Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: holycow on March 26, 2026, 05:35:04 pm
-
No.
Ignore DCBL.
Letter of Claim will come from DCB Legal.
-
The keeper has received a "notice of debt recovery". Would the "letter before claim" have already been sent before this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F2iIbUulI_GKqv636dXYvgFXipIaUcJp/view?usp=drivesdk
-
I would certainly ask for any statement made by the car park operative should the matter escalate to court you are entitled to request their attendance for examination.
-
You have to respond to the LBC the Parking Company will review your letter.
Solicitors,
Here is an example of what to reply you should tailor it to your particular situation
I have received your Letter Before Claim in the post on
As Solicitors you will be familiar with the requirements of the Practice Direction (PD) which was applicable prior to 1st October 2017 and the Protocol which applies thereafter. As you surely know the intended purpose of the PD and Protocol is to assist parties to settle the issue between them without the need to start proceedings and to support efficient management by the court and parties of proceedings that cannot be avoided. In order for this to happen it is expected that the Letter Before Claim is compliant with the requirements of the PD pre-action conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) and the new pre -action protocol for debt claims paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. I therefore formally request all the information and documentation that your client is required to provide. This will include the following;
If I am being pursued and the driver or keeper of the vehicle
To provide concise details of the claim which should include the basis on which the claim is made and a summary of the facts
A copy of the contract with the landowner where they have been granted authority to bring the claim
To clarify if your client is relying on schedule 4 of POFA 2012
Any details of the signage at the time of the alleged offence including the location and signage that has been added following this date
Any photographic evidence that is alleged to support this claim
Further details of the claim including where the vehicle was parked and how the monies being claimed has been calculated
Copies of any previous communication sent by your client to me
A detailed summary of how the amount being claimed by your client has been calculated including the sum of £60 for the time and resources they claim they have spent.
I am unable to form any defence or response to your letter until I am in receipt of the requested information. Should your client fail to produce the requested information I will apply to the courts for an immediate stay in accordance with Paragraph 15(b) of the PD until this information has been provided. As you state in your standard letter which lacks clarity, please refer to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.
Should this matter proceed to a court hearing I will present this letter as evidence of my formal request and any response I receive from you in direct relation to my request.
I require a formal written response within 14 days of the date on this letter. I look forward to receiving this response,
-
Is there more chance at that point compared to IAS?
-
The letter before claim will give you the opportunity to submit a dispute /appeal, These letters are sent out in a regular basis they are part of the mandatory process.
-
What can I do at the "letter before claim" point?
I'm fighting this on behalf of the driver but I really need to weigh out whether it's worth putting them through the stress of all the debt recovery letters...
-
As normal, the assessor has actually skipped over the key points relating to non compliance with PoFA.
All you can do now is wait for the Letter Before Claim.
Ignore all the begging debt letters.
-
The IAS adjudicator has dismissed the appeal. Is there anything more I can do?
" "The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity to consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.
The signs offer the terms for parking. By remaining parked on land managed by the Operator, having had notice of the terms, the driver agrees to them. In consideration for entering the site they agree not to park in a restricted area or pay the charge. In this way they have entered into a contract with the Operator and agreed to be bound by the advertised terms.
I am satisfied that the signs are clear, numerous and unequivocal. This is evidenced by the Operators site map, exhibits and images. The Operator has provided an image of the Appellant's vehicle parked in a restricted area.
Turning to the identity of the driver, POFA 2012 and case law permits the Operator to hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge regardless as to whether they are the driver or not.
The Notice to Keeper contains all the required prerequisite information. It is also considered in time unless there is evidence beyond the Appellant's mere assertion that it was received after the second working day. In the absence of such evidence I cannot consider the matter further.
The Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has this discretion, and they exercised it in the Appellant's favour, by offering the reduced payment. Having rejected this offer the Appellant is now liable to pay the full charge."
