DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104133--------------------------------------------------
Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: OneTwoThree
Date: December 30, 2025, 8:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Site Name/Address: Royal Leisure Park, W3 0PA
Team: Blaze Parking Management
I received a ticket for not providing the correct permit in a
specific area of a large, free public parking lot. seems like
staff parking. The signs were blocked by Vans by the time I
parked.
Here is the situation: Once the first letter was received, I
appealed through their portal, but I received no response or
feedback. I appealed that the signs mentioned 5 hours of free
parking, but the timings were inconsistent with their recorded
evidence.
Awaiting their response, I received a letter stating that I
should pay the full charge of £100 from £70 because I had not
responded to the original letter. I have read their policies and
the letters in full, both of which mention that an appeal will
pause the deadlines until a response to the decision is
received, which I have not yet received.
I have tried to pay it off, but with the correct details. It is
not recognised by the 24-hour hotline, their pay service or the
IAS. I recall seeing the details online at the original stage,
but it appears they have been removed.
I have called their services multiple times, leaving messages.
no answer. All being within their time constraints, as provided
by the letters.
More Details: I am the driver at the time, but not the
policyholder. Please also review the Google reviews of this
company, which came as a complete shock about what to do next.
Now I write out of stress and uncertainty of how to proceed.
Kindest Regards and Happy New Year!
123
#Post#: 104139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 31, 2025, 3:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, stop trying to pay this - these types of parking
charges are essentially a scam.
Please post up the original PCN redacting ONLY personal details.
#Post#: 104145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 31, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, stop trying to call them.
Hopefully you have not divulged who the driver was.
#Post#: 104147--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 31, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The initial guidance is provided in the "READ THIS FIRST" sticky
at the top of this forum. We have taken a lot of trouble to
ensure that it is not obscured by vans.
#Post#: 104166--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: OneTwoThree
Date: December 31, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
1) Here is the original PCN:
HTML https://ibb.co/Q7ZN3GJV
2) They never picked up the phone, so they don't know the driver
or for what PCN.
3) Thank you for letting me know how to use this forum
correctly.
#Post#: 104193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT redact so much of that Notice to Keeper (NtK). The ONLY
thing you must redact is your personal details. You have
redacted the date of the PCN (not the date of the alleged
contravention).
Do not FUBAR this any more than you already have by blabbing the
drivers identity. The fact you are a/the "policyholder" is
irrelevant to anything except, maybe the price of eggs in China.
We need to know precisely the wording in your initial appeal.
Why on earth are you admitting liability? What is the point of
coming here for advice on how to deal with a PCN if you admit
you are liable for it?
It is NOT a "fine" and you are under no legal obligation to pay
a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking firm
for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.
Everything you have mentioned and shown so far is so wrong on
every level, I only hope we can try and extricate you from the
massive hole you have dug for yourself. In the vast majority of
cases we advise on here, no one pays a penny to the scamming
parking firm if that advice is followed.
You have come late in the process and ruined many of the points
that would easily get this defeated. So, if you are prepared to
follow the advice and don't want to pay this scam, please show
us the full PCN, both sides, the exact wording you used in your
initial appeal and anything else we require, such as photo of
the wording on the signs that form the contract allegedly
breached:
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Posting Images
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
#Post#: 104220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: OneTwoThree
Date: January 1, 2026, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Here are the updated files, which include everything you have
asked for:
HTML https://ibb.co/Dg6658Tx
HTML https://ibb.co/4RNN9YBW
HTML https://ibb.co/CKP20r8X
The driver's identity has never been disclosed to BPM.
Yes, I have come late to the process on the forum after
realising they have ignored my appeal request and sent the full
charge.
BPM has removed my penalty charge from their system, so I am
unable to view my appeal status or pay it if I wanted to (which
I don't), as these options are no longer available.
I appreciate all the help, but please understand that I'm trying
my best here. I apologise for the mistakes I have made here and
for not reading ahead of the post.
123
#Post#: 104231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: b789
Date: January 1, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. We need to clarify whether the driver has been identified to
the operator in the initial appeal. You clearly identified
yourself as the driver on the forum, which leads us to
presuppose that you did the same in your appeal. Maybe you
didn't, but without knowing the precise wording you used, it is
not clear at this point.
Can you remember if you only referred to the driver in the third
party when you appealed or tried to speak to them? If you said
things like "I did this or that" instead of "the driver did this
or that", then you have likely identified the Keeper as being
the driver, which means you cannot use the PoFA defence to deny
Keeper liability. There is a technical issue with the NtK that
would allow a PoFA failure argument.
The reason you cannot now access your case on their portal is
because they have passed it to a useless debt recovery firm. the
good thing is that you can safely ignore all debt collectors and
their letters. They are a third party with no standing and are
not a party to the contract the driver allegedly breached. The
only power they have is to try and intimidate the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and
fear. You can use their letters as emergency toilet paper or
shred them and them as hamster bedding for all anyone cares.
