DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99655--------------------------------------------------
Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: PayOrNotToPay
Date: November 24, 2025, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver got a parking ticket after briefly stopping in a
private parking spot. The car was there for less than 60 seconds
— the driver only pulled in because they were waiting for
another car to move so they could park outside the private
parking area, and they didn’t want to block the traffic. From
the provided photos, it seems the car moved and did not remain
parked.
The reduced fine expires on the 26th. Based on this, do you
think the driver should pay it or try to appeal?
Thanks for any help.
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/mPqvbLRC/edited-parking-2.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/mPqvbLRC
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/zyMsJz5v/edited2.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/zyMsJz5v
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/Mn4CW6x7/parking2edited.png
HTML https://postimg.cc/Mn4CW6x7
#Post#: 99663--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 25, 2025, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The pictures appear to show the car on a public road?
#Post#: 99685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 25, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The invitation to the keeper to pay the charge is not on this
part.
#Post#: 99707--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Those two images show that the vehicle was not stationary
between the two photos, 37 seconds apart. It has clearly moved
from the first photo to the second photo.
Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant. They cannot
hold the Keeper liable in law if the driver is not identified.
It it's not a "fine" and calling it such is simply evidence that
you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who could be
intimidated into paying it out of ignorance and fear. Of course
you don't pay into a scam like this. Why on earth would you even
contemplate it? If I send you a speculative invoice for £100 but
offer you fantastic one time offer of a 40% discount, do you
simply pay it because that sounds like a bargain? Black Friday?
This would never stand a chance in court if it were to ever
reach that far (highly unlikely). There is no legal obligation
on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper
(NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no
inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. LDK has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
LDK have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
Come back when they reject that appeal (they will), and we will
advise on your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 99710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: PayOrNotToPay
Date: November 25, 2025, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Someone from online group advised me to appeal based on these
points.
I have picture from council proving its a public pathway.
I quote:
1. The keeper was not the driver
2. The driver briefly stopped to read the signs to see if you
could park. Once read, the driver didn't agree with the terms
and drove away. The consideration period is a minimum of 5
minutes.
3. The keeper believes that at no point did the driver go onto
the private land, as such this isn't 'relevant land' and as such
POFA does not apply. The keeper can not be held liable. The
parking company has no authority to issue a notice when the
vehicle is on the public highway.
See attached proof that this is owned by the council (yellow
area includes the public footpath)
You expect this notice to be cancelled.
Should I make my own detailed appeal or just use the template
you provided?
#Post#: 99712--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 25, 2025, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PayOrNotToPay link ---
>
> The driver briefly stopped to read the signs to see if you
could park.
>
--- End Quote ---
In your opening post you said the driver stopped because of
other traffic. If that's the case you shouldn't appeal on the
basis that the driver stopped to read the signs, as that would
be untrue, and you shouldn't lie in writing.
Use the template for now, and use the intervening time to find
out the status of the land (another string to your bow, not that
you need one)
#Post#: 99724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: November 25, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PayOrNotToPay link ---
>
> 1. The keeper was not the driver
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this true?
If the Keeper was also the driver, there is no reason to lie, as
this may go all the way to a county court claim. All the Keeper
has to do is decline to identify the driver. There is no legal
obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an
unregulated private parking firm.
All the Keeper has to do is refer to the driver in the third
person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or
that".
Please show us the evidence that was included with that appeal
that show that the location is actually not private land.
#Post#: 99734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 25, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> there is no reason to lie
>
--- End Quote ---
And indeed you mustn't.
#Post#: 99761--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 25, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://postimg.cc/8j5yCBx1
Link to GSV image of the pavement where the pictures appear to
be taken.
#Post#: 99821--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stopping in a private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 12:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is an outrageous attempt at extortion. I will cover the
criminal aspect of this case separately.
In this case the private parking company (LDK Group Ltd) uses a
CCTV/ANPR camera fixed to a building on the far side of a public
road, aiming across the carriageway towards a short strip of
perpendicular bays on private land. The still images on the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) show the vehicle on the public road,
at most slightly overhanging the public footway, with at least
one set of wheels still on the carriageway. The private bays are
further back, beyond a second set of double yellow lines and
behind an “entrance” sign. The footway has highway furniture
(for example a cycle lane sign) and appears to be adopted
highway, not part of the private car park.
Contractually, a private parking firm can only form a parking
contract and issue charges in respect of land it is authorised
to control. A vehicle using or briefly stopping on the public
highway or its footway is not on “relevant land” and is not
within the area where the operator’s terms apply. Any alleged
contract with the driver therefore never comes into existence if
the vehicle never crosses the boundary into the private bays.
Whether stopping on the double yellow lines or footway is
permitted is a matter for the highway authority and public
traffic law, not the unregulated private parking firm. On these
facts the Keeper can safely say that no contract existed, no
breach occurred and no civil debt is owed.
