DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102969--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 12:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is a standard template rejection. It does not engage with
any of the points raised in the keeper’s appeal and it contains
wording that is actually useful later.
They have treated the appeal as if it came from the driver. They
say “you failed to display a valid permit” and also say “it
remains the responsibility of the driver to comply”. That is
deliberate. They are trying to manoeuvre the keeper into the
driver frame. Do not assist them.
You, as the keeper must continue to keep everything in the
registered keeper frame. Do not use wording like “I parked” or
“I drove” in any future correspondence.
They have not rebutted the core issues. They have not addressed:
- The point that the signage is prohibitive. “Permit holders
only” is not an offer to non-permit holders and is therefore
incapable of creating a contract with a non-permit holder.
- The point that if their case is really “unauthorised parking”,
that is at most an allegation of trespass, and only a landholder
can pursue trespass. UKCPS cannot pursue trespass as a parking
contractor.
- The fact your AST contains no parking or permit obligations
and You were never notified of any binding estate regulations
that could impose such a scheme on a tenant.
- Any keeper liability analysis at all. They simply assert the
PCN was “issued correctly” and avoid addressing PoFA or
explaining how they think liability transfers from driver to
keeper.
Their “mitigating circumstances” paragraph is noise. They are
attempting to reframe the issue as “we sympathise but rules are
rules”. That is irrelevant in law if no contract was formed, if
they cannot transfer liability to the keeper, or if the signage
is forbidding rather than offering parking.
The discount deadline is a pressure tactic. They want payment.
It does not mean their position is strong.
Use the following as your IAS appeal, for what it’s worth:
--- Quote ---
> Appellant: The Registered Keeper of vehicle [VRM]
> Operator: UKCPS Ltd
> PCN reference: [PCN REF]
> Location: The Bar, St James Gate – Basement Car Park,
Newcastle upon Tyne
> Date of alleged contravention: [DATE]
> Date of operator rejection: [DATE ON REJECTION LETTER]
>
> I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. This appeal
is submitted by the keeper. The keeper does not admit to being
the driver and will not be identifying the driver.
>
> This appeal is made on multiple grounds. Any one ground is
sufficient for the appeal to be allowed.
>
> 1. Failure to properly consider the keeper’s appeal / failure
to address material points
>
> The operator’s rejection is a generic template asserting only
that “a valid permit was not displayed” and that “it is the
responsibility of the driver to comply”. It does not
meaningfully engage with, or rebut, the core legal points raised
in the initial appeal, including:
>
> a) The signage is prohibitive (“permit holders only”) and
incapable of making a contractual offer to a non-permit holder.
>
> b) If the operator’s case is in substance “unauthorised
parking”, that is, at most, an allegation of trespass, which is
a matter only the landholder can pursue, not a parking
contractor.
>
> c) The operator has not established keeper liability under
Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The rejection
avoids any PoFA analysis and instead attempts to treat the
keeper as the driver.
>
> d) The operator has not produced evidence of a lawful basis to
demand a contractual charge from a resident tenant whose tenancy
contains no permit obligation and who has not been provided with
any binding estate regulations.
>
> The IAS is invited to note that the operator’s rejection is
essentially “rules are rules” mitigation language. That is not a
legal response to the issues raised. The operator bears the
burden of proof.
>
> 2. No keeper liability under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (and no
admission as to driver)
>
> The keeper does not admit the identity of the driver.
Therefore, for the operator to pursue the keeper, the operator
must demonstrate full compliance with PoFA Schedule 4.
>
> The operator has not demonstrated PoFA compliance. In
particular, the keeper’s appeal raised that the Notice to Keeper
does not specify a period of parking (it merely provides a time
or observation). A single time stamp is not a “period of
parking”. If the statutory conditions are not met, the keeper
cannot be held liable. The operator’s rejection fails to address
this at all.
