DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102895--------------------------------------------------
Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: P4NDEMIK
Date: December 17, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys, i have recently received a parking ticket after i
parked on private land (unknowingly) at about 11:30 PM a few
weeks ago. I had gone to get a cup of tea, and then returned to
my car and left. In the ticket they sent me, they included
photos showing and proving that i parked there, and it even
states from they own evidence that i had only stayed there for 8
minutes. The company is called Secure Parking Solutions. I had
made an appeal with the company first, showing that i had only
stayed 8 minutes and that the BPA rules state that a 10 minute
mandatory period has to be enforced. They rejected that appeal,
so my only option was to go through POPLA. After submitting
that, along with their own evidence showing that i was there for
only 8 minutes, and stating that the signs were unclear, which
they were as it was shops behind me and the way i reverse parked
i saw no signs, it was night and none of them were illuminated
either so even upon returning to my car i saw no signs.
Anyway, they have responded to my POPLA appeal (the company) and
they basically stated that a mandatory period is only supposed
to be given in pay and display car parks and that the mandatory
grace period doesnt apply if i leave my vehicle, i have then
replied back stating that they never provided any photos of
their own signs, just designs showing what is printed on the
sings, and even on their map showing the placement of signs it
shows that if you reverse park, no sign ever is in front of you
or at the entrance, just on the wall behind.
Since the company rejected my first appeal, and now said what
they said about the period not applying if i walk away, i am
getting a bit worried as to what they chances are that POPLA
will accept my appeal.
Anybody had any experience like this? i will be happy to answer
any questions in the comments.
#Post#: 102896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: jfollows
Date: December 17, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post all notices and correspondence, instructions can be
found in
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 102897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 17, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**,
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
unfortunately as youve told them who was driving your easiest
get out has got out and gone. there are other avenues.
we need to see the paperwork so post it up, redacted of personal
details using an external host.
#Post#: 102898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: P4NDEMIK
Date: December 17, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://ibb.co/F4H29JJD
HTML https://ibb.co/1fRYstW2
HTML https://ibb.co/6RvjCT0N
HTML https://ibb.co/xqXFJVdq
HTML https://ibb.co/JRGmj6mh
HTML https://ibb.co/V0Z44K8G
HTML https://ibb.co/99PhGB8Q
these are all the things they uploaded as evidence, alongside
pictures showing the times i entered and left but they are just
the same pictures, all in all they agreed that i had only stayed
for 8 minutes. they also posted pictures of the signs they
designed but no actual pictures of signs on walls or anything
#Post#: 103076--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 2:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FUBAR!!!!
What do you mean:
--- Quote from: P4NDEMIK link ---
>
> In the ticket they sent me, they included photos showing and
proving that i parked there, and it even states from they own
evidence that i had only stayed there for 8 minutes.
>
--- End Quote ---
How on earth do you think they proved YOU parked there? They had
no idea whatsoever WHO parked there unless you blabbed the
identity of the driver to them. All they knew is that YOU are
the registered Keeper of the vehicle.
Unless they have FULLY complied with ALL the requirements of
PoFA 2012, they cannot hold the Keeper of the vehicle liable if
the driver is not identified. Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is
NOT FULLY compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, so you
shot yourself in the foot with your admission to being the
driver.
For future reference and tell anyone else you know who drives,
that they should NEVER EVER identify the driver when responding
to a PCN issued by an unregulated private asking firm.
As to were you stand at the moment, unless you can show us the
exact wording of your POPLA appeal, what you ave shown is does
not help. It is too late to introduce a new point of appeal at
this stage, so I need to know whether you mentioned that there
could be no contract formation with the driver unless they can
evidence that the vehicle remained parked for longer than the
minimum consideration period.
Because the alleged contravention is "unauthorised vehicle",
what do the terms and conditions signs at the location actually
say? If there is no offered contract for unauthorised vehicle to
park, then there is no contract with the driver. Only authorised
vehicles are covered by the terms. Unauthorised vehicle drivers
can only be liable for trespass and the unregulated private
parking firm has no standing to sue for that and even if they
could, they could only sue for actual loss, which obviously,
there was none.
Your saving grace is that if POPLA is unsuccessful, which is
highly likely unless you could argue the legal points, then
their decision is not binding on you. Where you would have any
chance of succeeding in getting this defeated is if they try to
litigate the matter in the county court. In the vast majority of
cases, they never proceed to an actual hearing but rely on you
being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who is easily
intimidated into paying out of ignorance and fear.
SPS use DCB Legal to issue their claims and I can assure you
with greater than 99.9% certainty that as long as you follow the
advice you receive here and use the defence we give you, you
will not be paying a penny to anyone as the claim will either be
struck out or discontinued.
