DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100306--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: b789
Date: November 29, 2025, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The above does make the point but I'd be a bit more forceful and
explain to them the consequences of their unreasonable
behaviour:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Parking Charge reference – [REFERENCE]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your emails dated 20 and 26 November 2025 are noted.
>
> It is disappointing, if not surprising, that after two clear
responses your organisation still appears unable to grasp the
basics of keeper liability and appeals handling. For the
avoidance of doubt:
>
> You do not require the details of the driver in order to
process my appeal. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) states clearly in clause 8 that:
>
> [indent]“The parking operator is only required to deal with an
appeal from the subject of the parking charge”.[/indent]
>
> As you have addressed the notice to me and claimed it is a
“Notice to Keeper”, I am the subject of the parking charge and
accordingly you are required to respond to my appeal, submitted
in my capacity as the Keeper.
>
> I will not be providing details of the driver. I am not liable
to pay this parking charge. Cancel the charge, or reject my
appeal.
>
> Your repeated insistence on driver details as a pre-condition
to even considering an appeal is wholly misconceived, contrary
to the PPSCoP, and looks like nothing more than a crude attempt
to manufacture driver liability where none exists in law. That
is not how legitimate businesses behave; it is the hallmark of
the predatory, clampers-in-all-but-name end of this industry.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, this practice – of refusing to
process a keeper appeal unless and until the driver is
identified – will be reported to the Competition and Markets
Authority (CMA) as a potentially unfair commercial practice
under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
(DMCC). If the CMA forms the view that this behaviour
constitutes a prohibited practice, you run the risk of a CMA
sanction which could prove extremely financially painful for
your company.
>
> This is now very simple:
>
> [indent]1. You process my appeal as keeper, in accordance with
your trade body rules and the PPSCoP; and
> 2. You either cancel the charge, or you issue a formal
rejection.[/indent]
>
> Any further template emails demanding the driver’s identity,
or purporting to “hold” the charge while you ignore your
obligations, will simply be retained as evidence of your conduct
for any future complaint to the DVLA, your ATA, the CMA and my
MP, and for production to the court should you be unwise enough
to litigate.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [NAME]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 100313--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 29, 2025, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Someone b789 may write something more thorough
--- End Quote ---
Fixed my previous post ;D
Use b789's, it's less hastily written than mine.
#Post#: 100371--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: November 30, 2025, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
;D ;D Thank you both DWMB2 and b789 8) eloquently done.
b789's has been emailed to OPS this morning as a PDF.
Wizard wands at the ready for next weeks duel
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji23.png
#Post#: 100457--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 1, 2025, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good Morning.
Received the below by email this morning. Seems like any excuse
to delay ::)
The NTK has full first name and surname, no title.
Correspondences has been sent with initial and surname.
Good morning,
Thank you for your email,
To process the appeal which was submitted on the 18/11/2025 we
require the full name being, the title, full first name and last
name.
Please note that if we do not receive this, we are unable to
process this appeal, the parking charge is on hold for a further
2 days to give the appellant time to provide this information.
Kind Regards
#Post#: 100468--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 1, 2025, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just amended the PDF letters to include title and name and
attached both again to email reply.
Hopefully this gets them to move things along.
#Post#: 100469--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 1, 2025, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OPS clearly never listened to their school teachers when they
said "It's your own time you're wasting".
At some point you do actually want them to respond to your
appeal so if you haven't actually provided your full name at any
point I'd be tempted to just send one final short reply along
the lines of:
[indent]Dear sirs,
Although you already have my details as the keeper of the
vehicle, having obtained them from the DVLA, for the avoidance
of doubt, my name is [TITLE] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]. I am the
registered keeper of the vehicle.
I will not be naming the driver.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
EDIT: posted above before I saw your most recent reply.
#Post#: 100470--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 1, 2025, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your input, it'll be the next wave of the wand if
they find yet another excuse. :D
Just sent "See attached"
Not much time wasted our end. ;D
Sent another email with what you've suggested.
Genuinely didn't notice or even think about the full name cos
NtK states first name and surname, no title, but one email that
OPS has sent is titled Dear MR. XXXXXXX (spelt incorrectly) so
was more focused on amending the miss spelling.
