Was the formal complaint sent to PPM? What was their response? Does the Keeper have any contemporaneous photos of that entrance sign either obscured by foliage or in the damaged condition as shown in other photos?
Respond to BW Legal LoC with the following:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 24th March 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £120 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notices (PCNs): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
You have not shown us the appeal rejection letter. The IPC's Independent Appeals Service (IAS) does not rely on a separate appeal code like POPLA. If the rejection notice from the operator did not provide information about escalating to the IAS, this is a potential breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to give appellants clear instructions on how to access the IAS. Operators should direct appellants to the IAS via their rejection notice, including a reference or case number. If this information was omitted, the Registered Keeper (RK) should challenge this.
Ignore the debt collection letter from BW Legal as it is not a formal Letter of Claim (LoC). Debt collection letters themselves carry no legal weight and cannot result in a claim or any enforcement action.
The tenant's lease takes precedence over any private parking scheme. The lease does not mention any requirement to display a permit or comply with third-party parking management rules. Parking is a right included in the lease under Clause 13.1, with no mention of further conditions. Therefore, the parking operator has no authority to override the lease agreement.
Send a formal complaint to the parking operator and request clarification on why no information about the IAS was provided after the initial appeal rejection. Why they have failed to allow the RK to appeal further. Include a copy of the lease (if possible) to demonstrate that the tenant has an unfettered right to park without displaying a permit.
I suggest sending a formal letter of complaint to Parking and Property Management Ltd as a PDF attached to an email. Make sure you also CC in yourself.
Parking and Property Management Ltd
Ocean House
12th Floor
The Ring
Bracknell
RG12 1AX
By email: info@pandpmanagement.co.uk
[Date]
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Parking Charge [Reference Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally complain about the handling of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [reference number], issued on [date] for an alleged contravention on [date of contravention].
1. Procedural Failures
I appealed this charge upon receiving the Notice to Keeper. Despite your rejection of my appeal, you failed to provide me with adequate information or instructions to escalate the matter to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), as required under the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). This omission denied me a fair opportunity to challenge the PCN further and contravenes Section 8.4.6 of the PPSCoP, which mandates that operators handle complaints fairly and transparently.
2. Deficient Signage
The signage at the location is inadequate and fails to comply with Section 3 of the PPSCoP, which requires signage to be clear, legible, and prominently positioned to form a valid contract with drivers. Specifically:
• The terms and conditions are not visible or legible from a reasonable distance.
• The entrance sign does not sufficiently alert drivers to the parking restrictions.
• The signage does not meet the required standard for clarity or prominence.
3. Lease Terms Supersede Permit Requirements
The lease for the property clearly grants parking rights without the need for a permit. The lease contains no requirement to display a permit or comply with any private parking scheme, making your enforcement actions invalid. Your parking scheme cannot override the terms of the lease, as established in cases such as Jopson v Homeguard (2016).
4. Lack of a Published Complaints Policy
Your company does not have a publicly accessible complaints policy, which is a breach of Section 11.1 of the PPSCoP. This section explicitly requires operators to implement and publish a clear and accessible complaints procedure. The absence of such a policy demonstrates a lack of transparency and fairness, contrary to the fundamental principles of the PPSCoP.
5. Unreasonable Escalation to Debt Collection
Rather than addressing the procedural failings and deficiencies in your processes, you have escalated the matter to BW Legal who are acting as a debt collection agency. This action also contravenes Section 11.1 of the PPSCoP, which requires that operators consider complaints fully and fairly before resorting to further enforcement action. Escalating to debt recovery without resolving the substantive issues with this PCN is unreasonable.
Requested Resolution
I request that you:
• Cancel the parking charge immediately.
• Provide written confirmation of the cancellation.
If this complaint is not resolved satisfactorily within 14 days, I will escalate the matter to the IPC, the landowner, and other relevant authorities. I also reserve the right to raise this issue with Trading Standards, as the lack of a complaints procedure and your handling of this matter constitutes a breach of consumer protection legislation.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Whilst you are assisting someone else, any appeal or subsequent defence can only be done in the name of the Keeper to whom the PCN was addressed.
Well noted, I will ask the registered keeper to submit the appeal. The registered keeper is not earning an income and I was trying to help them.
We need to know the circumstances of the PCN. Was the driver or the keeper of the vehicle a resident at the location?
Resident at one of the apartments (the address on the notice is weird, not sure if you had any comments about that).
Holds a valid council parking permit (but due to signage piled up two PCNs - one other similar to this).
If so, what does their lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important. If they were only visiting someone at the location, the lease of the person being visited will also apply.
The RK is a private tenant. I am unsure they can get the details from their landlord.
The RK has a council parking permit. The council permit parking signage is a mess which confused them and they thought they were parking on the council permit parking area. I attempt to explain this through the image below.
Green shading: Private parking area.
Yellow shading: Council permit parking area - the yellow star at the start of CADET DR is the only entry and exit out of this entire area.
Pink shaded area (overlapping with the text): Interestingly, at the entrance of the private parking area, the first parking space on the left is on private land (where neither the council nor the private parking operator has the authority to operate).
