DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103085--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So I've had a "response" from them with just pictures/pdfs that
I can see, no actual response to your points.
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/BK8rYgq
There is no text or anything
#Post#: 103097--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a response to the operators prima facie case you can
use:
--- Quote ---
> Appellant’s comments on operator’s evidence
>
> 1. The operator has uploaded only a signage pack and a “Site
Evaluation Sheet”. There is no copy of the Notice to Keeper, no
attempt to deal with any of the PoFA points raised, and no
evidence at all of landowner authority. None of the substantive
legal grounds in the appeal have been addressed or rebutted. The
IAS is therefore invited to treat those unrebutted points as
conceded or, at the very least, as unchallenged.
>
> GROUND 1 – CONTINUING ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF OF KEEPER LIABILITY
>
> 2. The operator’s evidence contains no Notice to Keeper, no
PoFA analysis and no attempt to show compliance with Schedule 4.
My original appeal set out that the NtK fails PoFA 2012 Schedule
4, in particular paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a), and that not
all limbs of 9(2)(a)–(i) are satisfied.
>
> 3. Since the operator has chosen not to produce the NtK at
all, they have failed, as a matter of simple evidential burden,
to demonstrate any compliance with PoFA. It is impossible for
the IAS to conclude that “all applicable conditions” in Schedule
4 are met when the operator has not even placed the NtK before
you.
>
> 4. The legal position therefore remains unchanged: there is no
evidence before the IAS that keeper liability has arisen. The
only potentially liable party is the unidentified driver, and
there has been no admission of driver identity. The operator
cannot invite any presumption that the keeper was the driver, as
there is no such presumption in PoFA or in general law.
>
> GROUND 2 – NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY AND
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PPSCoP 14.1(a–j)
>
> 5. My appeal put the operator to strict proof of a valid,
written agreement with the landholder, conferring authority to
manage parking, issue PCNs and bring proceedings in G24’s own
name. The operator has not produced any such agreement or even a
letter of authority.
>
> 6. Instead, they have produced only an internal “Site
Evaluation Sheet” showing a survey by one of their employees on
07/02/2024, together with a plan and some photographs. This is
not a contract, and it does not even purport to show any grant
of authority from the landowner. It is nothing more than an
internal document prepared by the operator for its own purposes.
>
> 7. Section 14.1(a–j) of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice prescribes the mandatory minimum contents of any
agreement or written authority between a landholder and a
private parking operator. Among other things, such an agreement
must clearly show: the identity of the landholder, the land
covered, the duration of the agreement, the scope of the
operator’s authority, and whether the operator may litigate in
its own name. None of that appears in the operator’s evidence.
>
> 8. The operator has therefore failed to show any compliant
agreement at all, let alone one that satisfies PPSCoP 14.1(a–j).
In the absence of a fully compliant, unredacted contract or
authority letter, G24 has not proved locus standi to enforce any
alleged parking contract or to pursue charges in its own name.
On that ground alone, the appeal should be allowed.
>
> GROUND 3 – SIGNAGE: OPERATOR’S OWN EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE
APPEAL
>
> 9. The only substantive material the operator has produced is
signage imagery. Far from rebutting the appeal, it confirms that
the alleged contractual terms were not clearly brought to the
attention of drivers.
>
> Entrance signage
>
> 10. The “600 x 800 Cust Ent NEW” entrance sign states
“Customer Parking Only – See notices in car park for Terms and
Conditions – Private Land”. It does not display the maximum
stay, does not state the charge, and does not mention any three
hour limit or £100 sum. It merely instructs motorists to look
elsewhere.
>
> 11. Under basic principles of contract law and under the
PPSCoP, core terms such as any time limit and any financial
charge must be clearly communicated at or before the point of
contract formation, particularly where they are onerous. An
entrance sign that simply tells motorists to look for other
notices, without disclosing the key terms itself, is
insufficient to bind a driver to a £100 charge.
>
> 12. The “Driver’s View – Entrance” photograph confirms that
even this limited entrance sign is small and set back from the
carriageway. From a moving vehicle at the stated approach speed
of 20 mph, it would be impossible to read any wording beyond
perhaps “Customer Parking Only”. The operator’s own evidence
therefore shows that no clear contractual offer, including the
alleged maximum stay and £100 charge, is made at the point of
entry.
>
> Main terms signage
>
> 13. The main sign (“Private Land – Customer Parking Only –
Maximum stay 3 hours”) is dominated by branding and large
“Customer Parking Only” text. The supposed contractual charge
and detailed terms are buried in dense small print at the bottom
of the sign. The phrase “Breach of ANY of the terms and
conditions will result in the driver being liable for a parking
charge of £100” appears only within that small print.
>
> 14. The “Driver’s View” photographs demonstrate that, from a
typical parking position, the small print is not legible to a
driver seated in the vehicle. The operator has provided no
close-up images showing that the small print can be read from a
normal standing position adjacent to the vehicle, nor that such
signs are positioned so a driver would inevitably notice and
read them before or while parking.
