DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103416--------------------------------------------------
PCM ticket - giving friend her prescription
DIR By: Gotithqz
Date: December 21, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Received the following PCN from PCM.
Was closest place to give girl her prescription that she
requires due to her heart rate.
I will attach PCN below
HTML https://ibb.co/dwmKkNZs
Location GSV :
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/19L9ofaDqYZNfpVT6
PCN evidence :
HTML https://ibb.co/ns1cwYY8
HTML https://ibb.co/cKxTxzg6
Any helps appreciated,
Thanks
#Post#: 103476--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM ticket - giving friend her prescription
DIR By: b789
Date: December 21, 2025, 1:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
At the moment, your description is too vague to give you
reliable, case-specific advice. “Closest place to give girl her
prescription she requires due to her heart rate” does not tell
us what actually happened, what the driver did, why that
location was chosen, what alternatives were available, or what
the driver saw (or could reasonably have seen) in terms of
signage.
If the only reason was to stop and provide medication, why was
the car left unattended?
If you want meaningful assistance, you need to provide a proper
narrative, in plain terms, of the events. For example:
[indent]What was the destination and why?
Did anyone leave the vehicle, and if so, for how long and why?
Was the engine running?
Where exactly was the vehicle positioned (entrance road, bay
area, roadway, turning circle, etc.)?
What signs were visible near vehicle and on approach?
Was there any obvious marked bay, permit bay, visitor bay, or
any bay markings at all?
Was the driver a resident, visitor, contractor, or completely
unconnected to the site?[/indent]
You have also not provided the Notice to Keeper. Without the
NtK, no one can properly assess keeper liability, compliance, or
whether the operator has even followed the basic requirements
they must follow before pursuing the keeper.
Now, based on what you have provided:
[indent]1. The photos only show a short period and no clear
parking bay
The operative’s timestamped photos run from 09:00:58 to 09:07:11
(just over 6 minutes). That is a very short period.There are no
bay markings visible. If the operator is alleging “parked
outside a marked bay” or “not parked wholly within a marked
bay”, their own evidence becomes questionable if there is no
clearly marked bay to comply with.
2. The entrance signage is prohibitive, not an offer to park
The entrance sign states “Permit Holders Only” and then points
drivers to other signs for terms. That is not a clear offer of
parking to non-permit holders. It is a restriction. If parking
is not being offered to that class of driver, then there is
nothing capable of acceptance and no contract can be formed with
that driver on those terms.
3. The internal terms sign also makes authorisation a
pre-condition
The terms sign requires either a valid permit or a registered
visitor parking session. That again frames the arrangement as
permission-based parking, not “anyone may park if they agree to
pay a charge”. In plain terms: it reads as “you are not allowed
to park here unless authorised”.
Where signs are framed this way, the operator’s case moves away
from contract and towards an allegation of unauthorised
parking/trespass. A parking contractor cannot recover a
contractual “parking charge” from a driver if the signage does
not actually offer parking to them in the first place.
4. Incorporation and fairness of the £100 term
The entrance sign does not mention the charge amount. The £100
appears on the terms sign. For any contractual charge argument,
the operator has to show that the driver had a fair opportunity
to see and understand the key term before any alleged
“acceptance”. With only a brief period evidenced (around 6
minutes), and unclear bay layout, that is not straightforward
for them.[/indent]
On the signage you have shown, there is a strong argument that
no contract was capable of being formed with a non-permit holder
because the signage is prohibitive and authorisation-based. The
short period of photographs and the lack of bay markings further
undermines any allegation that the driver breached “marked bay”
requirements.
If you want assistance and advice you should provide:
[indent]1. A proper narrative answering the practical questions
above, in full sentences.
2. A clear copy of the Notice to Keeper (both sides, all pages).
3. The exact allegation stated on the PCN/NtK (contravention
code/wording).
4. Any site photos showing the wider layout, including where the
vehicle was relative to signs.[/indent]
If you cannot be bothered to provide those basics, then you
should not expect anyone to waste their time trying to defend it
for you.
