Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: ShinyPrecision88 on December 13, 2025, 01:39:36 am
-
Why do you imagine you cold end up with a CCJ? Have you any idea what a CCJ is and how one would get one? Nothing we advise on here puts you in any danger of a CCJ. Just to educate enough so that you do not fall victim as low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and end up paying out of ignorance or fear, here is an article I have written to explain why the fear of a CCJ is unfounded because of the ignorance most people have about them:
These unregulated private parking firms and their pet debt collectors thrive on one thing: the public’s ignorance of how County Court claims and CCJs actually work. They know that if they can make you believe that “a claim” or a “debt recovery” letter somehow wrecks your credit rating, you will panic and pay them. The gullible tree is full of low-hanging fruit, and they make a very good living shaking it.
Here is the reality, which you should read and take a “life lesson” from...
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private firm is not a fine. It is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. At that stage, nothing touches your credit file.
If you are not successful in appealing the PCN – and appeals are almost never successful at the initial stage and rarely at the secondary, supposedly “independent” (but not) appeal – most low-hanging fruit do not understand that those decisions are not binding on them and they should never just pay. Many do, however, because they are ignorant of the process and fearful of imaginary consequences.
If you then get “debt recovery” letters from so-called debt collectors, those are just more speculative invoices dressed up in scary language designed to prey on your ignorance and fear. Debt collectors have no legal powers whatsoever to come to your door, take goods, or report anything to credit reference agencies. You could receive fifty of those letters and your credit rating would be unchanged.
As part of the modus operandi of these unregulated firms, the next formal step is usually a Letter of Claim (LoC). That is just a threat that they may start a County Court claim. Even then, your credit record is still untouched. It is simply a threat of legal action, not the result of it. Just more attempts to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Only if they go ahead and issue a County Court claim do you enter the court (judicial) process. A Claim Form comes from the court, not from a useless and powerless debt collector. Getting a claim issued against you does not, by itself, affect your credit rating. A claim is simply an allegation that you owe money. You have the right to defend it. As long as you read your post, acknowledge the claim in time, and either defend it or settle it, your credit file remains untouched.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) only arises if the court actually makes a judgment against you. That happens either because you defended and were unsuccessful at a hearing, or because you ignored the claim and the parking firm got judgment in default. Even then, you still have a crucial safety net that the low-hanging fruit do not realise exists. If you pay the full judgment sum within 30 days of the date of judgment, the CCJ is not registered on your credit file. It is expunged completely from the record. It is as if it never happened as far as lenders are concerned.
A CCJ only appears on your credit record if you fail to pay within that 30-day window. That is the point at which it gets recorded and can affect your ability to obtain credit. Up to that point, no amount of tickets, no stack of debt recovery letters, no Letter of/Before Claim, and not even the issuing of a County Court claim has any impact on your credit history.
Bailiffs are a separate step again. They cannot simply be sent because you have ignored an unregulated private parking invoice or a useless debt recovery letter. Bailiffs (enforcement agents) only become relevant after there is a CCJ and it has not been paid.
For most smaller PCN CCJs, it is not even worth the creditor’s time and cost to instruct bailiffs, especially when the amount is under £600 and stuck in the slower County Court enforcement system. But the key point is this: no unpaid CCJ, no lawful bailiff.
So when people say things like “I had a debt recovery letter so I might not get a mortgage now” or “if I defend, I will get a CCJ,” they are simply wrong. It is precisely that ignorance and fear that these firms trade on. They rely on ordinary motorists incorrectly assuming that a red-letter demand automatically means ruined credit and bailiffs at the door.
There is nothing in the advice given here that will affect your credit record. On the contrary, proper advice is what keeps you away from CCJs. If you engage with the process, defend where appropriate, and, in the extremely rare instance where you are unsuccessful defending a claim, pay any judgment within 30 days, your credit file will remain completely unaffected and no bailiff will lawfully darken your doorstep over a private parking charge.
These companies rely on being able to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
As for "how much? In the unlikely scenario where a claim progresses all the way to a hearing with a judge and if the defendant was unsuccessful, you will pay less than the claim amount because all claims have an unlawful £60-£70 fake fee added which most judges will not allow as it is blatant double recovery. As it is the small claims track, costs are fixed. There is the charge amount of (usually) £100 plus the fixed costs of the claim fee of £35 and fixed legal costs of £50.
However, only a tiny fraction of these claims that we advise on ever get anywhere near a hearing. The vast majority are either struck out or discontinued. Of the very few that actually go all the way to a hearing, most are won.
-
Appeal has been submitted to UKCPS, using b789's message verbatim.
To clarify I was referring to PCN as the abbreviation of "Parking Charge Notice" not "Penalty Charge Notice" which I now understand is an important distinction between the two.
Out of curiosity if down the line the driver does end up with a CCJ how much would they be looking at paying?
-
PCN - Parking Charge Notice
They can call it what they like, other than Penalty Charge Notice.
However, those issued at Leeds Station, as noted, can’t use the legislation to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
There’s always a huge problem with people using abbreviations such as “PCN” without explaining what they mean by them. Humpty Dumpty springs to mind.
