-
The ball remains in their court, but keep a close eye on your post.
-
So I've not heard anything from ELMS so far, they stated that the matter was on hold until 29th November. Naturally I don't want to tempt fate or invite them to waste our time. However I want to ensure that no nasty surprises are sprung, I have been on holiday for a couple of weeks but seen no letters, emails, communication from them.
Should I just sit back and hope they've gone away?
-
No point in any further response. Let them issue the claim, if they dare, and you can also refer them to the SRA for breaching the PAPDC.
-
I got the following response from ELMS, they are just sharing the same contract of 2015 and site map (not to scale)
Good morning,
Thank you for your kind email, the contents of which we note.
You have been previously provided with the contract, site plan, and signage for the relevant land. Please find this attached again for your reference.
The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which date it may be issued upon without further notice.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
-
It beggars belief that this person is a supposedly legally trained person, considering the responses being give each time. I advise you to send the following response to that rubbish:
Subject: Re: Vehicle Control Services Ltd – Alleged Parking Charge (Signal Court, 16/04/2025)
Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
Thank you for your latest response, the content of which once again demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both statutory and procedural requirements.
1. VAT and the £70 Uplift
You repeat that the £70 does not include VAT yet decline to produce any evidence of an external service or invoice. That admission confirms the sum is an internal administrative charge, not a debt-recovery cost “incurred”. Its inclusion therefore constitutes double recovery and an abuse of process. The PPSCoP cannot authorise what statute and settled case law prohibit.
2. Statutory Cap
Your attempt to rely on wording within the Notice to Keeper does not override Schedule 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which caps keeper liability at the amount specified in the NtK. No amount of self-serving drafting alters statute. If you truly believe your client can contract out of primary legislation, that belief is as misplaced as it is concerning.
3. Elliott v Loake (1983 Crim LR 36)
Your description of this criminal case as supporting a “civil inference” is fanciful. It involved forensic evidence proving the keeper was the driver; there was no legal presumption. You are invited to produce a single binding civil authority establishing such a presumption. None exists.
4. Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453
Your portrayal of this case as applying to private individuals is wrong in law. It concerned vicarious liability in an employer–employee relationship, not an owner’s refusal to name a driver. It cannot be stretched to impose personal liability upon a private keeper. To suggest otherwise is misleading and unbecoming of a legal services provider.
5. Standing and Authority
You confirm that commercially sensitive documents will be withheld unless ordered by the Court. That position is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d) and 5.2, which require disclosure of key documents to enable informed engagement. A refusal to do so will be brought to the Court’s attention on costs and conduct.
6. Conduct of Litigation
I note your admission that neither you nor Ms Bailey are authorised persons. If you are unable to engage with the substantive points raised or to comply with the Protocol, it would be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised solicitor or other responsible adult within your firm who can.
Unless and until you provide a compliant Letter of Claim with full documentation, no further correspondence will be entertained. Any proceedings issued in breach of the PAPDC will be met with an immediate application to stay and for costs on the indemnity basis.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address]
-
Feedback from Elms as below, they've just added the same old contract dated 7th July 2015, best to just ignore?
Good morning,
Thank you for your email. Please see below our responses to your points.
1. VAT and the £70 uplift
We have confirmed that the £70.00 fee added to the balance of £100.00 does not include VAT. It is approved by The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice. We are under no obligation to provide invoices to substantiate this claim, as they are not required.
2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
The Notice to Keeper (attached) reads in part:
Failure to make payment within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice will result in the full charge of 000.000 being applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken, further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value of the PCN up to the value of an additional £70.00.
We maintain, therefore, that the full balance remains recoverable.
3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Elliott v Loake:
This case shows courts can draw common-sense conclusions about who was driving when the facts point that way. If the keeper does not say who was driving and gives no evidence to the contrary, the court can decide it was the keeper on the balance of probabilities. It is not about criminal rules. It is about everyday civil inference when someone stays silent on something they should know.
CPS v AJH Films:
This case confirms that someone can be held responsible when they allow another person to use their vehicle and then refuse to identify them. Even though the case involved a company, the basic point stands: if you let someone use your car and later refuse to say who it was, the court can treat you as responsible.
4. Standing and Authority
You have been previously provided with the contract (attached again), and confirmation that the site remains active. We note your comments that you feel this is insufficient and advise again that further commercially sensitive documentation such as renewals would be provided if our client was ordered to do so by the court.
5. Conduct of Litigation
I can confirm neither myself nor Angie are conducting litigation. Any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted by an authorised person.
The matter remains on hold until 29 November 2025, after which date it may be issued upon without further notice.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
-
That reply from Ms Bailey is weak and defensive — they're clearly rattled. Their key tells are:
• refusal to disclose any invoices or proof of third-party debt recovery;
• backpedal from their own “PoFA not relied on” stance;
• reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films, which are both discredited in this context;
• and another attempt to blur the line between assisting and conducting litigation.
I suggest you respond with:
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Formal Notice: Reliance on Misleading Authority and VAT Evidence
Dear Ms Bailey,
Thank you for your response dated [insert date].
1. VAT and the £70 uplift
Your confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT” and that “charges may include VAT” stands as an unequivocal admission that no VAT-bearing service was procured. This destroys any pretence that the £70 represents a genuine third-party cost. You are now on notice that this point will be relied upon at hearing to demonstrate that the £70 is a fabricated in-house charge, not a loss, expense, or recoverable sum under any head of law.
If the £70 were truly “incurred”, a VAT invoice and remittance proof would exist. Your refusal to disclose these documents will be drawn to the Court’s attention as evidence that they do not exist.
2. Statutory Cap and Mischaracterisation
Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA is clear: where keeper liability is invoked, the sum recoverable is limited to that specified in the Notice to Keeper. You have now expressly stated that you are relying on PoFA, which means the £70 uplift is statutorily barred. You cannot simultaneously assert PoFA compliance and rely on a non-PoFA contractual or “consequential loss” theory.
3. Misuse of Criminal Authorities
Your reliance on Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films is misconceived. Elliott v Loake is a criminal case ([1983] Crim LR 36) and provides no civil presumption that a registered keeper was the driver. AJH Films ([2015] EWCA Civ 1453) is a civil case on vicarious liability in an employer/employee context; it has no application to a private individual’s keeper liability. Unless you plead and prove an identified driver or strict PoFA keeper liability, your authorities are irrelevant.
4. Standing and Authority
Your refusal to disclose the landowner contract, subsistence evidence, and delegation chain until “requested by the Court” is non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. It prevents the narrowing of issues and will be raised as unreasonable conduct when costs are addressed.
5. Conduct of Litigation
I note your statement that “all litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.” That statement is circular and non-responsive. Please confirm whether Ms Scriminger-Faulkner and yourself are personally authorised under Schedule 2 of the Act to conduct litigation, and if not, that any court pleadings, statements of truth, or witness evidence will be signed and submitted exclusively by Mr Shoreman-Lawson or another authorised person.
Should unauthorised personnel perform reserved legal activities, I will refer the matter to the SRA without further notice.
Conclusion
Your client’s position is unsustainable in law. The £70 uplift will not survive judicial scrutiny, and your reliance on discredited authority will be cited on conduct and costs. If you are not personally authorised to conduct litigation, it may be prudent to refer this correspondence to an authorised individual within your firm who is capable of addressing the substantive legal issues raised.
I will now await formal proceedings or discontinuance. Further correspondence of a generic or repetitive nature will not be acknowledged.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
-
Please see response as follows, is it worth pointing out the AST or should that be left till later?
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted. In response to your points raised, we would advise the following:
1.£70 “debt recovery”
Please note that neither ourselves nor Vehicle Control Services Ltd (“our client”) are under any legal obligation to provide the documentation you have requested. The debt recovery fee has been lawfully incurred in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on site and accepted at the time of parking. We reject your assertion that the fee constitutes “double recovery” or that it is otherwise unenforceable. The £70 charge forms part of the recoverable amount and will continue to be pursued as such.
2.“The Code allows £70” — not determinative and still subject to law
Whilst your comments have been noted regarding the Code, we would again affirm that the Code allows for the recovery of these costs which were outlined in the terms and conditions referenced above. We maintain that this cost is both fair and reasonable.