The evidential position supports that. The two CCTV stills are
only 37 seconds apart, show the vehicle has moved several feet,
and do not show it in any bay or clearly stationary on the
private land. That is consistent with passing traffic or a brief
manoeuvre on the highway, not with parking on private land. The
burden is on the operator to prove that there was a period of
parking on land they control. Their own images contradict their
allegation that there was a breach of “terms and conditions of
parking on private land”.
LDK’s notice also attempts to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to pursue the registered
keeper, but the notice is defective. It does not specify a clear
“period of parking” as required; instead it gives a single
contravention time plus an “entry time”, which is not the same
as a defined period of parking. The keeper liability wording
does not properly reflect paragraph 9(2)(e): it states that the
driver is required to pay and merely tells the keeper to name
the driver if they were not driving, rather than inviting the
keeper to pay or identify the driver. In any event PoFA can only
apply to “relevant” private land, not to a vehicle that remained
on the public highway. On either basis the operator cannot
lawfully hold the Keeper liable under PoFA.
To obtain Keeper details from DVLA the operator must have
“reasonable cause” to believe a parking contravention has
occurred on land they manage. If their camera position means
they routinely capture vehicles on the public road and then
treat those captures as car-park contraventions, they have no
reasonable cause for those DVLA requests when the images clearly
show the vehicle was never on their land. Using that data to
issue demands and threaten debt recovery or court is unlawful
processing under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018: the
data has been obtained and used without a proper lawful basis,
not fairly, and in a way that is excessive for the true facts.
That is both a breach of the DVLA KADOE contract and a personal
data breach affecting the Keeper.
LDK are members of an Accredited Trade Association (ATA), the
BPA, and on paper, their sites are supposedly “audited” for
compliance with the ATA’s Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) and the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPsCoP). In reality,
this site is being operated in a way that allows highway traffic
to be mislabelled as private car park contraventions. The BPAs
audit and badge do not excuse that behaviour; instead they raise
systemic questions about how the ATA’s code is being applied and
whether it is protecting consumers as claimed.
From April 2025 the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024 (DMCC) governs unfair commercial practices. Presenting
stopping on the public highway as a “breach of terms and
conditions of parking on private land”, dressing it up with
defective PoFA wording, and using it to pressure keepers into
paying to avoid debt recovery or court is capable of being an
unfair commercial practice. It is misleading about the legal
basis of the charge, omits the material fact that the vehicle
was never on the operator’s land, and shows a lack of
professional diligence. A reasonable consumer is likely to be
misled into paying a charge they do not owe. This is exactly the
kind of pattern that can be reported to the Competition and
Markets Authority (CMA) under the DMCC for investigation and
potential enforcement.
The Keeper therefore has several strands of recourse. First,
they can robustly deny liability to LDK on the grounds of not
being on relevant land, no contract, no breach and non-compliant
PoFA wording, pointing out that the company’s own photographs
exonerate the driver. Secondly, they can complain to DVLA that
their data was obtained without reasonable cause, and to the
Information Commissioner that it has been processed unlawfully
and unfairly. Thirdly, they can complain to the BPA that its
member is misusing CCTV and issuing charges where there is no
private land contravention, and they can copy that to the CMA
with a DMCC-focused narrative explaining the misleading and
coercive nature of the practice.
Finally, because the PCN and follow-up threats have been based
on unlawful processing of personal data and a non-existent legal
liability, the Keeper has a potential claim for compensation for
distress and anxiety under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA).
However, any such claim would usually only be worth a modest sum
and would depend on evidence that the distress suffered goes
beyond ordinary annoyance. As a result, for now, the Keeper
should treat this primarily as a matter of defeating the PCN and
making strong regulatory complaints, keeping the option of a
small damages claim or counterclaim in reserve if the operator
escalates the matter to court.
As for the “criminal” aspect, from a criminal-law perspective,
what matters is not whether the parking charge is “unfair” in a
civil sense, but whether there is evidence that the operator is
deliberately making false assertions to obtain money and data.
On the facts as described above, the operator’s own CCTV stills
show that the vehicle never left the public highway and never
entered the private bays they manage. Despite that, they are
issuing a PCN that states there was a breach of terms and
conditions of parking on private land, quoting contract-law
concepts and PoFA-style keeper liability, and demanding payment
with threats of debt recovery and court action. To get the
Keeper’s address they must also have certified to DVLA that they
had reasonable cause to believe a parking contravention had
occurred on land they control.