>
> In addition, the operator’s correspondence repeatedly uses
“you” in a manner designed to imply the recipient is the driver,
while simultaneously stating “it remains the responsibility of
the driver”. That is an improper attempt to reverse the burden
onto the keeper and avoid the statutory framework.
>
> The IAS is therefore respectfully invited to find that, absent
proof of PoFA compliance and absent driver identification, the
operator has no cause of action against the keeper.
>
> 3. Prohibitive signage: no contractual offer, therefore no
contract and no contractual charge
>
> The operator’s case is framed as “failed to display a valid
permit” and “parked without a registered permit”. The signage
relied upon is of the “permit holders only / permit holders must
display a permit” type. Such wording is, in law, prohibitive: it
forbids parking by non-permit holders. It does not make any
offer of parking to a non-permit holder upon payment of a
charge.
>
> A fundamental requirement for a contract is offer and
acceptance. A sign that prohibits parking except for permit
holders does not offer parking to non-permit holders on any
terms. The driver (who is not identified) could not accept an
offer that is not made to them. The proper analysis, if the
operator says the vehicle was not authorised, is trespass. A
parking contractor has no standing to pursue trespass damages
unless it is the landholder or has been assigned the
landholder’s proprietary rights (which is not asserted and, in
any event, is rarely the case).
>
> The operator’s rejection entirely avoids this issue and simply
repeats that “a permit must be displayed”, which assumes a
contract exists. That is circular and insufficient.
>
> Accordingly, the IAS is invited to find that no contract
capable of giving rise to a contractual charge was formed with a
non-permit holder.
>
> 4. No standing / no evidence of landholder authority to offer
contracts and pursue charges in their own name
>
> The operator has produced no contract or contemporaneous
evidence of landholder authority authorising UKCPS to:
>
> a) offer parking contracts at this site in its own name, and
> b) pursue charges and litigation in its own name.
>
> The keeper’s position from the outset has been that if the
signage is prohibitive, then the operator’s claim can only sound
in trespass, which only the landholder can pursue. Even if the
IAS were to treat the signage as contractual (which is denied),
the operator must still prove it has standing.
>
> A bare assertion that “parking enforcement is in place” is not
proof of standing. Photographs of a sign are not proof of
landholder authority or the legal capacity to contract.
>
> This is a strict proof point and the operator has not
discharged it.
>
> 5. Primacy of the tenant’s tenancy and absence of any binding
notice of parking regulations to the tenant
>
> The registered keeper is a resident tenant. The tenancy
agreement is silent on any parking rights or parking
restrictions for the basement, and contains no obligation to
display permits or to pay private parking charges.
>
> Further, the tenancy includes a clause dealing with lease
covenants/building regulations to the effect that where
applicable they must be provided or notified in writing. No such
lease covenants or written building regulations have been
provided or notified to the tenant/keeper. The managing agent
has expressly refused to share the lease or discuss it with the
tenant, stating their relationship is with the leaseholder.
>
> In these circumstances, it is not open to the operator (or the
managing agent by proxy) to claim that undisclosed lease terms
bind a tenant, while simultaneously refusing to disclose those
terms. The operator’s position amounts to: “you are bound by
rules you have never been provided, and if you do not comply you
owe us £100.” That is not a valid contractual basis.
>
> The operator’s rejection letter does not address this at all
and simply asserts that permit requirements exist. That is
inadequate where the appellant is a resident tenant whose
pre-existing right to occupy and use the premises arises from
the tenancy.
>
> 6. The operator’s evidence does not prove a breach giving rise
to a charge, nor does it prove that the sum is recoverable
>
> The operator has provided the same photographs as the PCN,
namely images of the vehicle and an image of terms and
conditions signage. This does not establish:
>
> a) that the signage was sufficiently prominent and legible
from the point of parking such that any driver could read and
understand the full terms before any alleged contract could be
formed,
> b) that any contractual offer was made to non-permit holders
(it was not),
> c) that a “period of parking” is evidenced for PoFA purposes
(if keeper liability is pursued),
> d) that the operator has standing, and
> e) that the charge is recoverable as a contractual sum in the
absence of a lawful contract.