Don't think for 1 minute that the PCN will get cancelled, :-\
but does go to show how things can get confusing and over looked
easily.
#Post#: 100498--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: b789
Date: December 1, 2025, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bella54 link ---
>
> ...To process the appeal which was submitted on the 18/11/2025
we require the full name being, the title, full first name and
last name.
>
--- End Quote ---
The "title, full first name and last name" of who? Are you
saying that that is the sum total of the content of their email?
Whose details have you provided? Yours? As what? The appellant?
The Keeper? The driver?
This is how you should respond to that request:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Parking Charge reference – [REFERENCE]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I refer to your latest email demanding, yet again, “full name
being, the title, full first name and last name” before you will
even deign to process an appeal that you received on 18
November.
>
> This is getting silly.
>
> You already hold my full name as supplied by the DVLA and
printed on your own Notice to Keeper. That Notice is addressed
to me by full first name and surname. That is quite obviously
sufficient to identify me as the subject of the parking charge.
The fact that I choose to use an initial and surname in
correspondence, or to omit a courtesy title, does not magically
turn me into a different person or entitle you to put the appeal
into limbo.
>
> Nothing in PoFA, in your trade association rules, or in the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) permits you to
refuse to process a keeper appeal unless the keeper jumps
through contrived hoops about titles and forenames. Clause 8 of
the PPSCoP states that “The parking operator is only required to
deal with an appeal from the subject of the parking charge”. You
addressed the NtK to me and claimed it is a “Notice to Keeper”,
therefore I am the subject of the parking charge. You are
required to respond to my appeal, submitted in my capacity as
the keeper. You do not require anything further.
>
> I repeat: I will not be providing details of the driver. I am
not liable to pay this parking charge. Cancel the charge, or
reject my appeal.
>
> Your repeated attempts to manufacture spurious “requirements”
(first the driver’s identity, now a particular format of name)
as a pre-condition to even considering an appeal are wholly
misconceived, contrary to the PPSCoP, and appear designed to
frustrate and deter consumers from exercising their rights. That
is not legitimate administration; it is gamesmanship, and the
behaviour of clampers-in-all-but-name.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, this practice – of refusing to
process a valid keeper appeal unless the consumer provides
unnecessary extra personal details or identifies the driver –
will be reported to the Competition and Markets Authority as a
potentially unfair commercial practice under the Digital
Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. If the CMA
concludes that this conduct falls within the scope of a
prohibited practice, you run the risk of a CMA sanction which
could be extremely financially painful for your company.
>
> This is now very simple:
>
> 1. You process my appeal as keeper, using the information you
already hold, in accordance with your trade body rules and the
PPSCoP; and
> 2. You either cancel the charge, or you issue a formal
rejection.
>
> Any further template emails demanding yet more invented
“requirements” or purporting to “hold” the charge instead of
dealing with the appeal will simply be retained as evidence of
your conduct for complaints to the DVLA, your ATA, the CMA and
my MP, and for production to the court should you be unwise
enough to litigate.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [NAME]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101053--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 4, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ohhh.... b789 soooo sorry I missed your reply earlier this week
or we'd would have defiantly added this in.
We've had an email responses Appeal Rejected letter today, so
despite the all confusion and delay tactics we can now start to
progress things further.
No admission of driver or driver details have been supplied so
still on keeper details only.
HTML https://ibb.co/pB8yXHtk
#Post#: 101128--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: b789
Date: December 5, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to the IAS, for what it's worth, with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Parking Charge Reference: [REFERENCE]
> Vehicle Registration: [VRM]
> Site: Roe Green Centre
> Date of Alleged Contravention: 01/11/2025
> Date of NtK: 05/11/2025
>
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver has not
been identified and there is no admission as to the identity of
the driver. This appeal is made strictly in my capacity as
keeper.
>
> The parking operator has rejected my appeal without addressing
the substantive grounds raised, in particular (i) the absence of
keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and (ii) the non-compliance of their
enforcement with the mandatory consideration period required by
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(“PPSCoP”). The rejection simply recites generic assertions
about “the driver” entering into a contract and failing to park
within a bay, while wholly ignoring the status of the keeper and
the statutory conditions which would be required before any
keeper liability could arise. The operator has therefore
misdirected itself as to the legal framework and IAS is invited
to correct that error.