RED X marks the entry and exit of the private parking area: There is no 'END OF PERMIT PARKING' and 'START OF PERMIT PARKING' signs before and after entering the private parking area; usually councils are supposed to put these up and Southwark Council has indicated that the entire CADET DR is a permit parking area.
(https://i.imgur.com/3qRUujT.png)
In the majority of these "residential" cases, the operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner or they owner/tenant lease has supremacy of contract and the operator cannot simply override the terms of the lease just because thy have been allowed to put up some signs.
Going to be hard to ascertain in this case as the landlord would be unlikely to handover their leasehold documents to the private tenant.
Regarding your points of appeal, whilst they are points that could be used, assuming they were valid (which in this case almost none of them are), no initial appeal, under any circumstances is going to succeed. Also, as they are IPC members, there is less than 4% chance of an IAS secondary appeal succeeding either.
I am not surprised at the bias shown by IAS :/
the most likely outcome will be if a claim is made in the county court. That is ideally what you want to get this done and dusted. The county court is the ultimate independent dispute resolution service and in the majority of cases, when defended, are either discontinued, struck out or won.
Given the circumstances of this case do you think with the information we have we could succeed?
Now, to cover your PoFA points and why they are not necessarily relevant:
1. Failure to Specify the Period of Parking:
Whilst that argument has occasionally been successful at POPLA and in court, it would not work with an initial appeal or with the IAS.
3. Insufficient Explanation of Keeper Liability Conditions:
There is a flaw in their wording as PoFA states at 9(2)(f) "...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". Whereas in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they state: "...the case will be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which me escalate to court..." Again, a technical breach of PoFA requirements but would only be useful in court, not in an appeal.
Would IAS really choose to not uphold the need for strict compliance with the POFA wording?
4. Failure to Clearly Display the Parking Charge:
Always a good one but, again, only useful in court. You'd have to point out the obvious with a comparison to the Beavis sign like this:
I will prepare a sign. Could you reference some past cases where this was relevant so I can include it in the appeal nonetheless.
11. Lack of Prominence for Key Terms:
Again, as an IPC operator, only valid if it went to court.[/indent]
Any grounds for raising a consumer rights complaint against the parking operator?
Welcome. Whilst you are assisting someone else, any appeal or subsequent defence can only be done in the name of the Keeper to whom the PCN was addressed.
We need to know the circumstances of the PCN. Was the driver or the keeper of the vehicle a resident at the location? If so, what does their lease/tenancy agreement say about parking? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important. If they were only visiting someone at the location, the lease of the person being visited will also apply.
In the majority of these "residential" cases, the operator does not have a valid contract with the landowner or they owner/tenant lease has supremacy of contract and the operator cannot simply override the terms of the lease just because thy have been allowed to put up some signs.
Regarding your points of appeal, whilst they are points that could be used, assuming they were valid (which in this case almost none of them are), no initial appeal, under any circumstances is going to succeed. Also, as they are IPC members, there is less than 4% chance of an IAS secondary appeal succeeding either.
the most likely outcome will be if a claim is made in the county court. That is ideally what you want to get this done and dusted. The county court is the ultimate independent dispute resolution service and in the majority of cases, when defended, are either discontinued, struck out or won.
Now, to cover your PoFA points and why they are not necessarily relevant:
1. Failure to Specify the Period of Parking:
Whilst that argument has occasionally been successful at POPLA and in court, it would not work with an initial appeal or with the IAS.
2. Lack of a Presumed Delivery Date for the Notice:
The notice is "deemed" given on the second working day after the date of issue. It matters not when it was actually received unless it can be evidence that it was received after that date. Good luck with evidencing that. Any argument about "proof of posting" or "proof of delivery" could be made in court but at appeal stage, it would never be successful.
3. Insufficient Explanation of Keeper Liability Conditions:
There is a flaw in their wording as PoFA states at 9(2)(f) "...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". Whereas in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they state: "...the case will be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which me escalate to court..." Again, a technical breach of PoFA requirements but would only be useful in court, not in an appeal.
4. Failure to Clearly Display the Parking Charge:
Always a good one but, again, only useful in court. You'd have to point out the obvious with a comparison to the Beavis sign like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/swfdQkf.jpeg)
5. Poor Visibility and Positioning of Signage:
Probably too weak to argue in this case but is sometimes useful in a POPLA appeal or court. With the IAS, forget it!
6. No Mention of ANPR Usage:
Weak in this case as they show a symbolic camera and mention "images". It would probably be a good one to point out in court, as breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
7. No Evidence of Authority to Operate:
Would only work if it went to court and they were put to strict proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner.
8. Failure to Prove Reasonable Cause for Accessing Keeper Data:
A non-starter as they have stated the cause as "Not displaying a valid permit".
9. Unfair or Disproportionate Parking Charge:
Only useful in court. A charge of £100 is not considered disproportionate as long as it is not a penalty. The fake £70 added fee is arguable in court only and, in this case, it is mentioned on the sign.
10. Non-Compliance with Timeframes:
Already discussed in point #2 above. Delivery does not have to be "confirmed". It is "deemed" delivered on the second working day after issue. Only arguable in court if the cannot provide proof of posting or proof of delivery.
11. Lack of Prominence for Key Terms:
Again, as an IPC operator, only valid if it went to court.