#Post#: 103080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: P4NDEMIK
Date: December 18, 2025, 2:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
yeah so i did not think that i didnt have to admit that i parked
there, there are photos of me getting in and out of the car so i
thought they could identify me that way, but my appeal to them
was this:
I want to respond to the operator’s evidence, particularly their
reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest and their statements about the
consideration period.
The operator repeatedly cites Vine v Waltham Forest, but the
principle from that case actually supports my position. Vine
makes it clear that a driver cannot be bound by contractual
terms they did not see and could not reasonably be expected to
see. At the material time it was dark, the signage was unlit,
and none of the signs were visible from the bay I reversed into.
The operator has provided photographs of signs and their
locations, but crucially they have not provided any evidence
showing what the signage looked like from my parking position at
night. Their images do not demonstrate visibility from the
driver’s viewpoint. Under Vine, simply showing that signage
exists somewhere in the car park is not enough; the signs must
be positioned and illuminated so a driver would reasonably see
and understand them before a contract can be formed. In this
case, that was not possible.
The BPA Code of Practice strengthens this point. Section 19
states that signs must be “conspicuous and legible” so that
drivers can easily read and understand them. Appendix B further
states that signage must be visible and understandable in the
lighting conditions in which enforcement takes place. Since the
operator’s own timestamps show this incident occurred in
darkness, they were required to show signage was illuminated or
otherwise visible in those conditions. They have not done so.
The unlit, poorly positioned signs meant I could not reasonably
see or read any terms, so no contract could be formed.
The operator also claims that the consideration period does not
apply because I left the vehicle, but this contradicts the BPA
Code of Practice. Section 13.1 states:
“The driver must be allowed a minimum of 10 minutes to read the
signs and decide whether they accept the contract.”
Section 13.2 adds:
“You must allow the driver a reasonable consideration period to
decide if they accept the terms.”
Nothing in the BPA Code requires the motorist to stay inside the
car or remain stationary. The consideration period applies to
all drivers. The operator’s own timestamped photos, submitted in
evidence, show that my total time on site was approximately 8
minutes, which is comfortably within the mandatory minimum
10-minute consideration period. A parking charge cannot be
issued until a driver has been given that time to read and
consider the terms. Regardless of what I was doing during those
8 minutes, the BPA rules prevent any contract from being formed
within that period.
In summary, the signage was not visible at night from my parking
position, meaning Vine v Waltham Forest prevents the formation
of any contract. The operator has not shown that the signs were
illuminated or legible in the actual conditions at the time,
which is required under Section 19 and Appendix B of the BPA
Code. Their own evidence proves I was on site for only 8
minutes, which is well within the mandatory consideration period
under Sections 13.1 and 13.2. For these reasons, the Parking
Charge Notice has not been issued in accordance with the BPA
Code of Practice and must be cancelled.
As for what the sign says, this is a link to the evidence they
provided as to what the sign says
HTML https://ibb.co/Y7JnGDwX
this
is the picture they posted as "proof" that signs are clear at
the location
#Post#: 103089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As for their images, they still had no idea who the person in
the images is until you blabbed that it was you. All they had
was an image of an unknown person. There is no magic unicorn
database they can pop a phot of a random person into and out
will pop their identity. Can you take a hi-res photo of a random
stranger and find out their identity from that photo?
You make a good point about their reliance on Vine but where do
you get the "10 minutes" minimum consideration period from?
Whilst consideration periods will commander the PPSCoP, not the
BPA CoP, even the old BPA CoP only mentions a minimum "5 minute"
consideration period. You will have to look under the specific
Annex in the PPSCoP but I know for a fact that it will depend on
the type and size of the car park but it is still only a minimum
of "5 minutes". Maybe you are conflating the "10 minute" minimum
Grace Period, but that only counts if a valid parking session
was made.
So, you only refer to the BPA CoP for signage. Anything else you
refer to the PPSCoP.
As I already said, if POPLA is not successful, you are not bound
by the decision and you do not pay. Let it proceed to a county
court claim and that is when you will beat this, simply by
defending it. I will pay it for you if it isn't successful.
However if it is, you pay me 50% of the claim.
#Post#: 103090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: P4NDEMIK
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
once again, chatgpt told me 10 minutes, its so stupid that i
relied on them. im a relatively new driver and have never had a
ticket before, i am careful where i park and was shocked when i
found out i got a ticket that i didnt even think to go and check
if there exists a forum for this kind of stuff. but alas, here
we are.
So if im getting this correctly, lets say POPLA reject my
appeal, the operator will then send me a letter again demanding
payment, your saying legally i dont have to listen to it and pay
and nothing can happen as they have no power to demand a payment
from me? What if they go through a debt collector, i know of
companies that will sell certain debts to debt collecting
companies, what if that happens here? i thought they had powers
to remove items from me in total value of the amount i owe do
they not?
