Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: nickj32 on December 05, 2025, 08:16:31 am
-
They are really getting desperate with their claims. Their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant so no Keeper liability. No contract could be formed with prohibitive signage. No evidence of a contract being formed beyond the minimum consideration period, and I could go on, but I really can't be bothered.
Whilst they label this area as a “red route”, this has no statutory meaning on private land and is simply their own terminology, which is open to challenge. They can call it a "polka-dot route" as far as the law is concerned.
Your appeal is perfectly valid and, as any initial appeal is futile, don't spend any more effort on it. As this bottom-dwelling firm is an IPC member, don't pin much hope on the IAS. We'll give you a good IAS appeal, just because we love to wind them up by making them have to jump through the hoops.
Whilst this is most likely going to end up as a county court claim, it will never reach a hearing and will either be struck out or discontinued. You just have to follow the advice we give you here.
-
The driver (my partner) entered the car park to turn and drop a passenger.
Total time in the carpark <1min as show by images, so well trodden path of stopping not constituting parking
Have researched posts and the rugby club show no interest in intervening, nor local MP
Person in hi viz evident made no attempt to warn etc
PCN received 29/11 & seems to have new concept of a Red Route (in a private carpark) as a scare tactic.
I intend to respond with below or similar, please advise. Many thanks
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
PCN
https://ibb.co/nMsr79gT
Images
https://ibb.co/GQS6Tjm7
https://ibb.co/Hf6MjPCd
https://ibb.co/zTbrgZXj
https://ibb.co/fYDmxJj3
https://ibb.co/qM1sgCpC
https://ibb.co/mC5GYhsh
Google Streetmap
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4073247,-1.5251296,3a,75y,247.77h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s27z90_0vYZswo4m6b_1mzA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0%26panoid%3D27z90_0vYZswo4m6b_1mzA%26yaw%3D247.76501082467962!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D