>
> This appeal is advanced on the following grounds.
>
> 1. No keeper liability – non-compliant Notice to Keeper and no
admission as to driver
>
> (a) The operator’s entire case, as set out in the rejection
letter dated 4 December 2025, is that “the driver” entered into
a contractual agreement with One Parking Solution (“OPS”) by
choosing to park or remain on the site, and that “the driver
failed to park the vehicle fully within the confines of a marked
bay”. The rejection repeatedly attributes the alleged conduct to
“the driver” and at no point asserts that any contractual
obligations arise as against the registered keeper.
>
> (b) At common law, any alleged parking contract can only bind
the contracting party, namely the driver who is said to have
seen and accepted the terms. A registered keeper is not, merely
by reason of keepership, liable in contract for any act or
omission of an unidentified driver; there is no general
common-law doctrine that transfers a driver’s contractual
liabilities to the vehicle’s keeper.
>
> (c) The only statutory route by which a private parking
operator may hold a non-driving keeper liable in respect of an
alleged parking charge is the scheme contained in Schedule 4 to
PoFA. That statutory scheme is expressly conditional: the
creditor “has the right to recover from the keeper so much of
that amount as remains unpaid” only if, and only if, the
conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (in the case of
a notice to driver followed by notice to keeper) or paragraph 9
(in the case of a notice to keeper only) are strictly complied
with.
>
> (d) My original appeal squarely raised the point that the
Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) does not comply with all of the
mandatory requirements of Schedule 4. It therefore cannot create
any keeper liability. The operator’s rejection letter does not
dispute this proposition, nor does it purport to explain how
their NtK satisfies each and every statutory condition. Instead,
OPS simply ignores PoFA altogether and continues to assert a
cause of action against “the driver”.
>
> (e) PoFA is a carefully drafted piece of legislation which
sets out a series of cumulative pre-conditions for the transfer
of liability. Substantial, partial or “near enough” compliance
is not sufficient; the statutory wording is clear that the right
to recover from the keeper arises only “if all the applicable
conditions under this Schedule are met”. Any omission or defect
in the NtK is fatal to keeper liability.
>
> (f) In circumstances where: (i) the operator has adduced no
evidence that the Appellant was the driver; (ii) there has been
no admission as to who was driving; and (iii) the NtK fails to
satisfy Schedule 4 in full and has not been shown to do so, the
legal position is straightforward. OPS may (if it wishes) pursue
the unidentified driver in person, but it has no lawful basis to
recover any sum from the registered keeper.
>
> (g) IAS is invited to determine, as a matter of law, that no
keeper liability has arisen and that the appeal must therefore
be allowed, regardless of any alleged conduct by an unidentified
driver.
>
> 2. Failure to observe the mandatory consideration period –
breach of Section 5.1 PPSCoP
>
> (a) The alleged contravention arises from an observation of
less than one minute on site. OPS was made expressly aware of
this in the appeal and of the fact that Section 5.1 of the
PPSCoP requires operators to allow a minimum consideration
period for drivers to read the terms and conditions and decide
whether to stay or depart. A charge cannot lawfully be issued
for conduct taking place within that initial consideration
period.
>
> (b) Rather than engaging with Section 5.1, OPS has chosen to
mischaracterise the consideration period, asserting in its
rejection that “a grace/consideration period is not a free
parking period and will not apply if the driver is making use of
the land” and that choosing not to read the terms “is a choice”.
That is a self-serving gloss on the Code, not its content.
>
> (c) The PPSCoP sets a minimum consideration period as a
mandatory consumer protection measure. It recognises that
drivers must be given sufficient time, after stopping and before
being bound by any contract, to locate, approach and read the
signage and then decide whether the terms are acceptable. That
period is, by definition, a period during which no parking
charge may be enforced. If it were otherwise, the requirement
for a “minimum” consideration period would be meaningless.
>
> (d) An observation period of less than one minute is, on any
sensible view, incapable of satisfying that requirement. Within
such a short interval, a driver may still be manoeuvring,
checking bay markings, looking for signage or deciding whether
to remain on the site at all. It is not credible to contend that
within under a minute the driver had both read and accepted
detailed contractual terms, including an onerous parking charge,
and then immediately breached them in a legally enforceable way.
