DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99518--------------------------------------------------
Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 24, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all.
Can anybody help with this? Parking company are claiming the RK
stayed 16 minutes but on their PCN it says 13 minutes and
'Vehicle not registered with (ANPR)'.
The driver was doing deliveries to multiple addresses in this
cul-de-sac. An appeal was made stating the vehicle had stopped
to unload and was not parked, proof of delivery documents were
attached to support the appeal.
Is there anything in the PCN text that indicates that it is
unenforceable? Freedom of Protection Act etc.
Parking company have advised to further appeal to the IAS
(Independent Appeals Service) by 28th November 2025 but I have a
feeling they'll just reject my appeal.
Any help/advice would be much appreciated. Weblinks are below.
TIA.
HTML https://ibb.co/Ldr4Cvkv
HTML https://ibb.co/s96TyG3W
HTML https://ibb.co/HTbvkG8X
#Post#: 99562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 24, 2025, 9:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you post up photos of the signage?
If deliveries were been made then Jobson v Homeguard could come
into this.
Was the drivers ID given in the appeal?
#Post#: 99568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: b789
Date: November 24, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IAS appeal will not be successful. The only way to not have
to pay these scammers is to wait for them to try and litigate
without the county court small claims track. That is when you
would win this.
It would help if you can show us an image of the terms sign in
place. It is highly likely that no contract was formed with the
driver if it says Parking only for authorised users or something
similar.
You can submit the following genetic IAS appeal, if only to
frustrate the scammers and for the record. They will likely
provide images of their signs in their prima facie evidence. But
don't hold your breath:
--- 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.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 99627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 24, 2025, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Dave65 link=topic=8896.msg99562#msg99562
date=1763998667]
Can you post up photos of the signage?
If deliveries were been made then Jobson v Homeguard could come
into this.
Was the drivers ID given in the appeal?
I will have to return to the location to get a photo of their
signage (if any), and no, the driver's ID was not given in the
appeal, only mentioned as the RK in the appeal.
#Post#: 99670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2025, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: antman40 link ---
>
> I will have to return to the location to get a photo of their
signage (if any), and no, the driver's ID was not given in the
appeal, only mentioned as the RK in the appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
That is precisely how you "inadvertently" identify the driver.
Now they know that the RK was also the driver... driver
identified.
#Post#: 99672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 25, 2025, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you show us the exact wording of the appeal?
#Post#: 99693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 25, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Can you show us the exact wording of the appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
This is a copy of the appeal:
HTML https://ibb.co/Xfcx7z75
#Post#: 99778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 25, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Dave65 link ---
>
> Can you post up photos of the signage?
>
> If deliveries were been made then Jobson v Homeguard could
come into this.
>
> Was the drivers ID given in the appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
I went back and took photos of the signage and location.
HTML https://ibb.co/0pD30V6q
HTML https://ibb.co/M51sv3n3
HTML https://ibb.co/HLdyd1Qc
#Post#: 99822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 12:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No contract is formed with a driver who does not have a permit.
The entrance sign says “Permit Holders Only” and tells drivers
that terms apply, but the detailed ‘Terms’ sign is clearly aimed
at people who already have permission to park: it says all
vehicles must hold a valid CPM e-Permit, and then sets
conditions for those vehicles.
For someone without a permit, the signs do not offer any right
to park at all, even in return for £100. Instead, they forbid
parking by non-permit holders. A sign that forbids an activity
is not making a contractual offer to those who are forbidden
from doing it, so there is nothing for a non-permit holder to
“accept”.
At most, a non-permit holder would be a trespasser and only the
landowner could, in theory, claim nominal damages (if any) for
trespass. The parking company cannot properly claim a
contractual “parking charge” from a driver who was never offered
a contract in the first place.
#Post#: 100117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Unloading in a cul-de-sac/overstayed
DIR By: antman40
Date: November 27, 2025, 2:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The IAS appeal will not be successful. The only way to not
have to pay these scammers is to wait for them to try and
litigate without the county court small claims track. That is
when you would win this.
>
> It would help if you can show us an image of the terms sign in
place. It is highly likely that no contract was formed with the
driver if it says Parking only for authorised users or something
similar.
>
> You can submit the following genetic IAS appeal, if only to
frustrate the scammers and for the record. They will likely
provide images of their signs in their prima facie evidence. But
don't hold your breath:
>
> [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.
--- End Quote ---
Hello.
So, I have sent in your appeal and the IAS have responded:
HTML https://ibb.co/rT8r5bQ
HTML https://ibb.co/hFXWfVGq
How shall I respond?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page