>
> Simply stating “you breached terms and conditions” is not
evidence. The burden remains on the operator.
>
> 7. Summary
>
> The operator has not established keeper liability, has not
rebutted the prohibitive signage point, has not shown standing,
and has not addressed the primacy of the resident tenant’s
tenancy and the absence of any properly notified binding
regulations. The rejection is a generic template that sidesteps
every substantive legal issue raised.
>
> For all the reasons above, the appellant respectfully requests
that the IAS allows this appeal and directs that the charge be
cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 102972--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 18, 2025, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Struggling to see any offer being communicated by the signs to
the class of persons that are not permit holders.
#Post#: 102974--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 12:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Point #3 in the IAS appeal covers that.
#Post#: 103045--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: newpcnappeal
Date: December 18, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the template for IAS, its reassuring to hear my
legal position is strong for these PCNs. I'll keep following
along all advice I'm getting here and happily ignore any demands
of payment
#Post#: 103992--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: newpcnappeal
Date: December 29, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update: As expected I've received back rejections for all
appeals from UKCPS.
All but one gave a similar generic response except for the last
one which includes some brief responses to appeal points made, I
would be interested to hear your take on these please:
After reviewing your comments, and carefully considering the
evidence collected at the time the Parking Charge was issued, we
regret to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The reasons for our decision are detailed below:
It was observed that you failed to display a valid permit.
Parking terms and conditions, including permit
requirements, are implemented to ensure an efficient and
organised parking system for all residents, tenants,
visitors, etc. It is imperative that all individuals adhere to
these terms and conditions to maintain order and
fairness.
Permit requirement and contractual terms
The basement car park at this location operates under a clearly
displayed permit scheme. Drivers are required to
comply with the terms and conditions in force at the location as
set out on the signage. The absence of a permit
entitlement within a tenancy agreement does not exempt a driver
from compliance with on-site parking controls.
Signage and enforcement
Signage within the land clearly states that parking is for
authorised permit holders only and that unauthorised
vehicles may be issued with a Parking Charge Notice. These signs
are sufficient to inform drivers of the
restrictions in place and the consequences of non-compliance. By
parking without displaying a valid permit, the
driver accepted the risk of a parking charge being issued.
Access gate condition
The operational status of the access gate does not alter the
parking restrictions in force. The presence or absence
of a physical barrier does not negate the requirement to comply
with the clearly displayed parking terms and
conditions.
Resident information
UKCPS is contracted to manage and enforce parking in accordance
with the site rules as provided by the
landholder.
Keeper liability
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice and Notice to
Keeper were issued in accordance with the relevant
legislation and industry requirements. Where applicable,
liability may be transferred to the registered keeper in line
with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Duration and nature of parking
The vehicle was observed parked in the restricted area without a
valid permit. The reason for parking and the
duration of stay do not negate the requirement to comply with
the permit scheme in operation at the site. It remains
the responsibility of the driver to comply with the parking
terms and conditions and properly display a valid permit
at all times. Failure to do so can inconvenience others and
disrupt the overall parking arrangements.
Attached, you will find photographic evidence showing the
vehicle parked at the location mentioned above. (same evidence
given as the PCN, nothing additional)
#Post#: 104007--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: b789
Date: December 29, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is still largely a template, but it is a “better” template
in the sense that it tries to answer your headings. The problem
for them is that almost everything they say is either (a) a bare
assertion with no proof, or (b) a misstatement of how contract
law and PoFA actually work.
This is my take on each section, and what it gives you for the
IAS appeal and later if they escalate.
