DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112360--------------------------------------------------
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, 7:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh so I shouldn't even respond to this and go straight for
arbitration?
#Post#: 112361--------------------------------------------------
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, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should rebut each of their incorrect statements. Otherwise
they will claim that you agree with them.
This is a better approach than ignoring, although the end result
may be the same.
The IAS will probably reject your appeal anyway. But the time
thing may cause them to uphold it. If not, you have a boring
process to follow which should result in the claimant giving up
eventually.
#Post#: 112387--------------------------------------------------
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, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this is my response,
"The Operator's position holds no weight. The keeper of the
vehicle can not be held liable without the POFA. The Notice to
Keeper was issued too late for this and therefore the Operator's
assumption alone is not enough.
Please refer to the case of EXCEL PARKING SERVICES v ANTHONY
SMITH (Manchester County Court) in which HHJ Smith confirmed
there is no legal presumption that the keeper is the driver.
Also VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD v IAN EDWARD (Teeside Combined
Court) in which HHJ Gargan held that a registered keeper cannot
be assumed to have been driving, nor could any adverse inference
be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling to nominate a driver
because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.
In conclusion, I, the keeper of the vehicle, will not be held
liable for these made up charges.
Anything to add?
#Post#: 112412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 8, 2026, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would specifically set out the few paragraphs of VCS v Edward
which specifically rebut the operators claim.
Paragraph;
34 I am persuaded by Mr Yamba that the evidential effect of
establishing that the defendant
was the relevant keeper, does not produce any inference,
rebuttable or otherwise, that the
defendant was driving on this particular occasion. Therefore,
there is no material
inference for the defendant to rebut. As there was nothing for
him to rebut, it does not
seem to me to be right to draw an adverse inference from his
failure to engage in seeking
to rebut it. Therefore, I find that the learned district judge
fell into error in making the
finding she did.
35 I am fortified in my decision for three other reasons:
35.1 the finding I make is consistent with the underlying
purpose of Schedule 4 to the
Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to
bring in keeper
liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could
not be established. If
this were not the case car parking companies could have simply
have obtained the details of
the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see
whether or
not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence
of a positive
defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an
approach, it would
have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper identify the
driver, or at least
set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility
himself. In my judgment that
was not the position before the Protection from Freedoms Act was
in force;
35.2 my decision preserves and respects the important general
freedom from being
required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do
so; and
35.3 it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis
whereby simply because
somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of
probability they
were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell,
For example, there
will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where
many drivers have
the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be
individual employers are
the registered keeper but who allow a number of people who may
drive their
vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are
each registered
keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive
the other. Or there
may be situations where husband/wife is the registered keeper of
both family cars
and the registered keeper regularly drives one car and their
spouse regularly drives
the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not
appropriate to draw
an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered
keeper was driving on
any given occasion.
#Post#: 112413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 8, 2026, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: padre link ---
>
> It is important to note that the burden of proof to show who
was driving the vehicle does not rest solely with the Operator.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm afraid it does.
Add an extra line in your comments which set out the operators
assertion and then add;
"I put the operator to STRICT PROOF to set out the legislation
which supports this assertion - I would point out that simply
stating something does not somehow make it law - the operator is
clearly stating this in order to generate a liability in a
situation where (inconveniently for them) no legal liability
actually exists."
#Post#: 112416--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: jfollows
Date: March 8, 2026, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, by “rebut” I suggest that you explicitly quote their
rubbish, such as
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
, and state why this is wrong. And so on for each point they
make.
They state things as fact which are completely untrue, this
being just one example, and need to have these statements
countered in your input.
#Post#: 115561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: padre
Date: April 10, 2026, 2:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good evening all,
An update and a big thank you to all who replied and helped me
through this. I actually missed the deadline for my last
response and when I logged in to the IAS portal, it simply said
the case had been referred for adjudication. Took a while but
I've just had an email saying my appeal was accepted! I was
expecting a refusal, especially after all the reading I'd done
online. I have screenshot and attached the email, maybe it is of
some interest to the kind people on here.
Again, a huge thanks to all who took the time to advise me.
HTML https://ibb.co/0RNQPJtM
#Post#: 115581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Universal Parking Enforcement - Passenger or Driver left the
premises whilst vehicle parked on site - Shell Garage L
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: April 11, 2026, 1:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
WOW moment.
Not seen this from IAS before.
An Assessor who actually applies the correct rules.
Well done - nice work.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page