>
> (e) The alleged contravention is “Failure to Park Within a
Marked Bay”. If the vehicle was still in the process of parking,
repositioning or assessing where to park during the very brief
period captured by OPS’s images, the vehicle was not yet
“parked” at all in the legal sense. The operator has adduced no
evidence of any meaningful “period of parking” outside the
consideration period; mere time-stamped still photographs taken
seconds apart do not prove that the vehicle was stationary and
in breach for any appreciable duration.
>
> (f) By issuing a charge almost instantaneously, OPS has acted
contrary to the PPSCoP. As a member of an accredited trade
association and a beneficiary of DVLA data access, OPS is
required to adhere to that Code. IAS, as the associated appeals
body, should not endorse an enforcement action which is plainly
at odds with a mandatory sector-wide code of practice.
>
> 3. No evidence of clear contractual terms brought to the
driver’s attention prior to alleged breach
>
> (a) The burden lies on OPS to prove that, before any alleged
breach, the driver was given reasonable notice of the terms said
to form “The Parking Contract”, including the obligation to park
fully within marked bays and the imposition of a substantial
parking charge for non-compliance.
>
> (b) The rejection letter relies on a generic assertion that
the “T&C’s apply to all users of the site and are fully and
clearly displayed on the parking signs”. No site plan has been
produced showing the location and orientation of the signs
relative to the bay in question, nor has OPS demonstrated that a
driver would inevitably see and be able to read the terms in the
short time available. The operator has therefore failed to
discharge the evidential burden of proving that the terms were
sufficiently brought to the driver’s attention before any
alleged contract could be formed.
>
> (c) It is trite law that particularly onerous or unusual terms
must be clearly and prominently drawn to the attention of the
party to be bound. A sizeable parking charge for a trivial
alleged deviation from the lines of a bay is an onerous term.
Without evidence of prominent, legible signage directly
proximate to the location, no court would be satisfied that such
a term was incorporated into any contract.
>
> (d) In light of the extremely short observation period, OPS
would need to show compelling evidence that the signage was not
only present, but positioned and illuminated such that a driver
could reasonably be expected to locate it, approach it and read
it within seconds. No such evidence has been provided.
>
> 4. Procedural unfairness and improper attempt to manufacture
driver liability
>
> (a) Before finally issuing their rejection, OPS repeatedly
refused to process the appeal unless I first disclosed the full
legal name and title of the “driver” or of the appellant. These
demands were made despite OPS already holding my full name, as
supplied by the DVLA and printed on its NtK, and despite the
PPSCoP making clear that an operator need only deal with an
appeal made by the “subject of the parking charge”, which in
this case is plainly the keeper named on the NtK.
>
> (b) OPS’s correspondence confirms that their real purpose in
erecting artificial “requirements” about naming conventions was
to obtain the identity of the driver. That conduct is
inconsistent with a fair and impartial appeals process and
strongly suggests that OPS is aware it cannot rely on PoFA and
is therefore seeking to side-step the statutory scheme by
extracting a driver admission.
>
> (c) The IAS should view this background as relevant context
when assessing OPS’s credibility and its approach to its legal
obligations. An operator which is unwilling even to engage with
clear statutory arguments, and instead resorts to contrived
administrative hurdles, should not be rewarded by having its
charge upheld.
>
> 5. Conclusion
>
> In summary:
>
> (i) The operator has failed to establish any lawful basis for
keeper liability under PoFA.
> (ii) The alleged contravention was recorded within a time
frame incompatible with the mandatory consideration period
required by Section 5.1 PPSCoP, so no enforceable charge can
arise.
> (iii) OPS has not proved that the contractual terms were
clearly brought to the attention of the driver prior to any
alleged breach, particularly given the very short observation
period.
> (iv) The operator’s own correspondence confirms that it
continues to pursue an unidentified “driver” while ignoring the
statutory limitations on pursuing a non-driving keeper.
>
> For all of the above reasons, the Appellant respectfully
submits that the parking charge is not recoverable from the
registered keeper and that this appeal must be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page