3.Driver v Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by our client complies with PoFA (2012) and therefore as you have not named the driver, we are able to pursue you for the outstanding balance as the registered keeper. If you were not the driver, then please advise of their details. As no evidence has been provided identifying another driver, it is reasonable to infer that the keeper was the driver, an inference the court may draw on the balance of probabilities. While Elliott v Loake [1982] RTR 228 was a criminal case, it supports the principle that such an inference may be made in the absence of contrary evidence. Likewise, CPS v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Crim 1068 illustrates that liability may extend to those responsible for a vehicle’s use.
We can rely on the reasonable assumption that the Keeper was the Driver. We do not have to rely on PoFA even though the NTK sent was PoFA compliant.
4.Standing and authority
Our client has advised that should these documents be requested by the Courts our client will provide them.
5.Conduct of litigation / supervision
All litigation will be conducted in line with the Legal Services Act 2007.
I can advise that this matter is on hold until the 29 November 2025.
If payment was made before this date, then the case would not proceed any further. We would also be able to accept this either in full or via instalments over a maximum of 10 months. If you would like to set up a payment plan please contact us to advise how much you would be looking to make payment for and which date of the month would be best for the payments to be due, then we would be able to set this up on our system which would put a hold on any legal proceedings.
If you are wanting to make a payment on the outstanding balance, please contact us on 0XXX9 4XXXX6 or alternatively, you can make payment online through our website at https://elmslegal.co.uk/payments/
Please ensure you use your unique reference number, XXXXXXXXXXX, so that we can allocate your payment to your account, otherwise the payment may not be registered and will be returned to you resulting in the balance still being outstanding.
Alternatively, if you were looking to dispute the matter further then you would be able to do so once the case has been issued. Once this has been issued the court would send you a claim pack which would allow you to file a full defence and have your case allocated to a hearing.
Many thanks
Kind Regards
Angie Bailey
ELMS Legal Limited
-
Respond with the following:
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — £70 uplift, standing, driver/keeper basis, and authorisation
Dear Ms Bailey,
Thank you for your email.
1. £70 “debt recovery” — your VAT admission remains probative
You have twice confirmed the £70 “does not contain VAT”, while the sign says “charges may include VAT”. I will rely on that admission. Absent a VAT-bearing invoice and proof of payment to an external supplier, the £70 is plainly an internal surcharge/double recovery, not a genuine third-party cost. Please either (a) produce the third-party invoice(s) and remittance(s), or (b) confirm you will not pursue the £70.
2. “The Code allows £70” — not determinative and still subject to law
Whatever an industry code may say, it cannot:
• expand PoFA caps;
• disapply the CRA 2015 fairness/transparency tests (s.62/s.64 and Sch.2); or
• override the small-claims fixed-costs regime.
Even if a code says “may be added”, that does not make it recoverable at law, nor does it obviate the need to prove a real cost and fair incorporation with adequate prominence (which your signage does not achieve).
3. Driver v Keeper — choose your theory and provide the evidence
Your PoFA point concedes the keeper cap applies to keeper liability. If you intend to pursue a driver/contract theory to escape PoFA 4(5), then:
• identify the person you allege was driving; and
• serve the evidence by which you will seek to prove that allegation.
If you do not identify/prove a driver, confirm you rely on PoFA keeper liability and will therefore limit any claim to the NtK sum only.
4. “Consequential loss” — not a magic label
Labelling the £70 a “contractual charge and/or consequential loss” does not succeed. Consequential loss requires actual loss, causation and mitigation — all provable by documents. You decline to provide any. A pre-set uplift, untethered to a real cost, is neither loss nor a recoverable cost on the small-claims track.
5. Standing and authority — assertions are not evidence
You say the contract “remains in place”, the signage “meets BPA approval”, and Mr Rooney was “authorised”. Please provide proof, not statements:
(a) documentary evidence of continuous subsistence 2016–2025 (renewals/addenda/consideration paid);
(b) the upstream mandate by which RMG was empowered by the freeholder/superior landlord to delegate enforcement and litigation rights to VCS; and
(c) a material-date (April 2025) signage audit (locations, sizes, wording, night-time visibility).
Your plan is historic/not to scale and the principal sign is prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”), offering no contract to non-permit users. At best that is trespass, actionable only by the landowner.
6. Conduct of litigation / supervision
Noted that you “assist” rather than conduct. Please confirm that any statement of case/statement of truth will be signed by Mr Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA 537827) or another authorised person, and identify any non-solicitor representative you intend to brief together with their rights of audience.
7. Protocol timetable
Please provide the documents requested at 1), 3) and 5) within 7 days. In their absence I will treat your position as non-compliant with the PAPDC and place this correspondence before the Court on conduct, inviting appropriate case-management relief and costs. For the avoidance of doubt, no payment will be made on an inflated figure.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address / Email]
-
Please see response from ELMS as follows, do I just wait till 20th Nov?
Thank you for your patience whilst we received our clients response.
Our client maintains that the Contract is valid and that the signage on site meets BPA approval. Our client further advises that the information requested would be provided if required by the Court.
The £70 recovery fee applicable to this matter does not contain VAT. The statement “charges may include VAT” is correct, they may. The operative word being “may”.
Liability Cap under PoFA - We note your reference to Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which states that the registered keeper’s liability is limited to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (NtK). However, this statutory cap relates specifically to keeper liability, not to charges pursued against a driver or contractually liable party outside PoFA. The £70 is pursued as a contractual charge and/or a consequential loss resulting from non-payment, not as a PoFA recovery.
Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP – February 2025) - You cite the Private Parking Code of Practice (17 February 2025) as prohibiting such uplifts. Please note that this Code sets the current cap at £70.00 for Debt Recovery Fees.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) - With respect to the CRA 2015, we maintain that the £70 charge is both transparent and proportionate in the context of the contractual arrangement. The charge is outlined in the terms and conditions communicated at the point of contract (i.e. signage), and it reflects the legitimate costs of debt recovery action. Case law has recognised the principle that such costs may be recoverable where properly incorporated into the contract.
County Court Authority - While we acknowledge that some County Court decisions have disallowed similar charges, others have upheld them depending on case-specific facts. As you will appreciate, County Court judgments are not binding precedents. We are satisfied that our position is supported by existing contractual documentation and legal principles, and we are prepared to present our case should this matter proceed further.
I can confirm that, with regard to your comments regarding conduct of litigation, we are assisting our client with litigation, not conducting. Edmund Shoreman-Lawson (SRA number – 537827 ) is the Principle of ELMS Legal Ltd, being a Solicitor (SRA number – 537827 ) with a current practising certificate is an authorised person for this purpose.
This matter remains on hold until 20/11/2025.
Kind Regards
Angie Bailey
ELMS Legal Limited
-
I am perhaps extending them more benefit of the doubt than they deserve here, but to reduce the amount of back and forth, I'd be tempted to wait until they come back to you, having passed the request to their client, and see which (if any) of your queries they address. You can chase if nothing is received in a timely manner, of course.
-
Feedback as follows:
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
I have passed this request to our client and will revert to you in due course.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
She hasn't addressed the last section about legally qualified people (or anything for that matter).
-
Thanks for this, I will send it today. The copy of the contract is in post #61, I think you've seen it already... :)
Also, I shared the AST back in May which is the only paperwork I've signed, not that I expect anyone to remember.
-
So why have you not bothered to show us the copy of the contract referred to in that response????
Respond to that rubbish from with:
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — Strict proof of standing, subsistence, signage and £70 uplift
Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
Thank you for your email.
“Contract remains in place” — assertion is not evidence
A bare confirmation is insufficient for PAPDC purposes. Please provide strict proof that the 07/07/2015 agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025, namely:
• Copies of any renewals, extensions, side letters or variations post-2016;
• Annual invoices/receipts for the contract consideration (e.g. sign rental/maintenance) and any management charges;
• A current authority letter from the landowner/freeholder (or superior landlord) confirming that Residential Management Group Ltd had and still has authority to appoint VCS to enforce and to litigate in its own name at Signal Court in 2025.
Clauses 3.5 and 5.2
You rely on 3.5 (“may extend to debt recovery and/or court action”) and 5.2 (“including suing for their recovery”). Those clauses are only operative if (a) the agreement was in force in 2025; and (b) the counterparty was legally empowered by the landowner to delegate litigation rights. Produce the upstream mandate from the landowner evidencing RMG’s power to confer locus standi. Without it, your client’s alleged standing is put to strict proof.