Permit requirement and contractual terms
[indent]“The absence of a permit entitlement within a tenancy
agreement does not exempt a driver from compliance with on-site
parking controls.”[/indent]
That is an assertion, not a legal analysis. It also dodges the
real point: the tenancy does not “exempt” anyone; it is the
occupier’s pre-existing contract which defines what obligations
the occupier has accepted. A third-party sign cannot
unilaterally create new contractual obligations against a
resident/tenant unless there is a route in the tenancy (or
properly notified building regulations) that permits it.
They also keep sliding back to “driver” to avoid addressing
keeper liability. That is useful because it shows they are not
actually engaging with who they are pursuing and on what basis.
Signage and enforcement
“Parking is for authorised permit holders only... unauthorised
vehicles may be issued with a PCN... By parking without
displaying a valid permit, the driver accepted the risk...”
This is the same circular reasoning as before: “we put up a
sign, therefore contract, therefore charge”. It still fails to
answer the prohibitive sign point. A sign that says parking is
for permit holders only is, on its face, forbidding. It is not
an offer of parking to non-permit holders for £100. Their own
wording (“authorised permit holders only”, “unauthorised
vehicles”) actually supports the argument that this is about
alleged trespass/unauthorised presence rather than a contractual
offer to everyone.
“Accepted the risk” is also telling language: risk is not
acceptance of contractual terms. Contract formation requires an
offer capable of acceptance. If the sign forbids parking by
non-permit holders, there is no offer to accept.
Access gate condition
This is mostly irrelevant either way, but note what they have
done: they have turned your “open access due to broken gate”
point into a pure “doesn’t matter” statement, without addressing
the fairness/management angle or the practical reality that the
site was not being controlled as a permit-only facility.
Resident information
[indent]“UKCPS is contracted... in accordance with the site
rules as provided by the landholder.”[/indent]
Again: assertion with no proof. They still have not produced the
landholder contract or any evidence of the landholder’s rules,
nor any evidence that those rules were properly notified to
residents/tenants, nor that UKCPS has the necessary authority to
contract with motorists and litigate in their own name.
Keeper liability
[indent]“We are satisfied that... issued in accordance with
relevant legislation... Where applicable, liability may be
transferred...”[/indent]
This is the classic IPC operator move: a vague statement that
sounds like compliance but cites nothing and proves nothing. “We
are satisfied” is meaningless. “Where applicable” is also an
escape hatch. Either they are relying on PoFA to pursue the
keeper, or they are not. If they are, they must show strict
compliance with the statutory wording and service requirements.
If they are not, they can only pursue the driver, who has not
been identified.
For IAS purposes, for what it's worth, you press them to strict
proof:
[indent]• identify which PoFA paragraph they rely on (NtK
following NtD vs ANPR, para 8 vs para 9)
• show where the notice specifies the period of parking (not a
single time)
• show the mandatory wording (including the invitation to pay,
warning of keeper liability, etc., in the required form)
• show dates of issue and deemed service and how it meets the
statutory deadlines[/indent]
If their NTK is non-compliant in any respect, “may be
transferred” becomes “cannot be transferred”.
Duration and nature of parking
[indent]“The reason for parking and the duration of stay do not
negate the requirement...”[/indent]
That is simply a restatement of their business model. Legally it
still doesn’t fix: (a) no contract/prohibitive signage, (b) no
keeper liability, (c) lack of standing, (d) primacy of the
tenancy and lack of notified regulations.
Also note: they do not state any actual duration, and they have
provided no new evidence beyond the same photos. If their
documentation only shows an “observed time” rather than a
period, that continues to feed your PoFA “period of parking”
point.
What this changes for your IAS appeal
It gives you extra material to attack because they have now
committed in writing to several propositions that are either
unproven or internally inconsistent:
[indent]1. They say it is “permit holders only” and
“unauthorised vehicles” (helps your prohibitive/no offer
argument).
2. They claim PoFA compliance but provide no particulars (press
strict proof).
3. They assert landholder rules/authority but disclose none
(press strict proof of standing and the contract).
