DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108882--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 6, 2026, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you can submit this.
Comments on the operators evidence can only cover appeal points
which have already been made or points which cover the 'changes'
which the operator is now trying to make to the NtK.
Other may feel different but I would just make some short simple
comments along the lines of;
Comments on operators evidence.
The operator is now changing the nature of the NtK after it was
pointed out that the original NtK contained a very serious
breach of the operators own Code of Practice - namely; that the
original NtK clearly states PoFA Keeper liability when no such
liability exists at the location in question.
That the operator is now seeking to circumvent the requirements
of PoFA in a desperate attempt to maintain keeper liability in a
situation where PoFA cannot apply - the 'reasonable assumption'
argument has already been defeated in the Appeal Court - VCS v
Edward is the relevant authority in this precise matter - Also,
if 'reasonable assumption' could be used in this way then PoFA
need not exist - Elliot v Loake has also been mentioned but this
is a criminal case and, as such, the case turns on its facts and
at no point is 'reasonable assumption' ever mentioned or even
implied.
The operator includes a number of pictures from the location but
their own evidence shows a further breach of their agreed Code
of Practice - Their CoP states that, "Signs and surface markings
must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be
visible, legible and UNAMBIGUOUS TO DRIVERS." - In this instance
the surface markings directly contradict the operators claim
that the area is a 'no stopping zone' - the law allows brief
stops on double yellow lines - in order to be compliant, double
red lines should be used to indicate a no stopping zone - this
point is confirmed on the relevant Government website.
The operators behaviour clearly shows the haphazard way that
they are running their business - issuing non-compliant NtKs and
trying to enforce double yellow lines as if they are double reds
are all significant breaches of the CoP.
Many thanks,
xxxxxx xxxxxx
#Post#: 108958--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: Snapp1e
Date: February 6, 2026, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I don't think you can submit this.
>
> Comments on the operators evidence can only cover appeal
points which have already been made or points which cover the
'changes' which the operator is now trying to make to the NtK.
>
> Other may feel different but I would just make some short
simple comments along the lines of;
>
>
>
> Comments on operators evidence.
>
> The operator is now changing the nature of the NtK after it
was pointed out that the original NtK contained a very serious
breach of the operators own Code of Practice - namely; that the
original NtK clearly states PoFA Keeper liability when no such
liability exists at the location in question.
>
> That the operator is now seeking to circumvent the
requirements of PoFA in a desperate attempt to maintain keeper
liability in a situation where PoFA cannot apply - the
'reasonable assumption' argument has already been defeated in
the Appeal Court - VCS v Edward is the relevant authority in
this precise matter - Also, if 'reasonable assumption' could be
used in this way then PoFA need not exist - Elliot v Loake has
also been mentioned but this is a criminal case and, as such,
the case turns on its facts and at no point is 'reasonable
assumption' ever mentioned or even implied.
>
> The operator includes a number of pictures from the location
but their own evidence shows a further breach of their agreed
Code of Practice - Their CoP states that, "Signs and surface
markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way
as to be visible, legible and UNAMBIGUOUS TO DRIVERS." - In this
instance the surface markings directly contradict the operators
claim that the area is a 'no stopping zone' - the law allows
brief stops on double yellow lines - in order to be compliant,
double red lines should be used to indicate a no stopping zone -
this point is confirmed on the relevant Government website.
>
> The operators behaviour clearly shows the haphazard way that
they are running their business - issuing non-compliant NtKs and
trying to enforce double yellow lines as if they are double reds
are all significant breaches of the CoP.
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> xxxxxx xxxxxx
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you Intercity125 for such a quick and thoughtful response.
Your kisses brightened up my morning, even though I dont think
they were for me, either way it made me smile.
I like your approach and agree that an overall summary of short,
simple points is effective in this case because of the changes.
Thank you for adding the second caselaw too
When I appealed first time it was short and simple too and the
UKCPS response was short because they could not argue with the
content.
I'm happy to submit this response to Arbitration but I will wait
until the 9th to see if if others have anything to add, and to
see if they agree that everything is covered in the statement.
e.g. they have changed tack and are now heavily relying on the
the Contract thru their signage and sent me 77 photos. Should
the high number of photos be mentioned as being the best they
have to offer even though they do the opposite and evidence the
point in my appeal, not their claim against the driver who is
unidentified?
e.g. they have changed the charge from initial "no stopping" to
reason for issue: "the charge is based in Contract".
e.g. I don't really understand the change to non-ANPR now that
PoFA has been dropped by them. Should something be said about
it? They have used CCTV to capture vehicle registration and have
time stamped the photos of the vehicle to 5 seconds.
Many thanks
xxxxxx xxxxxx
#Post#: 109091--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: Snapp1e
Date: February 8, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I will be submitting to arbitration tomorrow. Thanks to
Intercity I have a good statement.
If anybody has anything to add to it, please do.
#Post#: 109211--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: Snapp1e
Date: February 9, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have received advice from one person on here and I am grateful
to Intercity125.
