DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108909--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: JLA
Date: February 6, 2026, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, need to submit appeal today, does it look ok or is there
anything i should add or
omit? Thanks.
I am appealing this charge as the registered keeper on the
following grounds:
1. Poorly maintained road markings.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states:
Signs and surface markings are used to provide information to
drivers to indicate that they are entering controlled land, to
display such terms and conditions as apply to direct traffic
movements and to delineate parking bays. Signs and surface
markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way
as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers. Operators
should take note of relevant best practice guidance and
legislation.
The driver parked in what appeared to be a marked bay. The road
markings were very poorly maintained and were at best
conflicting, at worst so neglected as to be entirely unclear
especially as it was a dark evening when they parked.
A very warn yellow hatching on top of warn bay markings are not
'unambiguous'. Neither are they 'maintained'.
2. Inadequate Signage.
The Code of Practice 3.1 Signs states:
An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the
entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate
whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions,
including payment, or is prohibited.
There were no prominent, clear, legible signs at the entrance to
the car park informing drivers of the terms and conditions. The
driver was not properly notified therfore making the contract
uneforceable.
3. Incorrect charge.
The Code of Practice 8.2 Parking charge levels states:
Parking charges must not exceed £100. A reduction of a minimum
of 40% must be offered where payment is made within 14 days of
the issue of the Notice to Driver where a notice is issued at
the time of the parking event, or of the issue of the Notice to
Keeper and/or Notice to Hirer where the first notice is sent
through the post.
The NTK/Parking Charge states that a reduced amount of £70.00 is
payable if paid within 14 days. This does not relate to a 40%
reduction from £100.00. The actual reduced amount payable
offered should have been £60.00.
I would ask that the parking charge be cancelled for the reasons
stated.
#Post#: 108914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 6, 2026, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's "worn", not "warn". Otherwise, that'll do for an initial
appeal.
I'd be minded once you've appealed to file a complaint on the
specific issue of their failure to offer a 40% discount.
#Post#: 108920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: JLA
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, just submitted with photo's of entrance showing no
signage. Will update with their response.
#Post#: 108921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In preparation for the next stage, getting some more photos
showing the approach to the car park, and the the entrance taken
by the driver, to really emphasise the point re. signage, would
be wise.
#Post#: 108925--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: JLA
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Submitted 2 photo's with appeal showing lack of signage at
entrance. Also already have a video (not submitted) taken on
17th Jan showing approach to car park, entrance and entering.
#Post#: 110464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: JLA
Date: February 20, 2026, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just received rejection letter dated 10/2/26 giving me 14 days
to appeal or pay £70. As it has taken 10 days to arrive i now
only have 4 days to get an appeal in to the IAS. They have the
points raised in my appeal. Would appreciate any advice on how
to do next appeal or do i just use same points? Thanks.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WvDsjm20/20260220-113941.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/chbxV4rw
#Post#: 110470--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: JLA
Date: February 20, 2026, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have just checked IAS website which says I have 28 days from
date of rejection from the operator (BPM state it's 14 days).
Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my appeal
too?
#Post#: 110471--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 20, 2026, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They haven't addressed the very worn and contradictory markings.
So start writing an appeal to IAS.
It is highly unlikely that this will ever get to court but there
will be hoops to jump through.
Make the appeal short and too the point - don't leave IAS with
any room to waffle.
#Post#: 110472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 20, 2026, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Expand on your original points, remembering that the assessor
will have no prior knowledge of the car park. Show us a draft
before sending anything.
--- Quote ---
> I'd be minded once you've appealed to file a complaint on the
specific issue of their failure to offer a 40% discount.
--- End Quote ---
Have you done this?
--- Quote ---
> Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my
appeal too?
--- End Quote ---
It's not, on the face of it, a reason why the charge is not
owed, but I'd put it in there to highlight further evidence of
their incompetence.
If you haven't yet complained to BPM about the discount issue, I
would also add in a point around them misrepresenting the time
allowed to appeal.
#Post#: 110473--------------------------------------------------
Re: Royal Leisure Park W3 NTK
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 20, 2026, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They don't appear to be relying on PoFA either.
Can we assume that the driver has never been revealed?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page