4. They keep relying on “driver responsibility” language while
hinting at keeper liability (shows they are trying to have it
both ways).[/indent]
Appeal each PCN separately to the IAS with the following:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]. I appeal to the
Independent Appeals Service against UKCPS Ltd (“the Operator”)
in respect of Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued in
relation to an alleged contravention on [ALLEGED DATE] at
approximately [ALLEGED TIME] at The Bar, St James Gate, NE1 4BB
(basement car park). Liability is denied in full.
>
> This is a dispute of substance concerning contract formation,
the legal character of the signage relied upon, evidential
sufficiency, landholder authority and standing, the primacy of
the occupier’s existing contract and residential rights, and the
Operator’s compliance with mandatory statutory requirements.
>
> The Operator is put to strict proof of every element of its
claim and strict proof of any rebuttal of the points raised in
this appeal. In particular, the Operator must strictly prove:
>
> [indent](i) the precise location and circumstances of the
alleged event;
> (ii) the exact wording of the alleged contractual terms relied
upon;
> (iii) that those terms were lawfully capable of forming a
contract with this class of motorist;
> (iv) that any alleged contract was actually formed;
> (v) that the sum demanded is recoverable in law;
> (vi) that the Operator has standing and landholder authority
to offer contracts and pursue charges in its own name; and
> (vii) if the Operator seeks to pursue the registered keeper,
strict compliance with every applicable requirement of Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”).[/indent]
>
> Bare assertion is not proof.
>
> The Operator’s handling of the initial keeper appeals is
relevant to credibility and procedural fairness. The rejection
letter is largely boilerplate and repeatedly defaults to “driver
responsibility” and conclusory statements that the charge was
“issued correctly”, while failing to engage with determinative
issues raised: the absence of any PoFA “period of parking”, the
prohibitive nature of the signage, the absence of any
contractual offer to non-permit holders, the requirement for
strict proof of standing, and the primacy of the occupier’s
pre-existing contractual framework. An ADR determination that
relies on repetition of such assertions rather than evidence and
legal analysis cannot amount to a fair resolution of a legal
dispute.
>
> Procedural fairness and the asserted legal competence of the
IAS assessor are directly relevant because this dispute is not
about mitigation. It turns on statutory interpretation (PoFA
Schedule 4), orthodox principles of contract formation, the
distinction between prohibition and contractual offer, locus and
landholder authority, and the interaction between a residential
occupier’s existing contract and a third-party enforcement
scheme. The IAS publicly indicates that appeals are determined
by legally qualified assessors, typically solicitors or
barristers. Decisions are anonymous and unsigned and provide no
verifiable indication of the assessor’s qualification,
practising status, or independence. Where an ADR scheme relies
on claimed legal expertise as a marker of credibility, it is
reasonable to expect decisions to demonstrate that expertise
through structured legal analysis rather than assertion.
>
> I therefore invite the IAS to confirm in its decision, without
disclosing personal data, whether the assessor determining this
appeal is a practising solicitor of England and Wales, a
barrister holding a practising certificate, or another legally
qualified person, and to confirm that no conflict of interest
exists. If the IAS declines to provide even this minimal
confirmation, I request that it explains how that position is
compatible with transparency and consumer confidence in ADR.
This request is directly relevant because a legally trained
decision-maker will recognise that the determinative questions
below must be decided by reasoned application of statute and
contract law, not by phrases such as “signage was present” or
that the charge was “issued correctly”.
>
> 1. No keeper liability: failure to specify any period of
parking as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)
>
> The Operator’s Notice to Keeper is explicitly headed “Notice
to Keeper (Postal – PoFA) Issued on private land”. The Operator
asserts in its rejection letters that the PCN and Notice to
Keeper were issued in accordance with “relevant legislation” and
that liability “may be transferred” to the registered keeper.
>
> This is a postal Notice to Keeper. The applicable statutory
route is PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9. Paragraph 9(2)(a) is
mandatory. It requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the
vehicle, the relevant land, and the period of parking to which
the notice relates.