#Post#: 103496--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM ticket - giving friend her prescription
DIR By: Gotithqz
Date: December 21, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> At the moment, your description is too vague to give you
reliable, case-specific advice. “Closest place to give girl her
prescription she requires due to her heart rate” does not tell
us what actually happened, what the driver did, why that
location was chosen, what alternatives were available, or what
the driver saw (or could reasonably have seen) in terms of
signage.
>
> If the only reason was to stop and provide medication, why was
the car left unattended?
>
> If you want meaningful assistance, you need to provide a
proper narrative, in plain terms, of the events. For example:
>
> [indent]What was the destination and why?
> Did anyone leave the vehicle, and if so, for how long and why?
> Was the engine running?
> Where exactly was the vehicle positioned (entrance road, bay
area, roadway, turning circle, etc.)?
> What signs were visible near vehicle and on approach?
> Was there any obvious marked bay, permit bay, visitor bay, or
any bay markings at all?
> Was the driver a resident, visitor, contractor, or completely
unconnected to the site?[/indent]
>
> You have also not provided the Notice to Keeper. Without the
NtK, no one can properly assess keeper liability, compliance, or
whether the operator has even followed the basic requirements
they must follow before pursuing the keeper.
>
> Now, based on what you have provided:
>
> [indent]1. The photos only show a short period and no clear
parking bay
>
> The operative’s timestamped photos run from 09:00:58 to
09:07:11 (just over 6 minutes). That is a very short
period.There are no bay markings visible. If the operator is
alleging “parked outside a marked bay” or “not parked wholly
within a marked bay”, their own evidence becomes questionable if
there is no clearly marked bay to comply with.
>
> 2. The entrance signage is prohibitive, not an offer to park
>
> The entrance sign states “Permit Holders Only” and then points
drivers to other signs for terms. That is not a clear offer of
parking to non-permit holders. It is a restriction. If parking
is not being offered to that class of driver, then there is
nothing capable of acceptance and no contract can be formed with
that driver on those terms.
>
> 3. The internal terms sign also makes authorisation a
pre-condition
>
> The terms sign requires either a valid permit or a registered
visitor parking session. That again frames the arrangement as
permission-based parking, not “anyone may park if they agree to
pay a charge”. In plain terms: it reads as “you are not allowed
to park here unless authorised”.
>
> Where signs are framed this way, the operator’s case moves
away from contract and towards an allegation of unauthorised
parking/trespass. A parking contractor cannot recover a
contractual “parking charge” from a driver if the signage does
not actually offer parking to them in the first place.
>
> 4. Incorporation and fairness of the £100 term
>
> The entrance sign does not mention the charge amount. The £100
appears on the terms sign. For any contractual charge argument,
the operator has to show that the driver had a fair opportunity
to see and understand the key term before any alleged
“acceptance”. With only a brief period evidenced (around 6
minutes), and unclear bay layout, that is not straightforward
for them.[/indent]
>
> On the signage you have shown, there is a strong argument that
no contract was capable of being formed with a non-permit holder
because the signage is prohibitive and authorisation-based. The
short period of photographs and the lack of bay markings further
undermines any allegation that the driver breached “marked bay”
requirements.
>
> If you want assistance and advice you should provide:
>
> [indent]1. A proper narrative answering the practical
questions above, in full sentences.
> 2. A clear copy of the Notice to Keeper (both sides, all
pages).
> 3. The exact allegation stated on the PCN/NtK (contravention
code/wording).
> 4. Any site photos showing the wider layout, including where
the vehicle was relative to signs.[/indent]
>
> If you cannot be bothered to provide those basics, then you
should not expect anyone to waste their time trying to defend it
for you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Driver received a call. Drove straight and parked closest to the
window of person who needed there medication. Wasn’t aware of
any signage due to reason of driving there as it was last thing
I was thinking.
Upon arriving a conversation was had including ensuring they are
ok and calm especially knowing they needed the medication.
Engine was not running, vehicle was left for not long tbh.
Vehicle was positioned further down and in a position to avoid
blocking anything as it’s quite an awkward set up there. There
was bays but they were full due to numbered bays.