Site plan and signage — material-date proof required
The plan you supplied is historic and marked “not to scale”. Please provide a contemporaneous (April 2025) signage audit: the number, locations, sizes and wording of all signs as at the material date, and photographs showing visibility on the approach, at the bay and at night. The principal sign you rely on is prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”), offers no licence to non-permit users and therefore cannot form a contract with them; at most it alleges trespass, which only the landowner could pursue. This point is maintained.
£70 “debt recovery” uplift — your VAT admission remains material
You now say VAT is “not relevant”. It is. Your express confirmation that the £70 “does not contain VAT”, taken with the sign’s statement that “charges may include VAT”, is probative that no VATable third-party service was supplied or paid for and that the £70 is an internal surcharge. I will rely on that admission. For the avoidance of doubt:
• PoFA Sch.4 para 4(5) caps keeper liability at the NtK sum;
• The PPSCoP (17/02/2025) prohibits adding debt-recovery uplifts;
• CRA 2015 fairness/transparency applies to ancillary charges; and
• County court authority has repeatedly disallowed the £60/£70 bolt-on.
Unless you produce verifiable proof of a real third-party cost actually incurred and paid (invoice + proof of payment), any claim for £170 will be opposed as double recovery and unreasonable.
PAPDC compliance and timetable
Please provide the documents requested at 1)–3) within 7 days. In their absence I will treat your position as non-compliant with the Protocol and will place this correspondence before the court on conduct, inviting appropriate case-management relief and costs. For clarity, no payment will be made on an inflated figure.
This is without prejudice to all other points, including primacy of title/tenancy rights and the absence of a contractual offer on your signage.
Finally, it appears from your correspondence that this matter is being handled by administrative staff rather than a legally qualified or authorised person. Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under section 12 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Please therefore confirm, within seven days:
1. The full name and SRA number of the supervising solicitor responsible for this case;
2. That all communications, including the preparation and service of any Letter of Claim or statement of case, are undertaken under that solicitor’s supervision; and
3. That any statement of truth or court document will be signed by an authorised person.
If this information is not provided, or if it transpires that unregulated personnel are exercising reserved legal functions without supervision, I will refer the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address / Email]
-
Please see response from ELMS below, should I just now wait?
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we note.
I have confirmed with our client, Vehicle Control Services Limited, that the contract remains in place and has not been terminated by either party.
Please refer to clause 3.5 of the attached contract, which reads in part “which may extend to debt recovery and/or court action” and 5.2 which reads “including suing for their recovery”.
I can confirm that J. Rooney was authorised to sign this contract on behalf of Residential Management Group Ltd and so would be able to agree to the terms and conditions therein.
Your comments regarding the signage being purely prohibitive have been noted, and our client would disagree that a contact was not formed.
Your comments regarding VAT have also been noted, however our client maintains that this is not relevant to the matter at hand.
The matter remains on hold until 20 November 2025, after which it may be issued upon.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
-
Just trying to put together both posts, would the following suffice as a response, I've combined them to the best of my ability/knowledge:
Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for automatic continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination.
1. You are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting entity (RMG) held and still holds authority from the landowner to confer enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please provide copies of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations post-2016, evidence of ongoing consideration (annual signage/maintenance invoices), and the current site plan and signage audit. In the absence of such proof, your client lacks standing.
2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or standing to litigate.
3. The signature is by a property manager, not the freeholder or superior landlord.
4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most, constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an unrecoverable fabrication.
In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a) subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract, and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
Thanks
-
Ah, yes. I’ve re-read the form of VCS/RMG agreement (the 2015 “Fully Comprehensive Scheme”). Clause 6.4 in that template is the usual rolling renewal: the initial 12-month term continues automatically (“will continue to rollover”) unless terminated on notice. The written notice requirement sits with termination, not renewal.
So the clean way to run this is:
Correct the point (no need to concede anything):
“I note the agreement provides for automatic continuation beyond 2016 absent termination. You are therefore put to strict proof that it remained continuously in force up to 16/04/2025 and that no termination or variation occurred.”
Still attack authority/continuity (the 10-year gap matters): ask for—
• Evidence of continuous subsistence: any renewal letters, later schedules, addenda, or confirmations covering the period 2016–2025.
• Evidence the counterparty is still the lawful occupier/agent empowered to grant enforcement rights (RMG’s mandate from the freeholder or superior landlord).
• Evidence of ongoing performance & consideration (e.g. annual sign rental invoices, maintenance/permits logs).
• The current site plan and signage audit for 2025 (the plan you’ve been sent is dated and marked “not to scale”).
• Proof that the agreement expressly permits VCS to litigate in its own name (non-exclusive licence to occupy isn’t the same as standing to sue).
Keep the other two pressure points live:
• Prohibitive sign (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) → no offer to non-permit users, so at best trespass (landowner only).
• £70 no VAT → their written admission + the sign’s “charges may include VAT” line helps show the £70 is an internal uplift, not a third-party, VATable service. Couple that with PPSCoP v1.1 (17/02/2025) banning add-ons and PoFA 4(5) cap.
If useful, here’s an insert you can drop into the next letter (replacing my earlier line about “notice of extension”):
“Having reviewed the contract, I note it provides for automatic continuation beyond 30/08/2016 absent termination. You are therefore put to strict proof that the agreement subsisted continuously to 16/04/2025 and that the contracting entity (RMG) held and still holds authority from the landowner to confer enforcement and litigation rights on VCS. Please provide copies of any renewals, addenda, or confirmations post-2016, evidence of ongoing consideration (annual signage/maintenance invoices), and the current site plan and signage audit. In the absence of such proof, your client lacks standing.”
That preserves accuracy while keeping the evidential burden on them.
-
The “Extended Term” clause at 6.4 is conditional upon notice of extension being served
Is it? I can see mention of written notice being required for termination, but renewal seems to be automatic. I'd agree raising the point about the length of time would seem sensible nonetheless.
-
The contract and signage bundle they’ve now disclosed actually weakens their position further rather than improving it. You can use this material decisively when replying or later in a defence. Here’s the analysis and how you should now respond to Elms.
1. Contract Date and Expiry
The “Terms and Conditions of Contract” are dated 7 July 2015 for a 12-month term commencing 31 August 2015 and ending 30 August 2016.
There is no evidence of renewal, extension, or re-execution. That is fatal to any current standing unless they can prove a continuous contractual chain to 2025. The “Extended Term” clause at 6.4 is conditional upon notice of extension being served; they have produced no such notice.
Accordingly, what they have supplied proves that VCS had authority in 2015–2016 only. It does not evidence any subsisting right to operate or litigate at Signal Court in 2025.
2. Landowner Authority Deficiency
The signatory, John Rooney, signed “for and on behalf of Residential Management Group Ltd” as Property Manager, not as the freeholder or head leaseholder. There is no evidence of the freeholder’s written authority empowering RMG Ltd to sub-delegate enforcement rights.
The agreement grants only a “non-exclusive licence to occupy” (clause 2) — not a proprietary interest nor an express right to litigate in its own name. That distinction is crucial under CPR 16.4 and CPR Part 31.
Thus, even if still extant (it is not), this contract does not confer locus standi to issue proceedings in VCS’s own name.
3. Signage Defects
The displayed sign is prohibitive rather than contractual. Its dominant wording — “Valid Permit Holders Only” — forbids parking without a permit. It offers no alternative licence or consideration, so no contractual offer exists for a non-permit holder to accept. The only logical inference is that unauthorised parking constitutes trespass, actionable (if at all) only by the landowner, not by VCS.
Additionally, the sign’s lower text states “Charges may include VAT,” contradicting their earlier statement that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That inconsistency corroborates that the £70 is not a genuine cost but an arbitrary mark-up.
Respond with the following:
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) – Non-existent contractual authority and defective signage
Dear Ms Scriminger-Faulkner,
Thank you for providing the redacted contract and site plan.
Having reviewed them, I note:
1. The agreement is dated 7 July 2015 and expired on 30 August 2016. No renewal or extension notice has been produced. It therefore confers no authority whatsoever in 2025.
2. The document grants Vehicle Control Services Ltd only a non-exclusive licence to occupy, not proprietary rights or standing to litigate. 3. The signature is by a property manager, not the freeholder or superior landlord.
4. The signage you rely upon is purely prohibitive (“Valid Permit Holders Only”) and cannot form a contractual offer to unauthorised drivers. Any alleged contravention would, at most, constitute trespass—an action available only to the landowner.