>
> The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking.
It provides only an alleged event date and a single “time of
issue” or observation time. A single instant is not a period. A
period requires duration. The Notice attempts to cure this
defect by asserting that the charge relates to “the period of
parking specified above”, but no such period is specified. This
is a failure to comply with a mandatory statutory condition.
>
> Where PoFA conditions are not met, liability cannot be
transferred to the registered keeper. The Operator may pursue
only the driver. The keeper does not admit the identity of the
driver and will not identify the driver. The keeper is under no
legal obligation to do so. This ground alone requires that the
appeal be allowed.
>
> 2. Prohibitive signage: no contractual offer to non-permit
holders, therefore no contract and no contractual charge
>
> The signage relied upon states, in substance and in terms,
that parking is permitted only for permit holders when parking
wholly in allocated bays and displaying a valid permit. That
wording is prohibitive. It grants permission solely to permit
holders. It does not offer parking to non-permit holders on any
terms.
>
> A contractual charge can only arise from a contract. A
contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. A prohibition
cannot be accepted. A sign that excludes an entire class of
motorists does not make a contractual offer to that class. The
Operator’s own language reinforces this analysis, repeatedly
describing vehicles as “unauthorised” and parking as restricted
to “authorised permit holders only”.
>
> If the Operator’s case is that the vehicle was unauthorised,
the proper legal characterisation is trespass. Only a landholder
with proprietary interest can pursue trespass, and then only for
nominal damages absent proof of loss. A parking contractor
cannot convert an alleged trespass into a contractual charge by
assertion or by characterising a prohibited act as acceptance of
terms.
>
> Accordingly, no contract was formed and no contractual parking
charge can arise.
>
> 3. Primacy and supremacy of the existing occupation contract;
derogation from grant and quiet enjoyment
>
> This is a residential development. The keeper is a residential
tenant under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tenancy agreement
contains no clause imposing any obligation to comply with UKCPS,
no permit requirement, and no agreement to pay private parking
charges. The keeper has never been provided with, nor notified
in writing of, any estate regulations or “site rules” said to
bind tenants in relation to the basement area.
>
> The managing agent has expressly stated that its legal
relationship is with the leaseholder and has refused to provide
or discuss the lease or any estate regulations with a
sub-tenant. It is therefore impermissible for the Operator to
rely on undisclosed lease terms or undisclosed “site rules” as
the basis for enforcement against a tenant.
>
> The doctrine of primacy of contract is straightforward. Where
an occupier’s rights and obligations arise from an existing
tenancy, a third-party contractor’s signage cannot unilaterally
add new terms, extract additional consideration, or override the
occupier’s contractual framework unless those terms are validly
incorporated into the tenancy or properly notified as binding
regulations. Any attempt to impose such a scheme after the grant
of the tenancy, particularly where it penalises ordinary
residential use of the premises, is inconsistent with quiet
enjoyment and amounts to a derogation from grant.
>
> The Operator is put to strict proof of the contractual route
by which it contends a residential tenant has agreed to be bound
by UKCPS terms and to pay £100 for an alleged breach. In the
absence of such proof, the Operator is attempting to create
obligations by signage alone which do not bind the tenant and
are unenforceable.
>
> 4. No standing and no proof of landholder authority
>
> The Operator asserts that it is contracted to manage and
enforce parking in accordance with “site rules” provided by the
landholder. That is not proof. The Operator must strictly prove
that it has contemporaneous written authority from the
landholder defining the land, defining the scope of enforcement,
and expressly authorising UKCPS to enter contracts with
motorists and pursue charges in its own name.
>
> No landholder contract, no boundary map, no site plan, and no
written authorisation have been produced. Photographs of a
vehicle and a sign do not establish standing. Without strict
proof of authority, the Operator has no locus to pursue this
charge.
