DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102809--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 17, 2025, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi b789,
Thank you again.
We will send this via email and again attach the PDF Letter of
appeal to IAS which has and is ended with the Keepers full
title, first name and surname.
The only difference in name is the email address which is not
the keepers name.
The original IAS appeal and OPS appeals have all been sent via
this email address and both have responded to it by attaching
letters addressed to the registered Keepers Name.
No Driver details have ever been disclosed.
When we submitted the IAS Appeal on they're website, we even
selected they're option of a "Nominate Representative" and
detailed in they're submission box the email address as a
Contact email for the Keeper in relation to the Appeal.
Should we try again putting the appeal back through IAS web
page?
#Post#: 102827--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: b789
Date: December 17, 2025, 5:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea why you selected “Nominated Representative” as
that has obviously caused the problem here. You were told to
simply appeal ONLY as the Keeper. There was no need to confuse
the issue by appealing only as the Keeper and then nominating
the same person as a nominated representative.
The email address it is sent from has no bearing on anything
whatsoever. If you use a disposable email address or a “hide my
email” address, why should that matter? It’s like saying you
posted something from a specific post box or post office as
though it makes any difference to the issue. It doesn’t.
#Post#: 102830--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: December 17, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If they're affording you the opportunity to put the appeal back
in, but this time without the 'Nominated representative' issue,
then I'd do so.
#Post#: 102986--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: December 18, 2025, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> If they're affording you the opportunity to put the appeal
back in, but this time without the 'Nominated representative'
issue, then I'd do so.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you both.
We've sent b789's letter to IAS in the body of a reply email,
and kept a copy of it with the registered keepers title, 1st
name and surname, and added a PDF copy of the appeal Letter as
an attachment.
Can't make it any clearer to them.
We put the keepers title this time because the email address is
a female name and OPS & IAS may be trying to "assume" that this
may be the driver??? which is totally incorrect as they were not
in the country at the time and has the passport stamps as
evidence.
Its been submitted on they're site, emailed to them a couple of
times now, and needs to be addressed.
We also have copies of they're automated reply stating
"Nominated Representative"
which they're websites offer. We only used this method as the
email address given is monitored regularly ready to respond.
The IAS Appeal Letter is 1787 word count which doesn't fit into
they're 1000 word box, so has to be added as a PDF, then it
just buffers and doesn't send.
You also have to set up & register an "account" with IAS to be
able to log in and to submit the appeal which has been set up
with the female email address.
#Post#: 103024--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The email address it is sent from has no bearing on anything
whatsoever. If you use a disposable email address or a “hide my
email” address, why should that matter? It’s like saying you
posted something from a specific post box or post office as
though it makes any difference to the issue. It doesn’t.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not sure which bit of this explanation is not clear. The email
address used is totally irrelevant to anything.
It’s only the IAS so don’t worry too much absolutely anything
not being submitted. Keep screenshots of any error messages or
spinning balls of death.
They make it deliberately difficult to respond to anything and
is just more evidence of the corrupt nature of the firms owners.
#Post#: 105415--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: January 11, 2026, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update on the issue.
We've had another email in response to the last one we sent with
B789 letter, just saying much the same as before.
Think the issue is that the IAS website wants an "account" set
up in the NTK name, then offers the option to "Nominate a
representative" which we did, yet they're still not
acknowledging the Appeal even if its sent to them via email or
as an attachment on they're site and they don't actually
"re-set" the original account details as they say they have, and
once sent to OPS, they reject it because they see an different
name on the Appeal contact because the IAS account shows the
representatives name instead of the Keepers. ;D
The IAS then just email us back again extending the time to
Appeal again on they're site, this time we have till 14th
January to submit the appeal on they're website.
They maybe just using the "register account" to farm peoples
personal details??
Either way, we've just replied via email stating that they're
online portal is not disabled friendly and requesting a
"Reasonable Adjustment Request" to allow the Appeal Letter as
PDF attached to the email yet again, (cant post it into they're
word count box anyway)
They clearly seem stuck on making this as difficult and
confusing as possible.
Do we now just wait for a threatening CCJ or bailiff's letter??