Can you go back to the location and get some of your own
contemporaneous photos of the entrance sign, if any, and one of
the terms and conditions signs from inside the car park. The
latest GSV views are from September 2024 before this new firm
firm were operating there. At that time it was PCM. The vehicle
appears to be parked at the Shell garage within Royale Leisure
Park. At that time, there were no entrance sign or any obvious
term sign if you entered the petrol station area from off Dukes
Rd.
So, we need an up to date photo of the signs that are visible to
the driver as they turn off Dukes Road into the location where
the vehicle is observed parked. Ideally, we also could do with
some photos of the signage taken in the dark, without flash or
headlights or night enhancement., but the main thing is that we
need to know whether there is a compliant entrance sign warning
drivers that they are entering controlled private land that
informs them that they need to seek the term and conditions
signs within the car perk.
Without that entrance sign or if the terms signs are not
prominent and obvious and also if the wording in them contains
any restrictions that invalidate contract formation, then you
have a very good chance of this being successful if it were to
ever go to court. However, the odds of it ever getting that far
are very slim.
You should also send the BPM Data Protection Officer a Subject
Access Request (SAR). That will force them to provide you with
all the data they hold on you and the vehicle. Send the
following email with a copy of the front of your V5C document
attached as proof that you are the data subject to
dpo@blazeparkingmanagement.co.uk and also CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Subject Access Request – [PCN ref] – [VRM]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> RE: SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST
>
> I write to make a formal Subject Access Request in respect of
my personal information. I am entitled to make this request
under data protection laws. The request is made in accordance
with section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 15
of the retained EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679
(UK GDPR). You can identify my records using the information
which is listed below.
>
> Requester (data subject) information
>
> (a). Full name:
> (b). Address:
> (c). Email address:
> (d). PCN number:
> (e). VRM:
>
> I attach a copy of the front page of my V5C solely as
reasonable proof of identity and address for the purpose of this
Subject Access Request.
>
> Requested information
>
> In accordance with my right of access under data protection
law, I request the following:
>
> (a) Copies of my personal data
>
> I request that I am provided with full copies of all personal
data relating to me which is held by Blaze Parking Management
Ltd, including but not limited to:
>
> (i) all photographs taken of my vehicle and/or occupants;
> (ii) all ANPR images and ANPR logs/entries relating to the VRM
on the material date, including raw data records and any
synchronisation or processing logs used to generate timestamps;
> (iii) all correspondence, notices, letters, emails and
communications sent to or received from me, including any appeal
submissions and responses;
> (iv) all internal notes, call logs, case notes, decision notes
and records of actions taken;
> (v) all data obtained from the DVLA, including the date and
time of each KADOE request, the reason relied upon, and the
response data supplied;
> (vi) details of any third parties with whom my personal data
has been shared, together with copies of the data shared and
received.
>
> I would prefer to receive an electronic copy of the requested
information.
>
> (b) Purpose of the processing
>
> Please confirm within your response the purpose or purposes
for which my personal data was collected by Blaze Parking
Management Ltd and the purpose or purposes for which it has been
used to date.
>
> (c) Categories of the data
>
> Please confirm within your response which categories of my
personal data have been collected by Blaze Parking Management
Ltd.
>
> (d) Sharing of the data
>
> Please confirm within your response which recipients my
personal data has been or will be disclosed to. Please also
confirm whether my data has been shared outside of the United
Kingdom and, if so, what safeguards are in place.
>
> (e) Storage of the data
>
> Please confirm within your response the retention periods for
the storage of my personal data or the criteria used to
determine those periods.
>
> (f) Source of the data
>
> Please confirm within your response the sources from which my
personal data was obtained.
>
> (g) Automated decision-making
>
> Please confirm whether any automated decision-making using my
personal data is taking place and, if so, provide details of the
logic involved and the consequences of such processing.
>
> (h) Existence of my rights
>
> Please acknowledge and confirm my right to request
rectification or erasure of my personal data and the right to
object to or restrict processing.
>
> Responding to my request
>
> The above contains all necessary information for you to
process this request. Any delay will not absolve you from your
obligation to respond without undue delay and in any event
within one month of receipt. This request is being sent by
email.
>
> I believe the information requested should be readily
available and that this request is neither excessive nor
manifestly unfounded. No processing fee should therefore apply.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [your full name]
--- End Quote ---
In the meantime you can ignore all useless debt recovery
letters. We only need to know if you receive a Letter of Claim
(LoC) in the meantime.
#Post#: 104242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: OneTwoThree
Date: January 1, 2026, 1:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ok great!
1) I appealed within the original deadline, and I'm positive I
definitely wrote it. I use a grammar app that hates "I's", so
maybe it wasn't written in first person. However, I never
received any confirmation, so now I'm starting to doubt whether
I appealed or not.
2) Can you explain PoFA and NtK?
3) I will go back to the site from the entry to the parking
space to get pictures of the journey. not far from me.
4) For the email, whose email is this being sent from, the
keeper or the driver (me)? And if I cc myself, doesn't that
imply I'm the one driving?
5) What is the Letter of Claim (LoC)? What are the chances, and
in which situations am I most likely to receive it?
6) All debt collectors' notices will be ignored.