>
> 5. Evidential insufficiency: no proof of parking as opposed to
momentary presence
>
> The Operator relies on still photographs taken at a single
point in time. That evidence does not establish any period of
parking and does not distinguish parking from momentary
presence. This evidential failure is fatal both to any PoFA
reliance and to any assertion that a contractual term relating
to “parking” was breached.
>
> The Operator is put to strict proof of duration and of the
vehicle’s exact position relative to the alleged contractual
scheme, including bays, markings, and the specific signage
relied upon. Close-up images without context do not discharge
that burden.
>
> 6. Failure to engage with the substance of the appeal
>
> The Operator’s rejection asserts that tenancy silence does not
matter, that the gate condition does not matter, and that
liability “may” be transferred under PoFA. These are assertions,
not proof. They do not rebut the determinative issues: statutory
non-compliance, absence of contract formation, lack of standing,
and the supremacy of the tenant’s existing contractual rights.
>
> Remedy sought
>
> For the reasons above, the appeal must be allowed and the
Parking Charge Notice cancelled. The Operator has failed to
establish keeper liability, failed to establish contract
formation, failed to prove standing and landholder authority,
and cannot override a residential tenant’s pre-existing
contractual framework by signage alone.
>
> In the alternative, if the IAS is minded not to allow the
appeal, I request that it first requires strict proof of:
>
> [indent](i) full unredacted landholder authority including
boundary maps and sign location plans;
> (ii) the specific mechanism by which any “site rules” are said
to bind tenants and evidence that such rules were provided or
notified in writing prior to the alleged event;
> (iii) PoFA compliance including identification of where the
Notice to Keeper specifies a period of parking; and
> (iv) evidence demonstrating more than momentary presence and
showing the vehicle’s position relative to the alleged
contractual scheme.[/indent]
>
> In the absence of such proof, the appeal must be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 107184--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN x5 – Private Land, No Permit. UKCPS – The Bar, St James
Gate
DIR By: newpcnappeal
Date: January 24, 2026, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update regarding this case:
All initial IAS appeals submitted, UKCPS has responded with the
following 'evidence' to 3/6 appeals (remining responses to be
received in 7 days)
UKCPS has upload the following files: (a) “Site Images
23.01.2025” which are generic layout photographs dated
15/10/2020, showing random vehicles and signage; (b) a site map,
showing boundaries, entry/exit and sign locations; (c) a signage
PDF containing the full text of the terms; and (d) still images
of my vehicle that are the same ones provided previously
The operator made the following comments...
The operator confirms that the Parking Charge Notice was issued
in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 and that keeper liability applies. The Notice to Keeper
contains the information prescribed by PoFA and therefore
liability has lawfully transferred to the registered keeper.
The Appellant challenges the operator's authority to operate and
enforce parking at the location and requests production of the
landholder agreement. Under the IPC Code of Practice, operators
must have written authorisation from the landholder to manage
parking and to issue Parking Charge Notices. However, the Code
does not require operators to disclose commercially sensitive or
personal data contained within landholder contracts to third
parties. Such agreements commonly contain confidential
information and personal data, and disclosure would be contrary
to data protection obligations.
Membership of the IPC requires operators to confirm that
appropriate landholder authority is in place and to make such
authority available to the IPC or the IAS on request. In the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, the assessor is
entitled to accept the operator's confirmation that it has the
necessary authority. There is no requirement under the IPC Code
of Practice or PoFA for the operator to provide a copy of the
landholder agreement to the Appellant.
The remaining evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was parked
without displaying a valid permit, in breach of the clearly
displayed terms and conditions. The signage on site is compliant
with the IPC Code of Practice and clearly states that parking is
restricted to authorised vehicles and that a Parking Charge will
be issued for failure to comply.
Having considered all submissions, the assessor is satisfied
that the operator has authority to enforce parking at this
location, that keeper liability has been established under PoFA,
and that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued in
accordance with the IPC Code of Practice.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page