I had added some queries and they haven't been answered.
I am assuming that other advisers agree that the reply I have
received from Intercity125 covers all important bits and I'm
good to go and submit it this evening.
I don't know if its usual behaviour or not for an operator to
change the NtK at the stage of IAS appeal, but they have changed
their claim (this is good news for me).
I also do not understand the change to "non-ANPR" when they have
used ANPR through CCTV photo evidence (have I understood this
correctly?). Should my response include something about this?
I know their claim is much more diluted now that they have
withdrawn PoFA. Ive read on here a response that the IAS sent
to somebody else about signage and the law of Contract in the
same location and dismissed their appeal, so I am anticipating a
very similar response.
If there was anything that I can add to my appeal to challenge
what they will say then the time is today! Or perhaps I already
have it covered? This forum has already advised me that IAS is
a kangaroo court so perhaps there is nothing else to add to
challenge them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Partial quote:
kbr1 - no stopping - Leeds city station (November 28, 2025 at
07:08:20pm)
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider
the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other
drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal
also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and
can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating
circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which
was on display throughout the site and seemingly visible in the
vicinity of the vehicle, makes it sufficiently clear that the
terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN
will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and
conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site
or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is
clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the
Appellant did indeed stop otherwise than in accordance with the
displayed terms as alleged by the Operator. I am satisfied on
the evidence provided that the Operator has the authority to
issue and enforce PCNs at this site. I am further satisfied as
to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle
has been identified stopped at the time suggested in the images
provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued.
I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie
case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's
circumstances, once liability has been established, only the
Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge
based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is
dismissed.
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator
has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge
was lawfully incurred.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading.
#Post#: 109215--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: TheDisapprovingBrit
Date: February 9, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I realise I'm late to the party, but it seems to me that the
question of relevant land for PoFA doesn't even arise, because
PoFA applies to Parking, and there is no dispute that OP did not
in fact park. Unless I'm missing something, PoFA does not apply
to "Stopping"
#Post#: 109216--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 9, 2026, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst you're not wrong, IAS are never going to agree with the
'stopping' point, so for the IAS at least, focusing on the PoFA
issue is sensible. It's also always worth mentioning as an "even
if" point - i.e. "No contract was entered into because ______,
even if a contract was entered into, it is denied that the
keeper is liable".
#Post#: 109219--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 9, 2026, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheDisapprovingBrit link ---
>
> I realise I'm late to the party, but it seems to me that the
question of relevant land for PoFA doesn't even arise, because
PoFA applies to Parking, and there is no dispute that OP did not
in fact park. Unless I'm missing something, PoFA does not apply
to "Stopping"
>
--- End Quote ---
IAS conveniently (for their members) turn the mere act of
stopping into 'parking' on the basis that anything other than
moving represents parking.
Of course IAS do this as IAS are actually part of the larger
fraud and their job is to persuade PCN recipients into paying -
they are not an 'independent appeals service' as they state.
#Post#: 109221--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: TheDisapprovingBrit
Date: February 9, 2026, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cool for IAS. I'm pretty sure a court would see a distinction if
it got that far. However, if they want to consider that stopping
is parking, then their code of practice mandates a 5 minute
consideration period for drivers to read and accept the signs.
Can't have it both ways - either the consideration period
doesn't apply because there's a distinction between stopping and
parking (in which case PoFA doesn't apply either), or parking
and stopping are the same thing, in which case the consideration
period must be honoured.
#Post#: 109222--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 9, 2026, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TheDisapprovingBrit link ---
>
> Cool for IAS. I'm pretty sure a court would see a distinction
if it got that far. However, if they want to consider that
stopping is parking, then their code of practice mandates a 5
minute consideration period for drivers to read and accept the
signs.
>
> Can't have it both ways - either the consideration period
doesn't apply because there's a distinction between stopping and
parking (in which case PoFA doesn't apply either), or parking
and stopping are the same thing, in which case the consideration
period must be honoured.
>
--- End Quote ---
Or, the Code of Practice is modified and special wording is
introduced which creates the concept of 'instant automatic
contracts' in situations where parking operators would find it
'inconvenient' to allow drivers a period of consideration.
#Post#: 109227--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no
recollection of stopping
DIR By: Snapp1e
Date: February 9, 2026, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IF the 5 minutes grace period was added to my appeal, would
mentioning the stop was for 5 seconds also?Ive learned not to
include things that given them ammunition to latch on to and
dismiss my main points of law, so perhaps not.
I'm thinking further ahead if they did go to CCJ and a copy of
my Appeal was made available.
I hear what you say Intercity about the IAS will never disagree
with their members that a vehicle wasn't stopped/parked. Their
UKCPS focus on the automatic contract is their only arguement.
I would like to add something specifically about the Contract,
if that seems wise.
Sorry, I'm not able to fill in the blank here.
Please can someone give me the words for the EVEN / IF:
"No contract was entered into because ______, even if a contract
was entered into, it is denied that the keeper is liable"
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page