If that pattern is deliberate rather than a one-off mistake, it
is capable of engaging the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud by false
representation occurs where a person makes a representation that
is false or misleading, knows that it is or might be false or
misleading, and intends by it to make a gain for themselves or
cause loss to another. Here, the representations are: “you
parked on our private land in breach of our terms”, “you owe us
£100”, and “we have reasonable cause to obtain DVLA data”. If
the operator knows perfectly well that the vehicle was still on
the highway and that no such contract ever existed, yet uses
those statements to get keeper data and demand money, that fits
squarely within the structure of fraud by false representation.
The fact that the demand is dressed up as a “civil parking
charge” does not, by itself, prevent it being treated as fraud
if the underlying basis is knowingly false.
There is also a potential criminal angle under the Data
Protection Act 2018. DVLA is the data controller for keeper
records, and the operator only has a route to that data because
DVLA relies on their certification of reasonable cause. If an
operator knowingly misuses that route to obtain personal data in
the absence of any genuine contravention on their land, and then
uses that data to send threatening demands, that can be
characterised as obtaining and using personal data without a
proper lawful basis. In extreme or repeated cases, that
behaviour can move beyond regulatory breach and into the
territory of criminal misuse of personal data.
People often use the word “extortion” here. In English law the
nearest offence is blackmail, which requires an unwarranted
demand with menaces. A demand for money backed by the threat of
lawful civil proceedings is not usually blackmail if the person
honestly believes the money is owed. It only starts to resemble
blackmail if there is no honest belief in any debt at all and
the threat is being used purely as a lever of fear. In practice,
police and prosecutors are very slow to treat parking charge
demands as blackmail, even when the underlying claim looks
hopeless, so the more realistic criminal route is to frame it as
fraud and misuse of data.
The key practical point is this: when a firm systematically
issues tickets in situations where its own evidence shows no
contravention on its land, and it repeatedly uses those false
assertions to tap into DVLA data and demand money, that is not
just sharp civil practice. It is capable of amounting to
criminal conduct under the Fraud Act and the data protection
regime. Whether the police or CPS will act is another question,
but there is nothing fanciful about describing the behaviour, in
complaints to regulators or to your MP, as potentially
fraudulent use of DVLA data and false representation to obtain
money.
So, what next? You appeal only as the Keeper, outlining
everything I have described above. You can then follow up, if
they reject, with the regulatory complaints. But step one is to
get a strong appeal/complaint on record.
Use the following as your appeal:
--- Quote ---
> Re: Parking Charge Notice [PCN number], Vehicle [VRM], Date
[date]
>
> I write as the registered keeper. I deny any liability for
this charge and require you to cancel it immediately.
>
> Your own CCTV stills show the vehicle entirely on the public
highway and/or its footway, with at least one set of wheels on
the carriageway at all times. The private bays you manage are
further in, beyond the inner double yellow lines and behind the
entrance sign. At no point is the vehicle shown on your private
land. You therefore have no contractual nexus with the driver,
no “relevant land” within the meaning of PoFA, and no lawful
basis to issue a parking charge.
>
> Any suggestion of keeper liability under Schedule 4 PoFA is
misconceived. PoFA cannot apply where the vehicle was on a
public highway, which is excluded from the definition of
relevant land. In addition, your Notice to Keeper is not
compliant: it does not state any clear period of parking, only
an “entry” time and a single contravention time, and your
wording does not invite the keeper to pay as required by
paragraph 9(2)(e). You cannot, in law, transfer any liability to
the keeper.
>
> In order to obtain my details from DVLA you must have
certified that you had “reasonable cause” to believe a parking
contravention occurred on land you manage. Your own images prove
the opposite. You have therefore obtained and used my personal
data without reasonable cause and without a lawful basis, in
breach of UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and your KADOE
contract with DVLA.
>
> The pattern here is that you are using off-site CCTV to
harvest VRMs of vehicles on the public road, falsely
re-describing those incidents as contraventions “on private
land”, and then using that false basis to obtain keeper data and
demand money with threats of debt recovery and court. That
conduct is capable of amounting to fraud by false representation
under the Fraud Act 2006, as well as an unfair commercial
practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers
Act 2024. If you do not cancel this charge I will treat your
refusal as a deliberate decision to persist in that course of
conduct.
>
> As you are members of the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme, if
you refuse to cancel you are required to issue a POPLA
verification code. For the avoidance of doubt, any use I make of
POPLA will not prevent me from reporting this case, with your
images and correspondence, to DVLA, the Information
Commissioner’s Office, the BPA, the Competition and Markets
Authority and my Member of Parliament, and from inviting them to
consider both the regulatory and criminal aspects of your
behaviour. I also reserve the right to report this as a
suspected fraud to the police.
>
> I require written confirmation that this Parking Charge Notice
has been cancelled and that my personal data has been erased
from your systems, save for a single suppression record. I will
not be naming the driver and I do not consent to any further use
or sharing of my personal data except as strictly required by
law or for the purpose of cancelling this charge.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page