5. The sign states “charges may include VAT”, whereas you have now confirmed that the £70 “does not contain VAT”. That inconsistency will be relied upon as evidence that no third-party cost was incurred and that the £70 uplift is an unrecoverable fabrication.
In view of the above, please confirm within seven days whether you still intend to pursue this matter despite lacking (a) subsisting landowner authority, (b) any enforceable contract, and (c) a recoverable £70 uplift. If you proceed regardless, I will invite the Court to strike out the claim and will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
-
I've not asked them anything more about the contract, I also got a response from them ref the VAT issue as follows, should I now just wait for the legal pack to come through?
----------
Good morning,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which we have noted.
I can confirm that there is no VAT added to the £70.00 fee.
You have stated that you feel the £70.00 Debt Recovery Fee is not recoverable, however the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024) reads as follows:
“09 Escalation of costs Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a sum of up to £70 may be added.”
There is no requirement to provide invoices, remittances, statements or any further evidence to support the addition of this amount and therefore this is not something which we would provide.
With regard to your previous comments, the amount of the parking charge falls within the “between £50 to £100” bracket quoted at paragraph 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in keeping with the guidelines given by the ATA: - “Part 8.2.1, The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice version 1.1 dated 17/02/2025 states “Parking Charges must not exceed £100.”. The amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational costs of the parking management scheme and acts as a deterrent, as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015].
The hold on the above case is due to expire on 17 November 2025.
If payment of £170.00 was made before this date, then the case would not proceed any further. We would also be able to accept this either in full or via instalments over a maximum of 10 months. If you would like to set up a payment plan please contact us to advise how much you would be looking to make payment for and which date of the month would be best for the payments to be due, then we would be able to set this up on our system which would put a hold on any legal proceedings.
If you are wanting to make a payment on the outstanding balance, please contact us on 01529 406096 or alternatively, you can make payment online through our website at https://elmslegal.co.uk/payments/
Please ensure you use your unique reference number, XXXXXXXX, so that we can allocate your payment to your account, otherwise the payment may not be registered and will be returned to you resulting in the balance still being outstanding.
Alternatively, if you were looking to dispute the matter further then you would be able to do so once the case has been issued. Once this has been issued the court would send you a claim pack which would allow you to file a full defence and have your case allocated to a hearing.
Kind Regards
Emily Scriminger-Faulkner
Deputy Team Leader
ELMS Legal Limited
-------
Thanks once again for all your help & guidance.
-
Clause 6.5 states that the contract will automatically extend for a further 12 months unless/until the client gives notice in writing of their desire to end said contract.
Given it was agreed 10 years ago, however, there'd be no harm in putting them to proof that no such instruction has been received at a later stage.
Also worth checking, if you haven't already, that the company with whom that agreement was made ("RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LIMITED") still hold an interest in the land that allows them to hold such a contract.
-
I received the following email from ELMS, noting they have not responded to my email sent yesterday challenging the £70.
---------
Good morning
Further to my previous email, please find attached the contract containing a site map, and a clear copy of the sign, as requested in your email below.
Please let us know if you require any further information.
Kind Regards
Angie Bailey
ELMS Legal Limited
----------
Attachments below:
https://ibb.co/dJ4dN3yN
https://ibb.co/ZpR96TJ2
https://ibb.co/7Jnzsz6w
Is the contract out of date or am I missing something?
-
Thanks for that, Imgbb seems to have inverted the NtK hence it looked like the dates were redacted, attached again below as pics rather than PDF:
https://ibb.co/fYTCcdvf
https://ibb.co/yc1MsW58
-
You can reply to Angie Bailey with the following (CC yourself):
Subject: Signal Court (16/04/2025) — your admission re: £70 “debt recovery fee”
Dear Ms Bailey,
Thank you for your email of [insert date].
You state that your client’s claim of £170 is made up of a £100 alleged parking charge and a £70 “debt recovery fee”, and you expressly confirm that the £70 “does not contain VAT”.
I put you on formal notice that this admission is highly material. Your confirmation that the £70 is not VAT-inclusive tends to show that no genuine third-party recovery cost has been incurred and that the £70 is an internal uplift or surcharge rather than a legitimate charge for services rendered by an independent supplier. I will rely on that admission as evidence in any subsequent proceedings and in any complaint I make about your client’s conduct (including as appropriate to the SRA and to any regulatory or industry body).
Accordingly, and without prejudice:
Please provide, by close of business [insert date — e.g. 7 days from receipt], the following documentary proof:
a. A copy of any invoice(s) or receipted bills from the third-party debt recovery agent said to have been engaged, showing the amount invoiced and the VAT treatment.
b. A bank statement or remittance showing payment of those invoice(s) by your client (so the charge was actually incurred).
c. Full particulars showing how the £70 figure was calculated (including any internal ledger entries, supplier contract, or allocation methodology).
d. A statement of truth from your client confirming whether the £70 represents a sum paid to a third party, and if so naming that third party and confirming the amount actually paid.
If you cannot provide the documents requested above, confirm in writing that your client will not seek to recover the £70 “debt recovery fee” (or any similar uplift) in any claim it issues or pursues.
If you do seek to pursue the £70 without producing verifiable evidence that it represents an actual third-party cost, I reserve the right to:
• Treat the £70 as an improper, non-recoverable uplift and apply to the Court for appropriate case management orders (including strike-out and/or an order for costs if proceedings follow); and
• Rely on your admission when making formal complaints to the SRA and any relevant industry body and when advancing any submissions on conduct, proportionality and reasonableness.
This correspondence is without prejudice to my other rights and defences. I will consider your client’s position regarding the principal sum once you have provided the full evidence requested.
Yours faithfully
[Your name]
[Contact details]
-
DO NOT redact any dates or times from the NtK.
-
Got the following email response today:
---------
Good afternoon
Thank you for your email.
Further to your request I have attached copies of the Notice To Keeper sent on 24/04/2025, copies of the signage in situ on the day of the contravention, containing the Terms and Conditions for parking at this site.
I have requested from our client copies of the Site Plan and Landowner Contract and will forward these once received. I have also requested a separate copy of the signage so the Terms and Conditions are clearer for you.
I can advise that the £170.00 claimed is the £100.00 Charge for being parked in breach of the Terms advertised, and £70.00 is Debt Recovery Fee which does not contain VAT.
I have placed this matter on hold until 14/11/2025 to allow time for you to review in the information provided, receive the information requested and advise us of anything further required.
Kind Regards
Angie Bailey
ELMS Legal Limited
----------
See attachments below:
https://ibb.co/gxLXFJJ
https://ibb.co/LzcztBZj
-
They have this email address on their website: info@elmslegal.co.uk
Use that and make sure you CC yourself in any correspondence.
-
Thank you so much for this, I'll have to send it as a letter as they have not provided an email address for correspondence.
-
Respond with the following:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim – Ref: [insert ELMS reference]
Dear Sirs,
I write regarding your Letter Before Claim dated 7 October 2025 (client: Vehicle Control Services Ltd) concerning an alleged parking charge at Signal Court Residential Car Park on 16/04/2025 at 17:43, for which you demand £170.00.
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence your client places reliance upon, putting it in clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a supposed firm of solicitors, one would expect you to comply with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You may wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), require the exchange of sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter refers to a “contract” yet encloses none. That omission undermines the only foundation upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It is not possible to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue while you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with para 3.1(a), I shall seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required. Accordingly, please provide:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) and any notice chain relied upon to assert PoFA 2012 liability.
2. A copy of the contract you allege exists between your client and the driver, being an actual photograph of the sign(s) in place on the material date (not a stock image), together with a site plan showing the sign locations.
3. The precise wording of the clause(s) allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing standing/authority to enforce and to litigate.
5. A breakdown of the sums claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on includes VAT.
I am entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction, and I require it to meet my own obligation under paragraph 6(b).
If you fail to provide the above, I will treat that as non-compliance with the PAPDC and Pre-Action Conduct and will raise a formal complaint to the SRA regarding your conduct. I reserve the right to place this correspondence before the Court and to seek appropriate sanctions and costs (including, where appropriate, a stay and/or other case management orders).
Until your client complies and provides the requested material, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim or to consider my position. It would be premature and a waste of costs and court time to issue proceedings. Should you do so, I will seek immediate case management relief pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order compelling provision of the above.