#Post#: 104256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private PCN - need guidance
DIR By: b789
Date: January 1, 2026, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: OneTwoThree link ---
>
> 1) I appealed within the original deadline, and I'm positive I
definitely wrote it. I use a grammar app that hates "I's", so
maybe it wasn't written in first person. However, I never
received any confirmation, so now I'm starting to doubt whether
I appealed or not.
>
> 2) Can you explain PoFA and NtK?
>
> 3) I will go back to the site from the entry to the parking
space to get pictures of the journey. not far from me.
>
> 4) For the email, whose email is this being sent from, the
keeper or the driver (me)? And if I cc myself, doesn't that
imply I'm the one driving?
>
> 5) What is the Letter of Claim (LoC)? What are the chances,
and in which situations am I most likely to receive it?
>
> 6) All debt collectors' notices will be ignored.
>
--- End Quote ---
To answer your questions:
1) Only the SAR response will confirm whether you identified the
drive or not. If you're not sure, then we should work on the
assumption that the driver is identified but without any further
confirmation, just in case.
2) PoFA is the only legislation that allows a private parking
operator to hold a registered keeper liable when they do not
know who the driver was. That right only exists if the operator
strictly complies with every mandatory condition set out in
Schedule 4. If any one condition is not met, keeper liability
does not arise.
One of those mandatory conditions is paragraph 9(2)(a).
Parliament did not draft the Act to say that a Notice to Keeper
must state observation times, photo times, or evidence
timestamps. It specifically said the notice "MUST specify the
period of parking to which the notice relates". That wording is
deliberate. Because PoFA allows an operator to pursue someone
who may not have been the contracting party, Parliament required
clarity and certainty about what parking period is actually
being alleged.
This Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking. It
merely lists “observation time(s)”. It does not say the vehicle
was parked between those times, it does not say the vehicle was
observed continuously, and it does not say those times represent
the start and end of the parking period. Observation times are
simply evidential moments when an attendant noted or
photographed the vehicle. They are not, and are not described
as, a "period of parking". A vehicle could have been parked
before observation began and still parked after observation
ended, or it may not have been parked throughout at all. That
uncertainty is exactly what paragraph 9(2)(a) is designed to
prevent.
To comply with PoFA, the operator only needed to clearly state
the alleged period of parking on the face of the Notice to
Keeper. For example, they could have said: “The period of
parking to which this notice relates was from [21:59] to
[22:15]”, or “The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms from
[21:59] to [22:15]”. Even if those times were based on attendant
observations, the notice needed to explicitly identify them as
the "period of parking" relied upon.
Because the operator did not do that, and instead relied on
undefined “observation times”, the Notice to Keeper fails to
meet the strict requirement of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph
9(2)(a). As PoFA compliance is 100% mandatory, liability cannot
be transferred to the Keeper. The operator is therefore limited
to pursuing the driver only and must be put to strict proof of
driver identity. Which is why the driver must never be
identified in private parking invoice cases.
4) Use your own email address. You are writing as the registered
keeper.
The keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver,
and the email address you use does not prove who was driving. It
is simply a contact method. As long as you do not write anything
that identifies the driver (no “I parked”, “I didn’t see the
signs”, “when I returned to the car”, etc.), there is nothing
about an email address that turns a keeper into the driver.
CCing yourself does not imply you were the driver either. People
CC themselves for record-keeping all the time. It is no
different in principle from keeping a copy of a posted letter.
It does not evidence driving, it evidences that you sent an
email and kept a copy.
The only thing that matters is the wording. Write strictly in
the third person: “the driver”, “the vehicle”, “the operator”,
“the site”. Do not describe the driver’s actions as your own,
and do not use “I” in a way that could be read as “I was
driving”. If you keep to that, your email address and CC are
irrelevant.
5) A Letter of Claim (LoC) is a formal pre-court letter sent by
a parking operator or, more commonly, their bulk litigation
solicitors. It states that they intend to issue a county court
claim if payment is not made within 30 days (not the usual 14
days in useless debt recovery letters) and should include reply
forms and information required under the pre-action protocol. It
is not a court claim and it does not affect your credit record.
Nothing we advise on will affect your credit record, even if you
were one of the 0.1% that were unsuccessful. It is simply the
step that comes immediately before a claim might be issued.
In this case, the operator is a relatively new entrant and this
is the first PCN I have seen from them. New operators typically
follow the same industry model as the established firms,
including using bulk litigation solicitors if matters are
escalated.
In practice, an LoC is very often just an extension of the debt
recovery process rather than a genuine intention to go to trial.
The legal language is used to intimidate recipients into paying
out of fear or lack of understanding, not because the case is
strong.
The reality is that the vast majority of private parking claims
never reach a hearing. Many are struck out for procedural or
legal defects, or more likely, discontinued once the defendant
responds properly and demonstrates an understanding of the
process. Of the extremely small number that do reach a hearing,
defendants win a significant proportion of them.
The business model is not built around taking cases to trial. It
relies on volume. The operator hopes that the recipient will
either not respond at all (resulting in a default judgment) or
will capitulate and pay. Once it becomes clear that the keeper
or defendant is engaged, informed, and prepared to defend, the
commercial incentive to pursue the claim usually falls away.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page