-
Unless I a mistaken the case of VCS vs Ibottson is relevant here as the parking operator staff made no effort to engage with the driver in order to prevent them from breaching the terms and conditions. I cannot make out the actual wording of the sign(s). Is the location only serving Topps tiles or are any other businesses sharing the location. Are there any warning signs stating something like you are now leaving theses premises also they need to provide an area map showing the boundary. Ask for photos taken the parking operator showing the evidence of the driver leaving the premises.
-
You can mention that the only 'evidence' they have provided is a claim that the patrol officer observed the driver leaving the site.
I'm not sure I would argue the point around the location, unless the location they are alleging is incorrect...?
-
I only have 2 days left to respond. Is there anything worthwhile I can say?
-
I have until 30 April to respond to the operator. Can I also argue that the contravention photos don't prove the parking location, nor that the driver left the site?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DeFfl8ycuvFOTKkMkIpzA1kxGza3stzZ/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WAUePXg73KtA5Nsk37XePACIJd89d8iK/view?usp=drivesdk
-
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 23/04/2026 15:03:37.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 10/03/2026.
The ticket was issued on 10/03/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. Unit 1, Topps Tiles is a private Car Park which motorists are allowed to enter for the purpose of access and to park their vehicle as long as they abide by any Terms and Conditions displayed.
2. The signage where the appellant parked their vehicle onsite states: ‘Topps Tiles Customer Parking Only Whilst on the Premises Park Wholly Within the Lines of a Single Marked Bay'. The signage makes it clear that any motorist parking in contravention of the terms and conditions will be liable for a PCN.
3. Site Photographs supplied show that the signage is appropriately within the car park. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by patrol officers who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions. Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead, a Notice to Keeper is subsequently issued by post, this practice falls in line with the process and procedures as per site management using ANPR technology.
5. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which were explained in the formal Notice sent on 05/03/2026. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.
6. The NTK is PoFA compliant.
7. The design, wording and layout of the NTK comply with our industry's Single Code of Practice.
8. A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site, they are time and date stamped and show the appellant's vehicle parked adjacent to at least one of the warning signs.
9. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ. When digitally recording the contravention the PO noted, ‘Contra 81. parked in topps tiles parking and went to the mosque.'
10. Contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped, show the appellant's vehicle parked in situ for over a minute, in close proximity to VCS contractual signage.
11. As the driver was observed leaving the site, they ceased to be a customer on the premises. The appellant's vehicle was therefore parked contrary to the Terms and Conditions of parking during this time. No evidence has been presented that contests the PO's statement.
12. A grace period would normally be allowed on a car park in respect of vehicles which are permitted to park; however in this case, as the driver was observed to leave the premises, the vehicle was not permitted to park where it did and no grace period was applicable.
13. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.
14. The appellant had no cause to believe that they could park onsite when they were not a Topps Tiles' customer.
15. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the Terms and Conditions displayed on the signage in private land on which they park. We maintain that our signs are clearly visible and meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community guidelines. As established members of the International Parking Community, we adhere to their Code of Practice. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the car park. The signs within the car park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. At the time of the contravention the vehicle would have been using headlights. Headlights would have illuminated our signage, which is reflective for this purpose. Once the presence of the signs is revealed, it is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they have read the signs and are familiar with the Terms and Conditions before leaving their vehicle parked in situ.
16. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all VCS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the motorist. If the terms and conditions were in any way unclear to the motorist, or they were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of contacting us for advice.
17. We maintain that the terms and conditions were sufficiently brought to the appellant's attention at the time of the parking event.
18. By parking in an area for customers of Topps Tiles only whilst not a customer, the appellant became liable for this charge as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.
-
Actual submitted appeal:
I appeal on the grounds that the notice to keeper sent violates PoFA schedule 4, 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(f) by omitting the period of parking and failing to specify: "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". Thus, it can not be deemed that a notice to keeper was correctly served and no charges can subsequently be levied. I request for the charges to be withdrawn. Thank you
I have provided extracts from PoFA schedule 4 below:
"9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"
"(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"
-
Your point about no detriment or loss will simply generate a quote of the Beavis case.