Please note, I will not engage with any web portal; I will only respond by email or post.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Your postal address]
[Your email address]
[Vehicle registration: XXXX XXX]
[PCN reference (if known): __________]
-
Today by post I received a 'Letter Before Claim', I'm assuming this is the same as LoC?
https://ibb.co/CpsW8kb2 (https://ibb.co/CpsW8kb2)
https://ibb.co/PZnPdJzX (https://ibb.co/PZnPdJzX)
-
It's just a debt recovery letter. You can file other or shred it and use it as hamster bedding.
It is a Letter of Claim (LoC) that you are waiting for.
-
Thanks, link shared below:
https://imgur.com/a/aD6WYV9 (https://imgur.com/a/aD6WYV9)
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/ tells you how to attach images
-
This one seems to be churning through their system, today I received a letter from ELMS Legal titled 'URGENT: NOTIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION', I can't seem to find an option to attach images.
I'm assuming I should just 'file' it away until I get a Letter of Claim?
-
Yes.
Just ignore all the debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim (LoC).
-
I've received my first letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) asking for £170, can I safely assume I can throw this into my recycling bag?
-
Thank you for the detailed response and re-assurance, it's really appreciated. I will wait for the LoC and get in touch.
-
The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not.
I'm not sure begrudgingly displaying a permit in order to avoid the hassle of receiving an ill-founded ticket every 24 hours can reasonably be considered deriving any 'advantage' from the scheme. The best way to manage residential bays would be to install lockable bollards in each space, with residents issued a key. The 'problem' is that would involve the landlords spending money, unlike bringing in a parking company to dole out PCNs.
-
As you can see, the IAS appeal decision is not just flawed—it’s a complete mockery. It pretends to be a fair and impartial process, but in reality, it’s a sham designed to rubber-stamp whatever the parking operator says.
First, the so-called adjudicator doesn’t even have the courage to put their name on the decision. That alone tells you everything you need to know about the credibility of this process. If they were truly legally trained and confident in their reasoning, why hide behind anonymity? Even in the most basic legal settings, decisions are signed. Here, it’s just a faceless pleb making unchallengeable rulings.
Worse still, the appellant is denied access to the very evidence the adjudicator claims to have reviewed. The operator’s contract, the supposed landowner authority, and the site map are all mentioned—but never shown. The operator gets to see everything the appellant submits, but the appellant isn’t allowed to see the evidence used against them. That’s not adjudication. That’s exactly like a secret trial. Even authoritarian regimes often give the accused more rights than this.
The legal reasoning is laughable. The adjudicator admits that leasehold rights would normally override parking signs, but then claims that by displaying a permit, the appellant somehow gave up those rights. That’s nonsense. You can’t waive a legal right just by trying to comply with a system forced on you. It’s like saying if you pay a ransom, you’ve agreed to be kidnapped.
The double standards are glaringly obvious. The appellant is criticised for not providing a full tenancy agreement, but the operator’s so-called landowner authority is accepted without question. No scrutiny, no transparency. Just blind acceptance of whatever the operator says.
The adjudicator also brushes off the argument about PoFA compliance with barely a sentence. They claim the operator only needs to show that no permit was displayed, not a period of parking. That’s simply wrong. PoFA has strict requirements, and they’ve been completely ignored here.
This isn’t an appeal process. It’s a performance. A show. A fake process designed to look fair while always siding with the operator. The IAS is not a real tribunal. It’s a private complaints handler funded by the very companies it’s supposed to oversee. Its decisions aren’t binding, they aren’t transparent, and they certainly aren’t credible.
Honestly, a trial in North Korea would offer more rights than this. At least there, you’d know who your judge is.
Stop worrying. They absolutely do not "have a case". This will never see the inside of a courtroom. Just ignore all the debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out go ignorance and fear.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim (LoC).
-
As expected, IAS dismissed my appeal, I guess I just wait for the LoC now? I am a little nervous about their responses, do they have a case or is it a load of 'waffle'?
"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 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.
I am satisfied from the Landowner Authority documents provided that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.
Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.
The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must clearly display a valid permit in the front windscreen of their vehicle with all of the details clearly visible at all times. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed. The Appellant's contention that the permit was displayed and could have been seen had the parking attendant got closer to the vehicle is not accepted as the photographs clearly show that this is not the case. The Appellant's own image shows no permit on display with all details visible as required by the signage. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they clearly display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. The Appellant claims to have rights under their tenancy agreement but provides no documentary evidence of any such rights. Even if a right to park exists without sight of the documents setting out such a right, I cannot be satisfied that they are not restricted by other provisions. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their tenancy agreement, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is correct that a right in a lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. however, by agreeing to display a permit (which the Appellant states he was doing at the time of the parking event), and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not. As a genuine permit holder the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating or extenuating circumstances. The Appellant's argument that the NTK does not comply with PoFA is also not accepted. The time and date stamped photographs show different times on them and therefore show a period of parking and as the Operator states the Operator is only required to show that no permit was displayed not a period of parking such as where the PCN relates to a period of unpaid parking. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.
I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.
"
-
Thanks, sent my rebuttal, let's see what nonsense I get back.
-
Don't feel that you need to be overly polite to the IAS assessor. Remember, they are not trying to find Ian your favour. Their sole reason d'être is to protect the IPC members interests.
Suggesting that the IAS assessor should know better, is a useful barb to prick what limited conscience they have.
-
Thanks for this, I will respond with this information. It seems the photos were there and accessible online all along, I didn't notice them, however as you state they are not written in the NtK.
-
Not that the IAS will do anything but... the NtK does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) because it fails to specify the required period of parking. A single timestamp is not a period of parking. The law requires the NtK to clearly state the actual period the vehicle was parked, not just one moment in time.
The operator cannot fix this failure by later submitting timestamped photos to the IAS. PoFA compliance is assessed based on what is written in the NtK itself, not on what is added later during an appeal.
Even if the vehicle was present for 11 minutes and 36 seconds, that is irrelevant if the NtK does not mention this as a defined period. Without a compliant NtK, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
The IAS response about DVLA access and six-year time limits has nothing to do with this. The issue is whether the NtK allows them to hold the keeper liable. It does not. Only the driver could be liable, and the operator would need to prove who that was.
Were these photos available to you when you appealed? It still does not make the NtK PoFA-compliant.
The NtK itself must explicitly state the period of parking. It is not enough for this information to be available somewhere else, even if the photos were accessible online at the time. The legal requirement is clear: the notice must contain the information, not just link to or imply it.
You ay want to respond to the operators evidence with the above information, explaining in detail, that if the supposedly legally trained IAS assessor cannot understand the difference between evidential timestamped photos held elsewhere, does not change the fact that the NtK is still not compliant with PoFA, then you won't worry too much because the operator can go waste their money in litigation where they will receive another of their regular court spankings, where a knowledgeable defendant highlights their attempts at extortion.
-
A further response from VCS, it seems to be a battle of attrition where they keep repeating same/similar statements.
Apologies from me, as I did not notice the photos they had shared (attached), do these prove their point 2? :(
1. We note that parking operators are entitled to up to six months from the date of a parking event in order to lawfully request keeper details from the DVLA for the purposes of lawfully issuing a charge, and subsequently up to six years to pursue the outstanding sum of this charge. We have adhered to this timescale.
2. The supplied contravention photographs are time and date stamped and confirm that the appellant's vehicle was observed in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds before the PCN was issued. This was a fair and reasonable period.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks once again, rebuttal sent, this time as a PDF attachment as copy/paste function is still disabled.
-
You can respond with the following:
Appellant's Rebuttal to Operator's Comments
1. No Permit Displayed
The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the space in question, with a tenancy that grants exclusive use of the parking bay. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement to display a permit, and any prior display was purely out of courtesy. VCS is not a party to that tenancy and cannot unilaterally impose terms upon a resident’s demised property. The Appellant’s right to park derives from a superior interest in land and cannot be fettered by VCS signage.
2. Implied Agreement & Contract
A resident cannot be said to enter into a new contract for something they already possess via their tenancy—namely, the exclusive right to park. There is no consideration and no contractual intention. The signage is irrelevant to the Appellant’s rights, and any such attempt by VCS to override a pre-existing tenancy fails at law. Forcing a resident to ‘agree’ to new third-party terms is legally incoherent and a well-rehearsed fiction in such residential contexts.
3. PoFA Compliance
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not state any “period of parking”. A single timestamp is not a period. This failure alone invalidates any attempt to hold the Keeper liable. If the adjudicator is indeed a qualified solicitor or barrister—as claimed by the IAS—they should be familiar with the persuasive appellate ruling in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], in which the judge confirmed that a specific period of parking is mandatory for PoFA compliance. VCS has provided no such period, only a single observation time.
4. Consideration Period Absent – No Contract Formed
The Appellant reiterates that under Section 5.1 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, a motorist must be afforded a minimum consideration period of at least 5 minutes to review the displayed terms before any contract can be formed. This is not optional—it is a binding requirement under the Code of Practice. A contract cannot be formed merely by conduct in the absence of clear evidence that the driver had a fair opportunity to seek out, read and accept the terms. The operator has produced only a single timestamp, which fails to evidence any period of parking and does not demonstrate that a consideration period took place. If the assessor is legally qualified, as claimed, they will recognise that the absence of a consideration period is fatal to any claim of contractual formation, and therefore the charge is unenforceable.
-
The question is, which of their points - if any - introduces something new?
I’d say their point (2) is laughably wrong, the fact that you displayed a permit that you were not required to display in no way meant that somehow fell into a contract with them. A contract has to offer something, and a notice which offers something you already have is utterly irrelevant and of course you didn’t contract with them because you parked in your own space.
I feel that could be worded better, but I feel that their utter nonsense needs to be torpedoed.
(1) & (3) are probably irrelevant as you say.
-
So VCS have responded as follows:
1. The time and date contravention photographs clearly show that at the time observation by the PO no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle, as per the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions of parking.
2. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. The appellant's residency of an adjacent property did not nullify their only park in compliance of the terms and conditions.
3. The NTK complies with the POFA 2012. The PCN was issued for a parking period related contravention; it was issued for the contravention parking without displaying a valid permit.
Should I respond to this by emphasising my above points made previously, as theirs just seem to be repetitive?
-
Thank you so much for this, I have submitted it, interestingly their website would not allow a copy/paste function so I typed out the response. I guess that is another way to discourage appeals.
-
You've covered the points very well. However, I think there may be a character limit for the rebuttal and I'd suggest you submit your response as follows:
APPELLANT REBUTTAL TO VCS OPERATOR EVIDENCE
This rebuttal responds concisely to each of VCS's points, which are largely repetitive, legally flawed, and ignore fundamental principles of land law and contract. For ease of reference, the operator’s assertions are addressed by number.
1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 – Signage and Alleged Contract
The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the flat associated with the parking bay in question. Their Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) grants an exclusive right to use the allocated parking space. The tenancy agreement contains no clause requiring a permit, nor does it incorporate or reference any third-party scheme. It overrides any alleged contract based on signage. VCS is a stranger to the AST and cannot impose new terms on the Appellant's use of land they already have rights over. This is settled legal principle: a third party cannot override superior rights held under a lease.
4 – Enforcement Method
Irrelevant. The Appellant's rights to park derive from the AST. Any purported “enforcement” is ultra vires where a pre-existing right to park applies.
5 & 6 – Observations and Photographs
The Appellant’s vehicle was parked in their own allocated bay, and a permit was displayed (as a courtesy, not as a requirement). The operator’s photos do not prove otherwise and were taken from a distance that does not fairly evidence the dashboard. Regardless, no contravention can exist where no contractual obligation applies.
7 – Compliance with the Single Code of Practice
The Single Code of Practice requires a minimum consideration period before a contract can be formed. The Appellant was parked in their own bay with a right to do so, so no consideration period is applicable. However, the operator has not shown that the vehicle remained on site beyond that minimum, nor that any signage was capable of forming a binding contract. The claim fails on both formation and standing.
8 – Keeper Liability under PoFA
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of parking. A timestamp is not a period. If the assessor is, as claimed, a solicitor or barrister, they will be familiar with the persuasive decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], which confirmed that PoFA requires an actual duration of parking, not a mere moment in time.
Furthermore, even if PoFA had been complied with (which it has not), the Appellant’s tenancy grants them a primary and exclusive right to park in their space. No third-party operator can override that right. The land may be “relevant” under PoFA, but keeper liability is void where the underlying right to park already exists independently of the operator's scheme.
10 – Operator Contract
The Appellant put VCS to strict proof that their authority to manage parking on the site includes the legal right to override a residential tenancy agreement and impose terms on tenants. The operator's claim to possess a landowner contract is not enough; they must show how their terms were incorporated into the Appellant's lease, which they have not done.
11 – 24-Hour Helpline
Irrelevant. The Appellant has no need to call a helpline to confirm the scope of their own tenancy agreement, which already includes a right to park.
Conclusion
This charge is fundamentally flawed. VCS has failed to establish any binding contract with the Appellant, has no standing to override tenancy rights, and has issued a Notice to Keeper that does not meet the statutory requirements of PoFA. The appeal must be upheld.
-
Thanks for your prompt response, I will change point 4, ref point 7, I used the appeal that b789 kindly supplied
Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Valid Contract – Pre-Existing Parking Rights Granted by Tenancy Agreement
The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property associated with the parking space in question. An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company.
The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use, and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed obligations.
2. No Evidence of Contravention – Permit Displayed / Not Required
The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred. The vehicle was parked in the Appellant’s allocated space. A valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although the operator’s photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach of any enforceable term.
3. No Standing to Enforce – No Evidence of a Valid Landowner Contract
The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that they hold a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted contract with the landowner, not a managing agent, which:
• Grants them authority to enter into contracts with drivers;
• Permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (or Penalty Notices, as described on the NtK);
• Allows enforcement on residential tenant-controlled spaces.
A copy of the superior lease (if any) is not binding on the Appellant unless it has been incorporated into the AST and provided to the tenant, which it has not.
If the operator cannot produce such a contract, their authority to operate at this site is in serious doubt.
4. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1). No contract could have been formed without first allowing the driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
Conclusion
The Appellant denies any contractual liability and invites the assessor to require the operator to either:
• Provide the unredacted landowner contract showing their lawful authority to issue charges at residential properties, including over spaces subject to tenancy rights;
• Acknowledge that the alleged breach is unsupported by evidence and withdraw the charge.
Should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant will consider the matter closed and will not engage further outside of formal litigation. Any claim will be defended robustly and with full reliance on tenancy rights, evidential deficiencies, and operator misconduct.
-
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by POs 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.
APP: Enforcement for parking is solely in line with the AST.
I'd change the wording of this - it could be read as you saying you agree that the parking company's enforcement procedures are in line with your AST.
7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our photographic evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
APP: Need help on how to respond to this point? Do they comply with the Single Coe of Practice?
Did you dispute this in your appeal? If not, I'd say it isn't relevant. If you did, then take a look at the Code of Practice and see what it says on evidence and observation periods.
-
Thanks for all the guidance, I've put together the following responses, mainly be referring to previous advice from you good folk. I am not very experienced at this and do need help on point 7, also can you please advise if my responses are on point?
1. The Sxxxxx Cxxxx Residential Car Park is private land and motorists are allowed to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
APP: Once again, The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property associated with the parking space in question. An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company. The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use, and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed obligations.
2. The signage on site states, ‘Parking is strictly reserved for valid parking permit holders Only' and ‘A valid parking permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen of the vehicle with all details clearly visible at all times.' The signage makes it clear that anyone observed to be in contravention of these Terms and Conditions will become liable for a PCN.
APP: Signage is irrelevant, VCS is not a party in the AST and therefore cannot impose terms and conditions on parking.
3. Site photos supplied show that the signage can be seen throughout 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 IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
APP: Once again, signage is irrelevant as VCS are not a party in the AST
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by POs 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.
APP: Enforcement for parking is solely in line with the AST.
5. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds and when digitally recording the contravention the PO noted ‘Vehicle not displaying a valid parking permit.'
APP: The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred. The vehicle was parked in the Appellant's allocated space. A valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although the operator's photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach of any enforceable term.
6. The contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped corroborate the PO's observations, clearly show that no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle and highlight the proximity of the vehicle to contractual VCS signage.
APP: As the photos were taken from a distance, they do not show the missing permit which is always present in the car as a courtesy, further there are no signs.
7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our photographic evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
APP: Need help on how to respond to this point? Do they comply with the Single Coe of Practice?
8. 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 where explained in the formal Notice sent on 24/04/2025. 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.
APP: The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1). No contract could have been formed without first allowing the driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. 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. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated that vehicles must clearly display valid permit otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.
APP: VCS cannot form a contract with the appellant as the appellant has an AST in place granting them rights to park in their allocated space without the need of a valid permit.
10. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site, including where the appellant parked their vehicle was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.
APP: VCS needs to demonstrate how its “authority” to manage parking has been incorporated into the residents’ AST
11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the appellant. If the terms and conditions were in any way unclear to the appellant, or they were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of contacting us for advice.
APP: As an existing AST is in place which allows the appellant to park in their allocated space, using this number is completely unnecessary and irrelevant.
12. The appellant has presented no evidence of either possessing a valid permit or of residency of an adjacent Signal Court property. However such evidence would not nullify the facts of their contravention or their liability for the charge. The terms and conditions for parking on this private land are clearly advertised by the signage on site.
APP: A valid permit, though not necessary, is always on display on the vehicle, no evidence was requested to show this permit, if it was requested it a copy of it would have been presented to VCS.
13. The appellant became liable for a Charge Notice as per the Terms and Conditions displayed by parking without displaying a valid permit.
APP: Once again, as the appellant has an AST in place for their allocated space a valid permit is not needed.
-
I'm leaning towards just leaving it as I'm not sure it's worth the hassle if they will find in favour of VCS, or should I take some time out and cover each point?
If you leave it, you’re going to have to write a defence to the inevitable claim, but if you spend the time now it will be the majority of your defence in due course when/if the IAS doesn’t uphold your appeal, so I think it’s a case of do it now or do it later anyway.
And if the IAS does uphold your appeal, you’ve saved yourself a lot of paperwork hassle.
But it’s your effort and your choice of course!
-
Your call as it's your time and effort.
-
I'm leaning towards just leaving it as I'm not sure it's worth the hassle if they will find in favour of VCS, or should I take some time out and cover each point?
-
Go through this and counter every point that’s wrong, eg
1. Tenants have the right to use allocated parking spaces according to their lease agreements, which do not require the display of a permit or compliance with signs erected by a third party, VCS
2. Signage is irrelevant, VCS is not a party in the tenancy agreement and can not impose terms and conditions on parking
3. Signage is irrelevant
4. Enforcement is solely according to the leases and their terms and conditions
5. The Patrol Officer is irrelevant
….
8. Notwithstanding the irrelevance of VCS, the notice issued does not comply with PoFA because ….
9. VCS can not contract with a motorist when the motorist already has the right to use the parking spaces according because of the lease
10. VCS needs to demonstrate how its “authority” to manage parking has been incorporated into the residents’ leases
….
12.
etc.
That is not a good reply, but you can do better and ensure that no points remain unchallenged. If you are serious about the IAS, that is. Otherwise, don’t bother, let them take you to court where you’ll win.
-
After appealing on IAS website, VCS have responded as below, it would be appreciated if you could advise what response I should give to this? I don't really have much hope of IAS being impartial (as read previously) but I guess 'nothing ventured....'.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 11/06/2025 13:41:45.
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 24/04/2025.
The ticket was issued on 24/04/2025.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. The Sxxxxx Cxxxx Residential Car Park is private land and motorists are allowed to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. The signage on site states, ‘Parking is strictly reserved for valid parking permit holders Only' and ‘A valid parking permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen of the vehicle with all details clearly visible at all times.' The signage makes it clear that anyone observed to be in contravention of these Terms and Conditions will become liable for a PCN.
3. Site photos supplied show that the signage can be seen throughout 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 IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by POs 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. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds and when digitally recording the contravention the PO noted ‘Vehicle not displaying a valid parking permit.'
6. The contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped corroborate the PO's observations, clearly show that no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle and highlight the proximity of the vehicle to contractual VCS signage.
7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our photographic evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
8. 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 where explained in the formal Notice sent on 24/04/2025. 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.
9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. 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. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated that vehicles must clearly display valid permit otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.
10. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site, including where the appellant parked their vehicle was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.
11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the appellant. If the terms and conditions were in any way unclear to the appellant, or they were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of contacting us for advice.
12. The appellant has presented no evidence of either possessing a valid permit or of residency of an adjacent Signal Court property. However such evidence would not nullify the facts of their contravention or their liability for the charge. The terms and conditions for parking on this private land are clearly advertised by the signage on site.
13. The appellant became liable for a Charge Notice as per the Terms and Conditions displayed by parking without displaying a valid permit.
-
For completeness, I've selected I am being held liable, as VCS are attempting to go after me as the registered keeper.
-
Next page is as follows if I select I am being held liable:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please see screenshot below:
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can you please show us the exact wording of the question to which you are referring?
-
Thanks filling in the IAS form now, it asks if I am being held liable for the charge with an option to select 'yes' or 'no', I guess it's a 'yes'? The rest are clear...
-
I received an email from VCS today to either pay or appeal to the IAS, having read about them on this forum it seems to be waste of effort and time as they nearly always side with the parking operator.
Would it be wise to just sit back and wait for the 'Letter of Claim' from their appointed solicitor?
That's what we normally do but considering that it costs the operator whether they win or lose an IAS appeal to send one anyway. The only way they don't pay anything is if they concede the appeal.
Just use the following as your IAS appeal:
Grounds of Appeal:
1. No Valid Contract – Pre-Existing Parking Rights Granted by Tenancy Agreement
The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property associated with the parking space in question. An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company.
The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use, and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed obligations.
2. No Evidence of Contravention – Permit Displayed / Not Required
The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred. The vehicle was parked in the Appellant’s allocated space. A valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although the operator’s photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach of any enforceable term.
3. No Standing to Enforce – No Evidence of a Valid Landowner Contract
The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that they hold a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted contract with the landowner, not a managing agent, which:
• Grants them authority to enter into contracts with drivers;
• Permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (or Penalty Notices, as described on the NtK);
• Allows enforcement on residential tenant-controlled spaces.
A copy of the superior lease (if any) is not binding on the Appellant unless it has been incorporated into the AST and provided to the tenant, which it has not.
If the operator cannot produce such a contract, their authority to operate at this site is in serious doubt.
4. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1). No contract could have been formed without first allowing the driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
Conclusion
The Appellant denies any contractual liability and invites the assessor to require the operator to either:
• Provide the unredacted landowner contract showing their lawful authority to issue charges at residential properties, including over spaces subject to tenancy rights;
• Acknowledge that the alleged breach is unsupported by evidence and withdraw the charge.
Should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant will consider the matter closed and will not engage further outside of formal litigation. Any claim will be defended robustly and with full reliance on tenancy rights, evidential deficiencies, and operator misconduct.
-
Yes
-
I received an email from VCS today to either pay or appeal to the IAS, having read about them on this forum it seems to be waste of effort and time as they nearly always side with the parking operator.
Would it be wise to just sit back and wait for the 'Letter of Claim' from their appointed solicitor?
-
See reply #2 above, VCS won’t give up before taking this to court, that was always expected. I would ignore their latest load of rubbish and wait for them to get on with their threats.
-
I got the following response from VCS after appealing on their website as advised, can you please advise how to respond? [attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for the detail, we were only asked to sign the AST that has been shared, there was nothing else so we're all good should this need to be taken further.
-
Yes, it can have an impact, but only in specific circumstances, and usually not to the tenant's detriment unless the tenancy agreement explicitly incorporates those superior lease terms.
Tenancy agreement governs the tenant–landlord relationship. If the AST makes no mention of parking permits, signage, or compliance with estate rules, the tenant is not bound by such external terms unless they are expressly incorporated into the AST.
Superior lease obligations can “flow down” only if incorporated. The landlord may be bound by the head lease to enforce parking control measures (e.g. requiring tenants to display permits). However, unless the AST explicitly states that the tenant is also bound by the terms of the superior lease (or unless a copy of the superior lease is provided and referenced), the tenant cannot be presumed to be bound.
See Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001]: where the landlord had covenanted not to obstruct a tenant’s right of access and could not override that by later action (or by imposing third-party restrictions).
Clause 1.3 of your AST is important:
"If we have given you a copy of a superior lease... you agree that you will also be bound by these promises..."
So unless you were given a copy of the superior lease and agreed to be bound, it has no effect on you, the tenant.
-
I'm not sure he'll share that, especially if the head lease mentions parking permits etc and his AST with his tenants does not, will that have an impact on us?
-
You could ask your landlord what does his head lease say about parking.
-
Thanks for this, the landlord has advised they will speak to the management company on Tuesday, let's see if they see sense before I send my appeal.
I did point out to the landlord that the AST trumps whatever VCS are trying to impose, I'm getting the feeling they're feeling exposed as their AST does not mention anything about permits, private parking schemes etc...
-
No, just leave it as it is. There is no obligation to show a permit to park in the tenants assigned parking space.
If I put up a sign that says you must wear a blue hat on Wednesdays and if you don't, you will owe me £50, do you think I could enforce it in any way?
The PCN is nothing but a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Why on earth would anyone just pay an invoice because someone just sent one to them out of the blue?
-
Darn, just checked the pics online, it seems they have pics of the windscreen and the permit cannot be seen. I am assured by the driver that is is there and the angle they took the pics from doesn't show it! Should I amend the appeal about the part stating photographs not showing the permit was absent?
-
Thanks so much for the detailed response. I also contacted the landlord who advised that they should post a pic of the car windscreen showing that there is no permit and asked to see the PCN, which I have sent.
-
You should also make a complaint to the DVLA. Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:
I am submitting a formal complaint against Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS), an IPC AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for unlawfully obtaining and misusing my personal data in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and the DVLA’s KADOE contract.
VCS had no reasonable cause to request my data. The vehicle was parked in a residential space over which I hold enforceable rights under a tenancy agreement. No contravention occurred, and VCS had no legal or factual basis to pursue a parking charge or to claim a breach of any displayed terms. Their request for my keeper data was therefore unlawful from the outset.
Even if that were not the case, their subsequent use of the data also breached the PPSCoP. The DVLA, as Data Controller, is responsible for ensuring that all access and use of data complies with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. I request that this misuse is investigated and that appropriate enforcement action is taken.
I have attached a supporting statement and request confirmation of receipt and a complaint reference number.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Complaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS)
Date of PCN issue: 16/04/2025
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report the unlawful access and misuse of my personal data by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS), who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
VCS had no reasonable cause to request my data in the first place. I am the lawful tenant of the property where the alleged contravention took place. My Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) includes the right to use an allocated parking space. That agreement does not require the display of any permit, nor does it incorporate any third-party signage or parking scheme.
VCS issued a Parking Charge Notice based solely on the alleged non-display of a permit, despite the fact that:
• I have a pre-existing legal right to park in that space;
• The AST does not impose a permit requirement;
• VCS has no contractual authority over that space;
• Their own photographic evidence does not show any breach;
• They have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the PPSCoP, and so no contract could have been formed.
These facts mean that VCS had no lawful basis to claim a breach of terms or to pursue a parking charge — and therefore no lawful basis to access my keeper data from the DVLA.
In addition, their subsequent use of my data — to pursue a charge they were not entitled to issue — constitutes a misuse of personal data and a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). Their Notice to Keeper purports to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), but fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not specify a “period of parking.” A single timestamp is insufficient and renders the notice invalid for the purpose of establishing keeper liability.
The DVLA's KADOE contract makes clear that data may only be used to pursue unpaid charges in full compliance with the Code of Practice. Once that condition is broken — either at the point of access or through later misuse — the processing of that data becomes unlawful.
I therefore request that the DVLA investigates this matter and takes appropriate enforcement action against VCS under the KADOE contract. This may include:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
-
So, assuming that no other addendum are applicable to that AST, this is what your rights are under that Tenancy Agreement:
As the tenant and registered keeper of the vehicle, your tenancy agreement grants you the exclusive right to park in your allocated space. Specifically:
• Clause 2.15 of your AST confirms you may “only park in the space allocated to you.”
• This means you already have the right to use that space by virtue of your tenancy. No further permission, permit, or contract is required.
• Your AST is a legally binding contract between you and your landlord. It gives you stronger rights than any signs or demands posted later by a third party.
What your AST does not do:
• Your AST does not require you to display a permit. There is no such clause.
• Your AST does not authorise the managing agent or any third party (such as VCS) to impose additional conditions like parking charges, penalties, or permit rules.
• Your AST does not incorporate the terms of any signage or private parking scheme into your tenancy.
Why VCS cannot override your tenancy:
• A third party like VCS cannot create a binding contract with you just by putting up signs in a car park when you already have rights under your AST.
• You cannot be bound by terms (such as displaying a permit or paying a charge) that you did not agree to and are not in your contract.
• Your right to park in your allocated space arises from your tenancy agreement and is not conditional on accepting the terms of any third-party signage, including that of VCS. As such, no separate contract with VCS can be formed or enforced in relation to your use of that space.
So, your AST grants you the right to park in your allocated space. It does not require you to display a permit or agree to any third-party terms. VCS cannot impose additional requirements on you or override your tenancy rights using signs or photos. If they issue a Parking Charge Notice, you can challenge it on the basis that no contract was formed, because you already have parking rights under a separate, superior contract.
Is there a management company that handles the day to day running of the buildings? If so, have you asked them to get the PCN cancelled?
For now, appeal with the following:
Subject: Formal Appeal against PCN Ref [INSERT PCN REF] – VRM: [INSERT VRM]
To: Vehicle Control Services Ltd
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and I write to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice issued at Signal Court Residential Car Park, Chester.
The alleged contravention is stated as: "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit."
1. No Breach of Terms – Pre-Existing Right to Park
I am a lawful tenant at Signal Court and have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) that grants me exclusive use of an allocated parking space. The agreement includes the right to park in that space but does not require the display of any permit or acceptance of any third-party terms. Therefore, your signage cannot override the rights granted to me under my tenancy.
Any previous display of a permit was done entirely out of courtesy, not because of any requirement to do so under the terms of my tenancy agreement.
This position is supported by Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 and Jopson v Homeguard [2016].
2. No Contract Was Formed with VCS
Even if a permit was not clearly visible, which is denied, your own photographs do not show that a permit was absent. Furthermore, no contract was formed between the driver and your company. The driver did not accept your terms, nor was any consideration given. The car was parked under existing rights granted by a tenancy agreement.
You have also failed to show that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period, during which the driver is entitled to review the terms. Without this, no contract could have been formed in any event.
3. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 – No Keeper Liability
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as it does not specify a “period of parking.” A single timestamp is insufficient. As a result, no keeper liability can arise, and I am under no obligation to identify the driver.
Conclusion
There was no breach of contract, no legal basis for your charge, and no consent to your terms. As the registered keeper and lawful occupier, I require that you cancel this PCN immediately.
If you reject this appeal, I require:
1. A full explanation and the evidence you rely on;
2. A copy of your contract with the landowner showing your legal standing.
I am fully familiar with your modus operandi. You may choose to be as vexatious as you like with your predictable rejection and empty debt collection threats, but we both know how this plays out. You will eventually attempt to litigate, as is your standard business model. Be assured: if you are foolish enough to push this far, you will be met with a full and detailed defence exposing the illegitimacy of this charge, the absence of any contractual authority, and your failure to comply with statutory requirements. You have no hope of success in court, and I will pursue a costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
-
Thanks for the prompt response, please see attached blank copy of the rental agreement, the driver has been staying there from July'24 and always displayed the permit and parked in their allocated space, in fact the permit is lying on their dashboard.
Sadly, we can't really prove that and it's not showing that it's missing in their photo. All advise is appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As above, what does your lease/AST say about parking? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.
You should be aware that VCS are a nasty vexatious company of ex-clampers who will pursue this all the way to a court claim. However, that is a good thing for you because they have little hope of actually winning if they ever let it get as far as a hearing.
Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) I snot fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. Namely, paragraph 9(2)(a) because there is no period of parking noted on the notice.
Because they have failed to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown (to them) driver to the known Keeper. There is no legal obligation on the known Keeper to identify the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking company.
What this also means that there is no evidence that the vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been formed. Not that any of this issuing to stop them from rejecting the appeal, but it does put them on notice that you are prepared to go all the way and that you know about their tactics.
They will try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay out of ignorance and fear.
For now, tell us what the lease/AST says about parking at the property.
-
Firstly, you need to find your lease assuming you’ve got one for the property because its terms trump any nonsense from parking companies like these, if your lease says you can park then you aren’t required to also display a “permit”. If you’re an owner, you may still have a lease which covers parking spaces etc.
So no “template” but once we are clear of some facts it won’t be hard to come up with something.
It’s not a fine, it’s a speculative invoice.
-
The driver was parked here, they actually live there and always display the permit yet still got fined, they are not the registered keeper however.
Please advise a typical template I can use to fight this.
Thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]