Driver was a visitor.
NtK as far as I am aware isn’t sent out yet.
The exact contravention says :
Parked
outside of the confines of a Marked bay.
I will have some photos taken
#Post#: 103513--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM ticket - giving friend her prescription
DIR By: b789
Date: December 21, 2025, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, I can see the Notice to Driver (NtD) now. this is how you
deal with the initial appeal...
Do NOTHING until day 27 which is Monday 5th January, when you
appeal, but ONLY as the Keeper of the vehicle. There is no legal
obligation on the Keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtD 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 require
you to cancel the PCN or refer the matter to independent
Alternative Dispute Resolution.
>
> Your Notice to Driver does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. In particular, it fails to specify any period of parking.
As a result, you are unable to transfer liability to the keeper.
Partial or substantial compliance is irrelevant.
>
> There will be no admission as to who was driving and no
inference or assumption may be drawn. Your allegation, if any,
is against the driver only.
>
> I am now providing the keeper’s name and address for service.
You therefore have no lawful basis or necessity to request
keeper data from the DVLA. Any DVLA request made after receipt
of this appeal will constitute unlawful and excessive processing
of personal data, in breach of UK GDPR Articles 5(1)(a),
5(1)(c), and 6(1), and will be treated as a data misuse for
which I will pursue complaints and compensation without further
notice.
>
> 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.
You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and
cancel the PCN or issue a rejection with details of ADR.
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [PCN No.]
> [VRM]
--- End Quote ---
On another note, can you ask the resident the driver was
visiting to provide a copy of their lease or AST.
We need to see exactly what it says about parking and visitor
rights. What it does not say is just as important as what it
does.
In the vast majority of residential parking cases, the parking
operator has no authority that overrides the resident’s rights
under their lease, nor the rights of their visitors exercising
those rights. Any scheme introduced later cannot unilaterally
remove or restrict those rights unless the lease expressly
allows it.
Once we have sight of the lease/AST, it will be extremely useful
for how this case is handled going forward.
#Post#: 103700--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM ticket - giving friend her prescription
DIR By: Gotithqz
Date: December 23, 2025, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> OK, I can see the Notice to Driver (NtD) now. this is how you
deal with the initial appeal...
>
> Do NOTHING until day 27 which is Monday 5th January, when you
appeal, but ONLY as the Keeper of the vehicle. There is no legal
obligation on the Keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown
driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
>
> The NtD 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 require
you to cancel the PCN or refer the matter to independent
Alternative Dispute Resolution.
>
> Your Notice to Driver does not comply with the mandatory
requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. In particular, it fails to specify any period of parking.
As a result, you are unable to transfer liability to the keeper.
Partial or substantial compliance is irrelevant.
>
> There will be no admission as to who was driving and no
inference or assumption may be drawn. Your allegation, if any,
is against the driver only.
>
> I am now providing the keeper’s name and address for service.
You therefore have no lawful basis or necessity to request
keeper data from the DVLA. Any DVLA request made after receipt
of this appeal will constitute unlawful and excessive processing
of personal data, in breach of UK GDPR Articles 5(1)(a),
5(1)(c), and 6(1), and will be treated as a data misuse for
which I will pursue complaints and compensation without further
notice.
>
> 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.
You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and
cancel the PCN or issue a rejection with details of ADR.
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [PCN No.]
> [VRM]
--- End Quote ---
On another note, can you ask the resident the driver was
visiting to provide a copy of their lease or AST.
We need to see exactly what it says about parking and visitor
rights. What it does not say is just as important as what it
does.
In the vast majority of residential parking cases, the parking
operator has no authority that overrides the resident’s rights
under their lease, nor the rights of their visitors exercising
those rights. Any scheme introduced later cannot unilaterally
remove or restrict those rights unless the lease expressly
allows it.
Once we have sight of the lease/AST, it will be extremely useful
for how this case is handled going forward.
[/quote]
I shall do on the 5th. Thank you for your assistance.
I will try get the paperwork for the lease or anything
equivalent
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1