>
> 15. It follows that the alleged £100 charge is an onerous
term, not sufficiently brought to the attention of the consumer.
The operator’s own photographs show it is presented as
small-print “legalese”, contrary to the transparency and
prominence requirements of the PPSCoP and the Consumer Rights
Act 2015.
>
> Nature of the alleged contract
>
> 16. The sign is also drafted on a “breach” footing: “Breach of
ANY of the terms and conditions will result in the driver being
liable for a parking charge of £100.” That is classic
damages/penalty wording rather than a clear offer to park in
return for a £100 contractual fee. In those circumstances, the
operator has an even higher burden to show that the term is
transparent, prominent and fair. Their evidence does not begin
to discharge that burden.
>
> Consideration and grace periods
>
> 17. The operator still shows only ANPR entry and exit imaging;
they have provided no breakdown of how any “overstay” is
calculated once mandatory consideration and grace periods are
allowed for. Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP requires a reasonable
consideration period on arrival to allow the driver to read the
signs and decide whether to stay. A further grace period is
required at the end of parking.
>
> 18. The operator’s site plan shows a large, busy retail car
park with 462 spaces and multiple access routes. It is obvious
that a driver might spend several minutes circulating and
queuing before parking, and the same again when leaving. None of
this is “parking” for the purposes of PoFA, and none of it may
properly be counted as chargeable overstay. Yet the operator has
produced no evidence that these mandatory periods were allowed
for or deducted.
>
> 19. As already stated in the original appeal, ANPR entry and
exit timestamps do not equate to a proved “period of parking”
under PoFA 9(2)(a). The operator’s evidence does nothing to
alter that conclusion.
>
> GROUND 4 – FAILURE TO ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
>
> 20. The operator has chosen not to respond at all to the core
legal grounds advanced: PoFA non-compliance (particularly
9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a)), misrepresentation of keeper liability,
the absence of any PoFA-based right to pursue the keeper, and
the lack of any evidence of landowner authority. Instead, they
have simply uploaded generic signage materials.
>
> 21. An operator that genuinely believed it had complied with
PoFA and held proper authority would be expected to provide the
NtK, a PoFA compliance analysis, and a landowner contract or
letter of authority in full compliance with PPSCoP 14.1(a–j).
G24 has done none of these things. The inference is obvious.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> 22. In light of the operator’s limited evidence and its
complete failure to rebut the detailed legal grounds already
raised, the appellant respectfully invites the IAS to allow the
appeal on one or more of the following bases:
>
> (a) The operator has produced no NtK and no proof of
compliance with PoFA Schedule 4. Keeper liability has not arisen
and the appellant, as keeper, is not liable.
>
> (b) The operator has produced no contract or authority letter
that complies with PPSCoP 14.1(a–j). It has not proved any right
to issue or enforce PCNs in its own name.
>
> (c) The operator’s own evidence shows that key terms,
including the three-hour maximum stay and £100 charge, are not
clearly or prominently communicated at the point of entry or at
the point of parking, and that the alleged contractual term is
not fairly incorporated.
>
> (d) The operator has not shown any proper calculation of a
“period of parking” nor any deduction for mandatory
consideration and grace periods.
>
> 23. For all of these reasons, the appeal should be upheld and
the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 107495--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: January 27, 2026, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So my appeal has been rejected, see below.
The adjudicator made their decision on 26/01/2026 13:41:02.
It is important that the Appellant understands that the
adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The
adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has
a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of
each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally
binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they
are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or
solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their
understanding of the law and legal principles.
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider
the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other
drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal
also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and
can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating
circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which
was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear
that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that
a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the
terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being
on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments,
it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the
Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in
accordance with the displayed terms by allowing their vehicle to
remain on site beyond the maximum permitted period, having been
allowed an adequate grace period prior to the charge being
issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's)
responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of
parking are properly complied with. I am satisfied on the
evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to issue
and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as to the
location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been
identified entering and exiting the chargeable area at the times
suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant
is pursued.
The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused.
As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not
seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a
specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made
reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way
of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of
loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this
point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in
PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie
case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's
circumstances, once liability has been established, only the
Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge
based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is
dismissed.
#Post#: 107575--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: ixxy
Date: January 27, 2026, 2:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising, despite all the thought behind this type of
appeal they rarely if ever succeed, even less so with an IPC
member. Balls in their court now, you can ignore the debt
collectors letters but not a letter of claim if that comes.
#Post#: 107577--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: January 27, 2026, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What's the difference with a letter of claim? From court? And if
that comes just have to pay it?
#Post#: 107587--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: ixxy
Date: January 27, 2026, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A letter of claim is the precursor to court action. When you
receive one of those come back here and get more advice. You
only have to pay once it's been through the protracted court
process and you lose. It's fairly common for cases to be
discontinued by the parking company prior to the court date.
#Post#: 107595--------------------------------------------------
Re: G24 PCN parking overstay - ventura park Tamworth
DIR By: Hinckleycb
Date: January 27, 2026, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Much appreciated, hopefully you won't hear from me again...
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page