DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 19, 2026, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: padre link ---
>
> Is it my responsibility to notify them or are they supposed to
keep track?
>
--- End Quote ---
You should tell them. They're only able to access keeper data
from DVLA once.
#Post#: 111297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: February 26, 2026, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all. So I lodged my IAS appeal and the operator was given 5
working days to respond. I thought I got lucky when I logged in
and the system showed they had just 3 hours of their response
window left. Anyway, they did respond with about 90 mins before
the deadline. The following is their response,
"On 18/10/2025, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to a
vehicle parked at Shell Garage, 391–393 Dunstable
Road, LU4 8DA, after the driver was observed leaving the
premises. Signage at this location clearly states that
parking is permitted only within marked bays and only while the
driver or passengers remain on site as customers.
The designated parking bays are clearly marked with white
painted lines.
The vehicle was observed parked on private land, after which the
driver exited the vehicle and proceeded to leave
the premises. This constitutes a breach of the displayed parking
terms and conditions, resulting in the issuance of
the Parking Charge Notice.
The terms and conditions state that drivers and passengers must
remain on the premises while the vehicle is
parked onsite which means any visitor is permitted to park on
the property for the period while being a customer
followed by them then leaving the premises with their vehicle.
The terms and conditions are clear and
understandable.
The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but
rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. While this
may be the case the issuance of the Notice to
Keeper is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove
otherwise.
The vehicle was parked in close proximity to clearly visible
signage, and photographic/CCTV evidence will show
the reason why this charge was issued.
The vehicle was observed parked on the land in breach of the
displayed terms and conditions, which resulted in
the Parking Charge Notice being correctly issued. The motorist
was given sufficient opportunity to read and
comply with the signage and avoid incurring the charge."
My arguement was based on their NtK being issued after 104 days,
which it seems doesn't make difference. I've noticed in their
response they've also claimed that the appelant is the keeper
AND the driver despite my appeal stating that I'm the keeper and
I'm not willing to identify the driver - See screenshots below.
Anyway, IAS now expect my response, which I thought I already
kind of made my arguement being that the NtK was issued too
late. What now?
HTML https://ibb.co/QvgSvrYB
HTML https://ibb.co/My3qWGP1
#Post#: 111302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 27, 2026, 1:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They say,
"While this may be the case the issuance of the Notice to Keeper
is still valid as no evidence has been submitted to prove
otherwise."
That is incorrect - the law requires that they provide the
evidence (as to who was driving) which the keeper may rebut if
they wish - they are turning it around in an attempt to 'make
the keeper guilty unless they can prove innocence' - that is
legally illiterate - in the absence of any material evidence
there is nothing for the keeper to rebut - this is established
legal principle.
At the present time, the driver is not known to the operator and
there is no legal route to keeper liability - reliance on the
assumption that the keeper is the driver is a commercial
decision and not a legal position.
They say,
"The appellant is not appealing against the contravention but
rather that the Notice to Keeper was issued outside
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012."
The keeper does not need to appeal against the contravention
when they are not the liable party - the operator is assuming
liability rather than proving it - in the circumstances, the
keeper is under no legal obligation engage with the operator but
is doing so to clear up the issue.
#Post#: 111355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have cctv/photographic evidence of the driver leaving the
site and returning. Do I have to prove that it's not me? I'm
assuming not. I hope not. :-X
#Post#: 111357--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: padre link ---
>
> They have cctv/photographic evidence of the driver leaving the
site and returning. Do I have to prove that it's not me? I'm
assuming not. I hope not. :-X
>
--- End Quote ---
No.
They have to prove that it was you, which they can’t do.
You’re over-thinking this, and their abilities, as I already
said.
#Post#: 111358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No - other way about - they are the 'claimant' so their job is
to provide the evidence - you are the defendant so your job is
to rebut any evidence.
If they make an assertion then there should generally be
material evidence to support that assertion.
A person walking offsite could be anyone - how can they prove
it's the registered keeper? They cannot.
#Post#: 111361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: jfollows
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their tactics are to make things up, and to state untruths as
facts, in the hope that you will be frightened into believing
their nonsense and paying them.
They know their nonsense will not stand up in court.
So you also need to know this, and stand your ground.
#Post#: 111368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both, very much for this. I've responded to this and
I'll await the response.
#Post#: 112353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: March 7, 2026, 6:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good day people,I have now received the operator's response and
have been given the option to respond yet again or refer the
matter for arbitration. My previous response was;
"The Operator acknowledges that I, the KEEPER, am not appealing
against the contravention. This is not my duty to do so as I
have clearly stated, I am the KEEPER of the vehicle, NOT the
DRIVER. The Operator should be seeking to recover the parking
charge from the DRIVER. I, as the KEEPER, am under no obligation
to appeal against the contravention when I am not the liable
party. The Operator is assuming liability and I am only engaging
in this process in order to clear the matter up.
The Operator also acknowledges the transfer of liability window
has passed, but then goes on to say that it remains valid as no
evidence to prove otherwise has been submitted. This is legally
incorrect, the onus is upon the Operator to provide evidence as
to who was driving, which they have not. The person pictured in
their CCTV evidence has not been identified and therefore the
Operator is relying on assumption that it is the KEEPER. This is
a commercial decision rather than a legal position.
These are the only points that matter here. All other comments
related to the "contravention" are irrelevant."
To which they have replied;
"The Operator's position remains as follows: they are entitled
to assume, on the balance of probabilities, that the registered
keeper of the vehicle is also the driver, unless the keeper
provides sufficient evidence to the contrary.
While the appellant have stated that they were not the driver,
no evidence has been provided to support this claim. It is
important to note that the burden of proof to show who was
driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator. In
the absence of any alternative driver details from the keeper,
the Operator is permitted, as per the legal framework governing
parking charges, to hold the keeper liable for the
contravention. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the
Operator is within their rights to continue to pursue the charge
against you as the keeper of the vehicle.
The Operator is correct that the transfer of liability period
has passed. However, this does not negate the Operator's right
to pursue the keeper when no evidence is provided to establish
that the keeper was not the driver. As the keeper of the
vehicle, you are under an obligation to provide details of the
driver if you are claiming that you were not driving. Since this
has not been done, the Operator is entitled to rely on the
assumption that the registered keeper was the driver."
Is it time to go to arbitration or should I respond to this
again? Another response would feel like a bit like banging my
head against a wall.
TIA
#Post#: 112355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 7, 2026, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The replies you quote are the usual lies stated as facts in the
hope that you believe them and pay up.
There is no obligation for the keeper to identify the driver,
nor is there any validity in the assumption that the keeper is
the driver. These are all lies.
I suggest that you just ignore this rubbish, and wait for them
to try to intimidate you further by taking you to court.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page