The Code does
not permit issuing a charge during the consideration period.
>
> The signage on site is prohibitive. It allows parking only for
pre-authorised vehicles and forbids all parking, loading,
unloading, idling or waiting for everyone else. This is not an
offer of a contractual licence. A contract cannot be formed on
prohibitive wording and no charge can arise from it.
>
> The operator has also not provided evidence of landowner
authority. A bare assertion of instruction is not proof.
> The boundary between the Tesco car park and the private area
is unclear. Any ambiguity must be resolved against the operator.
> The Notice to Keeper cannot create keeper liability because it
describes a “period of parking” that is too short to constitute
parking in the ordinary sense and is entirely within the
mandatory consideration period.
>
> The operator’s repeated assertion that the comments “do not
affect the validity of the charge” is not evidence. They have
not rebutted any of the substantive points raised. The charge is
not valid and should be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 104105--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: December 30, 2025, 12:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Honestly this is so infuriating. Where is the common sense?
--- Quote ---
>
> The adjudicator made their decision on 29/12/2025 16:59:33.
>
> 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.
>
> A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O 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. I am satisfied
that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking
operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to
take the necessary steps to enforce them.
>
> Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter
or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject
the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land
without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have
accepted them immediately.
>
> In this case, the Appellant made no effort to read the
signage. The CCTV shows that they remained in the vehicle,
looking at their mobile phone. They were therefore not
considering the terms and conditions of parking and are not
entitled to a free period of parking.
>
> The courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so
long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a
period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle
remains occupied or vacant. I am satisfied that the Appellant
was parked for the reasons stated above.
>
> The NTK was validly served and the specified period of parking
was from 12:46:33 to 12:48:11.
>
> I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in
this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has
established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued
in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is
dismissed.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 104114--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: b789
Date: December 30, 2025, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Stop fretting about the kangaroo court decision of the IAS. They
are a corrupt and mendacious part of the IPC, the very same ATA
that the parking operator is a member of.
That rejection is clear evidence of how dishonest the IAS
assessors are. Besides falsely claiming to be legally trained to
solicitor level or higher, it is clear that this lying toad
would fit in to a North Koran court system. They are NOT legally
trained and tht is why their decisions are anonymous and
unsigned.
Here is a graphic that show why the IPC and the IAS are judge,
jury and executioner, all in one. Ignore their decision.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/9HJv258c/h9fhvi1v1cb7-png.webp
The decision is not binding on you and you do to pay anything.
All this means is that now you will start to receive useless
debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt
collectors are powerless because they are not a party to the the
contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is
try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree
into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) that gives
you 30 days to pay. Ignore everything else that comes from a
useless debt collector.
#Post#: 104215--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 1, 2026, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing to worry about with this one - their case is very weak.
Further evidence that the adjudicators at IAS are not legally
trained.
Most of the adjudication is just wrong.
You are entitled to a period of consideration - glancing at your
mobile phone does not detract from that - the adjudicator is
simply looking for any opportunity to disregard the correct
rules.
His comments on what constitutes 'parking' are also questionable
- again the adjudicator is simply looking for the best possible
interpretation of parking from the operators perspective - the
courts have actually determined that brief stops do not
constitute parking.
The adjudicators comments on 'instant contracting' are just
laughable and would have no chance in any court hearing.
Just sit back now and play the process. Nothing to worry about.
#Post#: 111350--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: February 27, 2026, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
RK has now received two follow up letters, most recent of which
is from ZZPS stating:
--- Quote ---
>
> We have previously written to you requesting payment of the
balance noted above. You have chosen to ignore our attempts to
resolve this and therefore, left with no alternative, we will
pass this case to GCTT Certified Enforcement Agents unless you
contact us within 7 days to pay the amount outstanding or to
agree a suitable repayment plan.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 111354--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 27, 2026, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ZZPS & GCTT should generally be ignored.
If you want more specific advice, please post the letters.
#Post#: 113381--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: March 16, 2026, 6:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Redacted letters:
HTML https://ibb.co/6RJf7ZKy
HTML https://ibb.co/SD5c29zW
Your support is appreciated!
#Post#: 113382--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 16, 2026, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, the old begging debt letters.
Can safely be ignored.
Wait for Letter Before Claim or similarly worded.
#Post#: 115683--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: milkywaycartwheelbatman
Date: April 13, 2026, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Does "warning notice of transfer to solicitors" count?
#Post#: 115717--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No
e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 13, 2026, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: milkywaycartwheelbatman link ---
>
> Does "warning notice of transfer to solicitors" count?
>
--- End Quote ---
Nope.
It's their normal BS - continue to ignore.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page