-
Hi all,
Received a Parking Charge Notice at my address for the above location.
Spoke to the driver who tells me there was nothing on the car.
Reason for Issue - Parked on Yellow Lines, on Private Land.
The above GM link shows the signage, but its badly lit.
PCN issues 29/8, received 10/9
Is there anything I can do at this point?
-
-
Please post what you have received so we can see it, see https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
-
-
-
No period of parking so not compliant with PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
Typical appealQuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CPM have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
They will reject and won’t cancel but it’s the start of the process.
Search the forum for CPM if you want insight into the process. -
-
They have , predictably, rejected.
----
hank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments made in your appeal, the signage on site clearly states 'No stopping/parking or waiting on double yellow lines/hatched areas at any time. No exceptions.' As per our photographic evidence, the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines which was in contravention of the advertised terms and conditions. Therefore, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;
Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28 days of this rejection.
The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.
If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.
If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future. -
-
Am I right in assuming that appealing to the IAS is pointless, and I should wait until a Letter of Claim arrives?
-
-
The IAS appeal at least costs them something like £23 and sets out the arguments you will essentially use in your defence anyway, but will you please repost the original notice because Imgur is now blocked in the UK?
-
-
For what it’s worth, even if only to force them to respond, you should appeal to the IAS with the following:Quote
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles. -
-
I've an update on this.
After I responded to the original UK Car Park management Limited, they obviously tossed it to a 'debt collector' quite promptly.
I have received while on holiday a 'Letter of Claim' from BW Legal.
How should I respond to this?
The original claim from UK Car Park Management wasn't POFA compliant, which I originally said.
Having just come back from holiday, this reply needs to be sent pronto.
Thanks for your help,
-
-
Updated links to original Parking Charge Notice
-
-
-
-
Respond with the following;
Dear BW Legal Person,
Client Ref -
I write in response to your Letter of Claim which I received yesterday.
I deny that any money is owed by myself to your parking operator client.
To be clear, I was not the vehicle driver at the material time and there is no legal requirement for me to supply driver details.
I will not be supplying driver details under any circumstance.
Furthermore, your Client's Notice to Keeper was not POFA complaint and therefore there is no route to 'keeper liability' in this instance.
Therefore, there is no liability on my part for the alleged unpaid charges.
I feel that this sets out the true legal position in this matter.
I am sorry that I cannot help you further.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx -
-
A point of clarity, only say that you were not the driver if this is true
-
-
A point of clarity, only say that you were not the driver if this is true
The original post appears to confirm that someone else was driving.
But yes, do not say that you were not the driver if that was not the case. -
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. 
ImgBB 
Like x 1
View List