-
Just follow to the letter what is advised here, and you should be good. I am currently in a dispute with the same UKCPS for exactly the same issue of 'stopping'. In fact, I honestly thought I was reading my own thread when I read this.
I have been doing a lot of reading up on this since my case started, and it is evident how corrupt these companies are, and as b789 will point out, these companies survive on scaring people into paying. The majority of whom will pay up once faced with the threat of court, CCJs and bailiffs, which are only enforceable once the court has been involved, sent you a letter, you haven't responded or paid – that's when that will kick in, however, because of how these parasites operate, and because people pay up, they rarely get that far.
From what I have found, irrespective of the time frame of when the letter is sent out to when you actually receive it, you mention your letter as "PCN" – where does it point out that this is a PCN? At best, this is an invoice and nothing more, but even that is debatable.
If you look up on the .GOV own website who can legally issue a PCN, and you'll find that a private company can't issue one for 'stopping', only violating parking within a private car park. As such, and because you haven't signed anything, this holds no 'legal' standing so no parking company, debt collection, or even legal team can make threats of issuing CCJs, they can only apply for this to go to a magistrate's court to recoup their losses of you allegedly breaching the T&Ts they claim you have accepted by entering the area they allegedly control.
DO NOT CONTACT ANY OF THESE COMPANIES DIRECTLY BY PHONE OR EMAIL, other than as instructed here.
-
No initial appeal is ever going to succeed so don''t go into any detail at that stage. Also, it is very probably that an appeal to the IAS is not going to be successful either as that is a kangaroo court. However, if they were to ever try and take you to court over this, they would not have a leg to stand on.
The location is covered by Railway Byelaws and so is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA (until 26th December), which means that as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. Also, they are in breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) because they are asserting Keeper liability when they cannot do so.
As for the 14 day relevant period, it matters not what date you actually receive the Notice to Keeper (NtK) but the date it is "deemed" Ito have been given to you. With their issue date of 5th December, it was deemed as having been "given" on Tuesday 9th December which is exactly 14 days after the date of the alleged contravention. Of course you can prove the "contrary" by putting the operator to strict proof of the date the NtK actually entered the postal system and whether it was correctly addressed and, more importantly, was sent by first class (or equivalent) 1-2 day delivery with a proof of posting or equivalent certificate/receipt. I can tell you now, that it wasn't and they cannot prove otherwise and so the presumption of delivery is rebutted.
To begin with, all you need to appeal to UKCPS with is as follows:
I am the registered keeper. UKCPS cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, UKCPS will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Leeds City Station is not 'relevant land'.
If Network Rail wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because UKCPS is not the station owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for UKCPS’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and UKCPS 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. UKCPS have no hope should you be so stupid as to try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back when that is rejected and we can give you a suitable IAS appeal that will get the assessor all juiced up and may prove us wrong about there futility of the IAS.
-
Let's see what the PCN says, without that we can't be of much help. Does it mention railway bye-laws?
Here are both pages of the PCN received.
https://ibb.co/yBR8kN7m
https://ibb.co/5hTpnw1g
-
There are a number of similar cases documented here for the same location and, no, it is not ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA 2012 so as long as the driver is not identified, an appropriate appeal can be made which - ultimately - will lead to the desired result. Search the forum.
The notice is not out of time because it was deemed to be delivered on 9 December which is 14 days after the incident.
-
Let's see what the PCN says, without that we can't be of much help. Does it mention railway bye-laws? Read the READ THIS FIRST bit at the top o the page to tell you how and what to post.
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
-
Recently received a PCN from UKCPS issued for no stopping. The date and time of issue was 25/11/25 17:49. Address of the site is Leeds City Station and the car was stopped on double yellows here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/tyuMqQLM6bsT98vQ8). By the evidence viewable on their website, the car was stopped between 17:49:32 and 17:49:50, 18 seconds. I have drafted an appeal that I would like some pointers on.
I am the registered keeper of this vehicle.
This charge must be cancelled.
UKCPS's own photographic evidence show the vehicle was present for approximately 18 seconds in total. The vehicle was not parked.
During this breif stop, the engine remained running, the driver remained in the vehicle at all times, and the stop was for the immediate alighting of a passenger. This was a trivial and momentary stop (de minimis), no contract can be formed, accepted, or breached in such a timeframe.
The burden of proof rests with UKCPS. The evidence supplied does not establish that any enforceable contract existed, that its terms were accepted, or that a breach occured.
The IPC Code of Practice requires operators to allow a resonable period for drivers to read and consider signage. Enforcement after 18 seconds plainly fails this requirement.
As no contract was formed and no actionable breach has been proven, the charge is unenforceable and must be cancelled.<br />
I will not identify the driver and no interferance may be drawn.
P.S not sure if this is of note, but the letter is dated 5th december 2025, issue date as mentioned before is 25th November 2025, and the letter was received by post the morning of 12th december 2025. To my knowledge this is outside of the 14 day window so no action can be taken against the registered keeper (if action hasn't been disallowed already as the charge occurred at a railway station).
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated as this is not something I would like to lie down and take.