#Post#: 103095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: P4NDEMIK
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
also i do have a question if you dont mind me asking, i was
under the impression that my car only has one registered keeper,
me, and only one insured driver, me and only me, and since this
is the case, if my car gets a fine in a parking spot, or a
speeding fine, my only option is to name the keeper, if i dont
identify the keeper, i am admitting it wasnt me driving, and
with that cant they automatically say to me that i lent my car
to someone ilegally? as in like the "driver" of the vehicle isnt
the keeper and isnt a registered insured driver on the vehicle?
i thought thats how it went, that if i am the only driver,
either i admit that i was driving and get done for the fine or
whatever, or say i wasnt driving and then get done for knowingly
allowing someone to drive my car uninsured?
#Post#: 103100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking Ticket issued on private land, need some advice
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are conflating too many different scenarios. A Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) is not a fine or a penalty. Only an
"authority" such as the police or a council under its 'Traffic
Authority' powers can issue a fine or a penalty. Even then, only
the police can legally require the Keeper to identify the
driver.
An unregulated private parking firm can only issue a PCN. They
are not an 'authority' of any kind and the PCN is simply a
speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the
driver. There in no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify
the driver to a private firm. The invoice is issued under civil
contract law.
Your vehicle may be registered to you as the Keeper. However,
just because YOUR insurance policy only has yourself listed, it
does not mean that someone else with third party insurance can't
driver it. My own insurance allows me to drive any other car
with third party liability as long as I have the owners
permission. So, in theory, millions of people could drive your
car with your permission as ling as they have third party cover.
So, your only option is NOT to name the driver. All you ever
have to do is to refer to the driver in the third person. No "I
did this or that". only "the driver did this or that". The only
data the parking operator can get is the Keepers data from the
DVLA. That does not prove who was driving, only the name of the
Keeper. As long as they fully comply with all the requirements
of PoFA, then if the unknown driver is not identified, they can
then transfer liability to the known Keeper.
In the majority of these PCNs, they have not fully complied with
all the requirements of PoFA and so, they cannot transfer
liability to the Keeper if the driver is not identified. As with
this case, their NtK os not 100% PoFA compliant and had you not
identified the driver, they could not hold you liable as the
Keeper. Hence the advice to never, ever identify the driver,
even if you think their PCN may be PoFA compliant. We are
experts on PoFA and can spot any discrepancies.
Their PCNs cannot be partially or even mostly/substantially
compliant with PoFA. Just like you cannot be partially or even
mostly/substantially pregnant, it is a binary position. You
either are or you aren't. Likewise, a PCN either is or is not
PoFA compliant.
Things like "consideration" and "grace" periods are also often
confused, even (or especially) by ChatGPT. A consideration
period is to allow a driver to find a parking spot, seek out a
terms sign, read it and 'consider' whether to accept the terms
or leave. It is a minimum of 5 minutes but can be longer.
However, once the decision to remain is made, the consideration
period is no longer relevant and it is not "extra time" that can
be added to a period of parking. However, if the driver had
accepted the terms and remains parked, they are allowed an extra
minimum of 10 minutes "grace period" before a PCN can be issued.
That minimum 10 minutes is extra time but only applies if the
driver considers the terms and decided to accept them and
remain.
As I have already pls you, even if you do nothing from now on,
the only thing you need to respond to is a county court claim
That is very likely to happen but, I can guarantee with greater
then 99.9% certainty that if you defend it with our advice, it
ill never reach a hearing and will either be struck out or
discontinued.
Your fears about CCJs and bailiffs are also unfounded. You can
safely ignore any debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are
powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of
ignorance and fear. Here is an article I wrote to try and
educate all the low-hanging fruit as to why there is no danger
of a CCJ or bailiffs:
--- Quote ---
> These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt
collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how
County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if
they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery”
letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay
them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they
make a very good living shaking it.
>
> Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life
lesson” from...
>
> A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a
fine. It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of
contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your
credit file.
>
> If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals
are almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at
the secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most
low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not
binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do,
however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of
imaginary consequences.
>
> If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt
collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up
in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear.
Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your
door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference
agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your
credit rating would be unchanged.
>
> As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the
next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is
just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even
then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a
threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts
to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into
paying out of ignorance and fear.
>
> Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you
enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the
court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting
a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your
credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe
money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your
post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or
settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
>
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court
actually makes a judgment against you. That happens either
because you defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or
because you ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment
in default. Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that
the low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full
judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is
not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely
from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders
are concerned.
>
> A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay
within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets
recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to
that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery
letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of
a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
>
> Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent
because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice
or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents)
only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been
paid.
>
> For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s
time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount
is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement
system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful
bailiff.
>
> So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter
so I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a
CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and
fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists
incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically
means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
>
> There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect
your credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps
you away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where
appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are
unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days,
your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no
bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private
parking charge.
>
> These companies rely on being able to intimidate the
low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of
ignorance and fear.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1