#Post#: 105484--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: January 12, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They've now sent us some forms to complete, sign and scan in to
send back to them via email ::) so we'll see if sending them
these forms & the Appeal Letter again will get them moving.
This is the last interaction we're prepared to do for the IAS
stage. :o
#Post#: 106794--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: January 21, 2026, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi...Just an update,
Finally heard back from IAS, OPS has responded to them with all
the documents and IAS is offering us the opportunity to add any
further evidence on an IAS-3 form, but interesting they've not
provided a date to respond by...???
Can anyone let us know what the next step is in this process
please?
Dear XXXXXXXX
You have chosen to use the postal system for the service and
receipt of documents during your appeal to the Independent
Appeals Service.
The Operator has now uploaded their representations and/or any
evidence upon which they wish to rely and this can be found
below and the enclosed documents.
What Do I need to Do Now?
You do not need to do anything further; this information is
provided to you for information only. If you wish to add any
further evidence to support your appeal please forward the
completed IAS-3 Further Iterations Form (enclosed) and any other
information to reach us by, otherwise we will process the appeal
with the correspondence you have already supplied.
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 05/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 01/11/2025.
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 do not exempt them
from the 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 term. It is the motorists
responsibility to ensure that when parking on private land that
they review the terms and conditions and park accordingly. The
displayed terms state that all vehicles must be parked wholly
within the confines of a marked bay at all times.
The contravention photos provided show that the driver parked on
site out of a marked bay on double yellow lines and proceeded to
walk off site; returning after a period of time and proceeding
to leave. Therefore the appellant has parked and made use of the
land. The IPC code of practise define parked as a vehicle being
stationary other than in the course of driving. A consideration
period is afforded to motorists to review the terms on site;
this however is not a period of free parking to make use of the
land. By making use of the land the appellant has accepted the
terms and is no longer afforded a consideration period.
All notices are sent POFA compliant. The Notice to Keeper
contains all the pertinent details as required by POFA and was
sent within the correct timeframe and therefore the appellant
can be held liable as the registered keeper.
The site and signage has been audited by the IPC and therefore
the site is deemed as complaint with the signage prominent
enough to bring the terms of parking to the attention of
motorists.
By failing to park within the confines of a marked bay and
making use of the land the appellant is in direct contravention
to the displayed terms and conditions and therefore
contractually agrees to pay a parking charge.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Independent Appeals Service
PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR
#Post#: 111470--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: Bella54
Date: February 28, 2026, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning all
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji112.png
We've had an email response from IAS on Thursday 26th Feb so are
posting it here for collective thoughts on what the next step
is? but please hold your tummy's and bladder's whilst reading as
it made laugh uncontrollably. ;D
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji23.png
Think we're now about to embark on the "threatening bailiff and
fake CCJ" stage?
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.
The Appellant's vehicle has been recorded as parking on private
land where the signage clearly states that parking must be in a
marked bay. The Appellant's vehicle is parked on double yellow
lines outside of a marked bay.
The Notice to Keeper is POFA compliant and gives all the
relevant details required and is served within the required time
frame. The Appellant is being held liable as the keeper.
There is a consideration period allowed for motorists to read
the signage and decide if they are able to comply with the
terms, but once the driver leaves the vehicle and makes use of
the site that consideration period ends as the driver is deemed
to have accepted the terms.
Having considered all the relevant issues raised and the
evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the Appellant should
have seen the prominent signage, the Appellant chose to ignore
the terms, and the operator has established that the Parking
Charge was properly issued.
This appeal therefore has to be 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
Independent Appeals Service
PO Box 662, Macclesfield, SK10 9NR
w: www.theias.org
#Post#: 111475--------------------------------------------------
Re: One Parking Solutions PCN-failure to park in a marked
bay-NtK Hertfordshire
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 28, 2026, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Think we're now about to embark on the "threatening bailiff
and fake CCJ" stage?
--- End Quote ---
The debt collector stage is the next one, yes.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to "fake CCJ"
- these companies do obtain real CCJs, from people ignoring
court claims, or losing in court and then not paying up. No risk
of that if you follow the process.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page