Indeed - they are not alleging that the landowner has suffered any loss. They are arguing that they have suffered loss, insofar as the driver entered a contract whereby he agreed to pay VCS £100, and they haven't received their £100.
-
I would stick the the first point, but amplify it with a quote from the legislation in Reply #1 and in other posts.
Your point about no detriment or loss will simply generate a quote of the Beavis case.
In general if you give them multiple reasons they will ignore the difficult ones and dismiss the easy ones.
-
Draft to IAS (feedback requested)
I appeal to you on the grounds that the notice to keeper sent violates PoFA schedule 4, 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(f) by omitting the period of parking and failing to specify: "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)".
I would also hasten to add that the contravention is alleged to have occurred outside of store opening hours thus there is no possibility of any detriment having been caused to the landowner.
For these reasons I kindly request that you overrule the charge. Thank you
-
Do I appeal to IAS on the same grounds?
Your grounds are likely to be similar, but an IAS appeal should generally be more detailed, walking the assessor through why the PCN should be cancelled. If you take a look at other IAS and POPLA appeals here you should be able to get some inspiration for a draft to show us.
-
VCS Appeal rejection letter now received.
Do I appeal to IAS on the same grounds?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15nxB2Y57vwuU3Xoiu_Dmo1eInxhkHxen/view?usp=drivesdk
-
For the sake of clarity, none of us are actually pros. This is free advice from volunteers!
So that you know what to expect, neither VCS nor the IAS are likely to uphold your appeals, but you will then have a chance to argue the case at court.
-
Brilliant!
Great to have eagle eyed pro's like you on our side (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji119.png)
Cheers
-
9(2)(f) specifies;
The notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
The legislation requires that the notice must, amongst other things, warn the keeper that the parking operator is required to meet 'all applicable conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to hold the keeper liable for the unpaid charges.
The VCS notice does not do this and the sentence underlined above is missing - this renders the notice non-compliant.
-
The “period of parking”, as I’ve already said.
-
Thanks. I would've thought they covered 9(2)(f) in the last paragraph of page 1 of the NTK. What's missing?
I can't see any mention of POFA on that PCN full stop. Don't identify the driver and appeal on the basis they can't legally hold the keeper liable as they haven't complied with any of the terms of POFA.
There's no actually requirement for the PCN to mention PoFA in it's wording although I accept many PCNs do specifically mention PoFA.
Normally, non PoFA PCNs from VCS contain wording which states "we can pursue the keeper under the reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver" or words to the effect.
To me it is unclear weather they are relying on PoFA.
But the notice is missing some key wording from para 9(2)(f).
-
I can't see any mention of POFA on that PCN full stop. Don't identify the driver and appeal on the basis they can't legally hold the keeper liable as they haven't complied with any of the terms of POFA.
There's no actually requirement for the PCN to mention PoFA in it's wording although I accept many PCNs do specifically mention PoFA.
Normally, non PoFA PCNs from VCS contain wording which states "we can pursue the keeper under the reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver" or words to the effect.
To me it is unclear weather they are relying on PoFA.
But the notice is missing some key wording from para 9(2)(f).
-
I can't see any mention of POFA on that PCN full stop. Don't identify the driver and appeal on the basis they can't legally hold the keeper liable as they haven't complied with any of the terms of POFA.
-
If the driver is not identified, there is a technical appeal that the legislation, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4, has not been complied with.
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
because there is no “period of parking” on the notice.
-
Hi everyone,
My cousin thought it was safe to use the Topps Tiles car park after store closing hours (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji85.png). The store have said they can't cancel it as it was outside of their operating times.
The PCN was only passed on to me today and 16 days have passed. What's the best route to appeal?
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/156va0NhCWbrev19DeBrmoaYNnJCw2zrW
PCN here: