Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: owillow99 on November 24, 2025, 02:09:28 pm
-
Hello there,
Is it possible if any of the members who have previously helped on this thread (or any member) could offer some advice please?
I'm going to send a letter to BW Legal before the 29th March LOC deadline and would feel reassured if anyone could guide me on this.
I haven't contacted BW legal since the first letter I received back in November and had taken advice from the forum not to reply to BW Legal or post on here until I received the LOC.
If any of the hero members @DWMB2 @InterCity125 @Jackisback123 @jfollows @b789 who have contributed could let me know what route I should take next - I would greatly appreciate your kind help.
Thank you!
-
Good afternoon,
Any help on next steps for this would be greatly appreciated :)
Thank you so much
-
Hello there,
Weary of needing to send a response before the 29th March expiry date set on the Letter of Claim.
What will be the best course of action please?
-
Is anyone intimately familiar with the exact rules when a keeper nominates a driver in respect to a NtK issued PCN.
I'm not sure the keeper has nominated the driver per se, but instead the driver has simply appealed directly.
Without having had chance to revisit the PPSSCoP in detail, I'm not aware of any requirements to issue a fresh PCN. One of the problems when there's an admitted driver is that as PoFA becomes largely irrelevant, there's a lot less scope for exploiting procedural errors.
-
@DWMB2
@jfollows
Is anyone intimately familiar with the exact rules when a keeper nominates a driver in respect to a NtK issued PCN.
Does the Parking Operator have to re-issue the PCN in the nominated drivers own name?
Just checking this case for a potential procedural error.
-
No, there was no re-issuing of the PCN. I just appealed via IAS and then after the appeal was dismissed in October, I received a letter from BW Legal on 19th December 2025.
-
So the vehicle was borrowed at the time and I didn't want any letter's sent to the registered keeper. So when I appealed I stated that I was the driver at the time...
I'm aware from earlier in this post that this was a mistake and now complicates matters, but I genuinely believed when I first appealed through the IAS that I would be successful because of the obvious lack of / appropriate signage.
So, once you were nominated as the driver, did the parking operator re-issue the PCN in your name?
-
So the vehicle was borrowed at the time and I didn't want any letter's sent to the registered keeper. So when I appealed I stated that I was the driver at the time...
I'm aware from earlier in this post that this was a mistake and now complicates matters, but I genuinely believed when I first appealed through the IAS that I would be successful because of the obvious lack of / appropriate signage.
-
So can I ask whose name is on the LBC, the reminder notice and the original NtK? Is it the keeper or was the driver nominated by the keeper - meaning that the parking operator re-issued the PCN in the drivers name?
-
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle then you of course should not state as such
-
Draft letter:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question to acknowledge receipt of your Letter of Claim dated 27/02/2026.
I firmly rebut the assertion that any sum is owed to your client, Link Parking, and put you on notice that this claim will be defended in full should proceedings be issued.
No Contract Was Formed
For a parking charge to be enforceable, a binding contract must exist between the motorist and the parking operator. A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That essential requirement is not met in this case, for the following reasons.
First, on the date in question the car park contained no signage, or no adequate signage, visible to a motorist upon entering the site. There were no pay stations present. In the absence of clear, legible signage at the point of entry, no offer capable of acceptance was communicated to the driver.
Second, and critically, even if signage had been present in adequate numbers, it is submitted that the signs relied upon by your client operate as an absolute prohibition on parking, not as an offer of parking upon stated terms. English contract law does not permit a "forbidding contract": a sign that says in effect "no parking" cannot simultaneously constitute a contractual offer of parking at a specified charge. Such a construction is a legal nullity. Without a valid offer there can be no acceptance, and without acceptance there is no contract. Accordingly, no liability arises.
This argument has been upheld in the county court, including in UKPC v Masterson, where a judge dismissed the operator's claim on analogous grounds. I reserve the right to rely on this and any other relevant authority at trial.
Registered Keeper Position
This letter is written in my capacity as registered keeper of the vehicle. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention, and nothing in this letter should be construed as such an admission.
I invite your client to discontinue this matter immediately and confirm in writing that no further action will be taken. Should proceedings be issued, I will defend the claim robustly and will seek recovery of my reasonable costs.
-
Okay I'll draft something up.
However I am not registered keeper and have previously told them I was driver.
Does it matter at this stage to switch this to registered keeper?
-
This is still at the Letter of Claim stage so it is not necessary to provide a forensic defence at this stage.
We are simply jumping through the hoops so to speak.
You could reply acknowledging the LoC but firmly rebutting the claim that any money is owed.
The reply should be made as registered keeper and no admission of who was driving should be made.
A short rebuttal relating to the non-formation of contract would be pertinent to this particular situation.
They will progress this anyway - it's a game to them - but we know how to play too.
-
I have found this (https://www.reddit.com/r/bristol/comments/ejxtx2/forbidding_parking_signs/) thread (archived link (http://web.archive.org/web/20241202135221/https://www.reddit.com/r/bristol/comments/ejxtx2/forbidding_parking_signs/)) on Reddit, pertaining to 'Forbidding Signs'.
Guess whose signage it is?
(https://i.ibb.co/XwpQT6N/0md-Y2oz-d.webp)
In court, I claimed that as the sign was an absolute prohibition on parking no contract for parking could be entered into, in order to enter into a contract the sign needs to OFFER parking for £100, it can't say "no parking, but if you park here you pay £100 for parking". It's called a "forbidding contract" and it's a legal nonsense ... the judge agreed with me and [threw] the case out,
And a starter for ten in terms of a relevant judgment from a different case, involving a different but similar sign.
https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/UKPC-v-MASTERSON-Judgment.pdf
So I would say the argument here is twofold; firstly, that the signage was not adequate but secondly, and most importantly, the signs are not an offer, and therefore there was no acceptance, and therefore there was no contract even if the place had been littered with them.
-
This is the image the operator took which shows car park entrance at back -
https://ibb.co/MxGN9Gw9
*notice that there isn't any visible signs on the car park entrance, something the Operator claimed during their Prima Facie Case in the appeal that someone had taken them down:
https://ibb.co/n86htccF
And images I took of car park after receiving the ticket:
https://ibb.co/pBRjVZkM
https://ibb.co/zKpDYC9
https://ibb.co/xtBNvLKK
If you notice there isn't any difference - nothing was removed or changed on car park entrance.
-
And screenshot of adjudicator's decision:
https://ibb.co/nMP72LcP
-
Warning sign Operator uploaded to IAS appeal:
https://ibb.co/zTLY9Kzf
-
3:
https://ibb.co/1FRW3Pd
-
Part 2:
https://ibb.co/bMQDhW5s
-
Posting multiple images doesn't seem to work for me so will post them individually:
Evidence pack I used of operator's photos of car and warning signs on wall -
https://ibb.co/LhpG2vBR
-
Is there, or can you get, a photo of the sign on the wall?
They seem to be saying parking was prohibited, but also that you agreed to pay a parking charge, which is contradictory.
They can't say you're liable in contract if there was no contract because parking is prohibited.
Please can you also post a copy of the adjucator's decision?
-
Will re-upload! seems like the link function / image upload function is being a little glitchy
THANK YOU!
-
Fixing links for OP:
Letter of Claim:
Link (https://ibb.co/sdrPpZm5)
Link (https://ibb.co/7tPnPdYR)
And the final demand letter a few weeks earlier:
Link (https://ibb.co/KjkYc7DT)
There were these documents that accompanied the letter of claim:
Link (https://ibb.co/B5jHGHT5)
Link (https://ibb.co/21ssZkSw)
Link (https://ibb.co/DD0gcwMy)
Link (https://ibb.co/C3zm6F91)
Link (https://ibb.co/7NGK3G1H)
And reply forms:
Link (https://ibb.co/YTFsB5SZ)
Link (https://ibb.co/W43G10c0)
Link (https://ibb.co/jZJ2rGJH)
-
For me, every single one of these links is the same thing.
However, although I can’t view them, no, you do not complete any forms. Whatever they are requesting from you is none of their business.
You simply send a reply to the Letter of Claim.
-
Hi there,
I've received the letter of claim:
* going to re-upload other documents (https://ibb.co/sdrPpZm5)
-
Trying to upload images via insert image link but it's not working?
-
Why would you think that the IAS are in any way reputable or independent?
(https://i.ibb.co/9HJv258c/h9fhvi1v1cb7-png.webp)
-
That is good evidence of their mendacious behaviour. There does not appear to have ever been an entrance sign at this location. If there is one now, take a photo of it.
They will be required to provide evidence of an entrance sign at the location prior to the date of the alleged contravention. As can be seen in GSV, there was no sign in place in March 2023 and no sign ij place on the date you took your photos.
This one will be easy to challenge in a claim and it will be interesting to see whether BW Legal are prepared to let their client take this all the way to a hearing, where they will be in danger of a spanking and a cost order for unreasonable behaviour.
I can't believe how any reasonable person from the IAS dismissed the appeal in the first place!
-
If there is one now, take a photo of it.
+1 - ideally from an angle that makes it obvious that the two photos (i.e. the one showing the new sign, and the previous one showing a lack of a sign) were taken at the same location.
I walked past there earlier this evening and there are no signs whatsoever on the entrance to the car park.
https://ibb.co/nNw7CNTC (https://ibb.co/nNw7CNTC)
https://ibb.co/fVSqgzFV (https://ibb.co/fVSqgzFV)
-
If there is one now, take a photo of it.
+1 - ideally from an angle that makes it obvious that the two photos (i.e. the one showing the new sign, and the previous one showing a lack of a sign) were taken at the same location.
-
That is good evidence of their mendacious behaviour. There does not appear to have ever been an entrance sign at this location. If there is one now, take a photo of it.
They will be required to provide evidence of an entrance sign at the location prior to the date of the alleged contravention. As can be seen in GSV, there was no sign in place in March 2023 and no sign ij place on the date you took your photos.
This one will be easy to challenge in a claim and it will be interesting to see whether BW Legal are prepared to let their client take this all the way to a hearing, where they will be in danger of a spanking and a cost order for unreasonable behaviour.
-
That is just BW Legal acting as a useless debt collector. They will eventually issue an LoC and then a claim. However, for now, you do not need to respond to that letter. When they issue an LoC, let us know and we will provide a suitable response.
I am assuming that the photos you showed us of the car park with no entrance sign are yours. If so, keep them as valuable evidence. Also, you need to extract the metadata and get those photos timestamped with that data. No entrance sign is a clear breach of the CoP and means that no contract cold have been formed with you (the driver, which should never have identified).
Also, do you have the correspondence where they admit that the signs were not there due to vandalism? That is also crucial evidence.
Also, you need to get a close up photo of the sign they say forms the contract. We need to see the wording on it to evaluate if it is even capable of forming a contract.
Will send picture of LOC when received.
The photos are mine. I took them the day I was doing the appeal which was after I received the ticket. I have got the metadata and they're timestamped in and around 23 August 2025 19:11:32.
I'll attach a closer picture of the signs when I'm next there.
But even on google streetview, there are no entrance signs visible. I've attached screenshots of May 2023 and October 2022 from google streetview (latest dates available).
https://ibb.co/sdmCzNy7 (https://ibb.co/sdmCzNy7)
https://ibb.co/tPw3s67y (https://ibb.co/tPw3s67y)
I have attached the response by the operator which I've screen shot from the IAS appeal. It clearly shows that they admit the signs were not there due to vandalism. Suggesting it was the driver that caused this.
https://ibb.co/GvtK2HWs (https://ibb.co/GvtK2HWs)
I've also attached the PDF of the operators proof - which does not include any pictures of the entrance signs.
https://ibb.co/G3JVNcgY (https://ibb.co/G3JVNcgY)
Thank you
-
The letter sent through named me as driver as when I appealed through the IAS it required me to state I was the driver. I am not the keeper of the car and the keeper (a relative) has not received anything through the post.
No Notice to Keeper has been sent to anyone through the post.
Absolutely NOTHING, anywhere, required you to name yourself as the driver, especially if you were not the driver!!!!
No one twisted your arm to state the following in your IAS appeal:
(https://i.ibb.co/TqLVF5mL/Screenshot-2025-12-29-at-10-47-30.png)
So are you suggesting that you were not the driver?
The only reason the Keeper has not received anything through the post is because you admitted to being the driver. ONLY the driver is liable and you were not obliged to admit to being the driver at any point. If you made an initial appeal to the NtD, as the driver, then there is no need for them to engage with the Keeper.
BW Legal will issue a claim and take all the way to a hearing. Your defence will be that no contact was formed because they have not evidenced a period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period that must allow in their CoP and the fact that there w s no entrance sign that notifies drivers that they are entering private land with terms and conditions for parking.
If you show us a close up of the terms and conditions signs, there is probably even more you can use for your defence once the inevitable claim comes through.
-
Hi there,
Just posting this letter I received in the post before I receive the inevitable Letter of Claim they have now threatened to send.
https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD
(https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD)
Hi there,
Just posting this letter I received in the post before I receive the inevitable Letter of Claim they have now threatened to send.
https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD
(https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD)
This is a standard begging debt collectors letter so can safely be ignored.
There appears to be a number of inconsistencies with this case so far which we need to clear up.
Firstly, were you initially issued with a paper Notice to Driver which would have been left on the vehicle at the time of the parking event?
Then, the reminder letter states, 'You have been named as the driver' - Is that true? Are you actually the keeper? How did they find out that you were the driver by the date of the reminder notice?
Thirdly, if you are the keeper then did you ever receive a Notice to Keeper through the post?
I was issued with a paper ticket that I posted in an above post.
The letter sent through named me as driver as when I appealed through the IAS it required me to state I was the driver. I am not the keeper of the car and the keeper (a relative) has not received anything through the post.
No Notice to Keeper has been sent to anyone through the post.
-
That is just BW Legal acting as a useless debt collector. They will eventually issue an LoC and then a claim. However, for now, you do not need to respond to that letter. When they issue an LoC, let us know and we will provide a suitable response.
I am assuming that the photos you showed us of the car park with no entrance sign are yours. If so, keep them as valuable evidence. Also, you need to extract the metadata and get those photos timestamped with that data. No entrance sign is a clear breach of the CoP and means that no contract cold have been formed with you (the driver, which should never have identified).
Also, do you have the correspondence where they admit that the signs were not there due to vandalism? That is also crucial evidence.
Also, you need to get a close up photo of the sign they say forms the contract. We need to see the wording on it to evaluate if it is even capable of forming a contract.
-
Hi there,
Just posting this letter I received in the post before I receive the inevitable Letter of Claim they have now threatened to send.
https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD
(https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD)
This is a standard begging debt collectors letter so can safely be ignored.
There appears to be a number of inconsistencies with this case so far which we need to clear up.
Firstly, were you initially issued with a paper Notice to Driver which would have been left on the vehicle at the time of the parking event?
Then, the reminder letter states, 'You have been named as the driver' - Is that true? Are you actually the keeper? How did they find out that you were the driver by the date of the reminder notice?
Thirdly, if you are the keeper then did you ever receive a Notice to Keeper through the post?
-
Hi there,
Just posting this letter I received in the post before I receive the inevitable Letter of Claim they have now threatened to send.
https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD (https://ibb.co/VdVHRXD)
-
Yeah felt it was a scam straight away.
I will not be paying a penny and will ignore as advised. Thank you.
I don't have the original PCN, but a friend of mine also received the same PCN and I appealed for us both. Here is their original PCN.
(https://i.ibb.co/yFsG9Yx9/PHOTO-2025-08-26-07-48-14.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zVfjM7tM)
-
Oh dear. What a waste of effort you went through to appeal and then the Kangaroo court that is the IAS. You also proverbially blew both feet off with a single shot by identifying the driver. If only you'd come here before any appeals.
For future reference do not ever, EVER identify the driver if you receive a PCN. Only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that". only "the driver did this or that". Too late for that in this case.
You have nit dsaiow us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK). The reminder is as useful as a poke in that arm with a sharp stick. Does the original NtK state "period of parking"?
The timestamped evidential photos only show a span of a couple of minutes. Not enough time to evidence that any contract was formed with the driver. Their own Code of Practice requires them to give a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes before a PCN can be issued.
Also, their signage is in breach of the CoP.
You are in the midst of a scam. The mendacious IAS appeal rejection is not binding on you. DO NOT pay. If you follow the advice, you won't be paying a penny to these scammers.
FOr now, you can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters that are going to come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we can take it from there.
-
If you need advice then you must submit your evidence here such as photos of the signage and views of the car park.
The original PPN etc.
Has the drivers ID been given?
Yes it has.
-
I thought I uploaded the links via ImgBB - I've reattached them here:
PCN:
https://ibb.co/Y4fPXhSs (https://ibb.co/Y4fPXhSs)
https://ibb.co/5XBYBNf9 (https://ibb.co/5XBYBNf9)
My appeal with evidence:
https://ibb.co/Kj5VQW13 (https://ibb.co/Kj5VQW13)
Operator's response:
https://ibb.co/RGXQ6Xhv (https://ibb.co/RGXQ6Xhv)
More evidence of no signs on entry:
https://ibb.co/LXSz2Pst (https://ibb.co/LXSz2Pst)
https://ibb.co/LDNndPPc (https://ibb.co/LDNndPPc)
(https://i.ibb.co/nNrs50Kc/Photo1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LXSz2Pst)
(https://i.ibb.co/kVmQ2yyw/Photo2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LDNndPPc)
-
If you need advice then you must submit your evidence here such as photos of the signage and views of the car park.
The original PPN etc.
Has the drivers ID been given?
-
Good afternoon,
I received a PCN for parking in Bute Street Cardiff in August.
There was no signage on entry to the space, no signage showing that the space was a private car park or any car parking pay stations anywhere.
There was only small warning private land signs on the walls far from where I parked my vehicle that was pointed out by the operator during the appeal service - but it is incredibly small and obscured by other vehicles as shown by the operators first response to the appeal (attached).
(https://ibb.co/DDP8YM8s)
I went through several rounds of an appeal and evidence sharing through the IAS appeal service. But the appeal was later dismissed. I feel not any of my evidence or grounds for appeal were considered.
I have now received a £100 fine from Link Parking (attached).
(https://ibb.co/pBr8XNDD)
(https://ibb.co/5g9K6Bvn)
I have since searched online and have found that the IAS sides with most car parking operators, which I feel is incredibly unfair.
During one of appeal rounds, the operator had stated that the car park did have entry signs and had since been vandalised - which is untrue and I have proved it with photographs and google street view - linked in my PDF appeal letter and evidence (attached)
(https://ibb.co/XrmGhNv0)
(https://ibb.co/VYjr8KZd)
PDF
(https://ibb.co/k2fhRPCB)
Please let me know what my next steps can be.
I can attached any and all of the operator and adjudicators responses if it helps.
Thank you