Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: alirana01 on January 09, 2026, 12:11:28 am
-
N1SDT county court claim form, which has relatively short response deadlines, so don't miss it and post it here with only personal details and the password redacted when it arrives.
-
Hi all,
Thanks everyone for the guidance so far!
As per advice, I have posted my responses (First class standard) to both LBC separately today and have kept the certificates of posting for my records.
I am wondering what I should expect next from them. Will they send a court pack straight away, or is there usually another step?
Also, what specific things or red flags should I be watchful for right now so I can come back and notify everyone here for further advice?
Best Regards
-
In reply #16 the OP states;
"hirer was not the driver but present in the vehicle in all occasions"
Cheers - I thought it must be as I know you're not one to suggest falsely denying being the driver, I was on my phone so couldn't easily scroll back through!
Don't send 'Signed for' - if they don't sign for it, all you end up with is proof that your letter was not delivered. Send them regular first class from a post office and get a free certificate of posting.
-
Thank you InterCity125 and DWMB2 for the responses.
That is correct, Hirer of the vehicle was present in all 5 occasions but Not the driver.
Does it mean the above draft is ready to go (separately for each LBC, with correct parking charge no and car reg details)
and that it needs to go via Royal Mail Signed For 1st Class to below?
Credit Investigation Services
Clyde Offices, 2nd Floor
48 West George Street
Glasgow
G2 1BP
Best Regards
-
In reply #16 the OP states;
"hirer was not the driver but present in the vehicle in all occasions"
It was well hidden amongst the various posts.
Was just about to amend the LBC response!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
3. Unfortunately, I was NOT the vehicle driver at the material time and therefore the is no contract between myself and your client.
Do we know that? Apologies if I've missed it in the thread, but I don't think we've established who was driving.
OP, don't state anything that is not true. You don't need to tell them who was driving, but you equally must not lie.
-
This is only a response to a Letter Before Claim so no need to be specific - just be robust / forceful.
I'd go with the following as a separate response to each LBC... (obviously you need to put in the correct parking charge no and car reg etc)
To whom it may concern,
Ref: Parking Notice xxxxxx from Universal Parking Enforcement for Registration Mark AB12 CDE.
I have received your Letter Before Claim and have duly noted its content.
I am happy to respond with the following points-
1. That liability for the debt is robustly denied and no money is owed by myself to your client.
2. That it is acknowledged that I was the hirer of said vehicle at the material time.
3. Unfortunately, I was NOT the vehicle driver at the material time and therefore there is no contract between myself and your client.
4. That there is no legal requirement for me to disclose who was driving at the material time and I am therefore exercising my right to say nothing in that regard.
5. That your client is unable to use Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to pursue the vehicle hirer (myself) because your client failed to serve the Notice to Hirer in the strict manner which Schedule 4 of POFA demands.
6. That your client is well aware of the previous point after a number of losses at the IAS appeal stage.
7. That in the absence of 'hirer liability' under POFA, there is no legal route by which I can be held liable in this matter.
I am sorry that I am unable to help you further in this matter.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
Thanks a lot for the replies, everyone.
Just to clarify where each PCN stands:
PCNs A & B: IAS appeal dismissed. These are the two with the Letters Before Claim.
PCNs C & D: IAS appeal successful (upheld).
PCN E: Never arrived in the post. The portal is now locked, so I couldn't appeal it.
I really appreciate the help from the seniors here. I'm not great with legal terminology, so could someone please help me draft a solid response that includes the points mentioned in the last post?
The deadline to reply is the 14th August, but I want to get this sent off as soon as possible. Also a few words on what to expect after sending off the response will be highly appreciated.
Many thanks.
A couple of initial observations:
Your proposed response refers to 5 different PCNs, which you label A-E. However from a read of the response, it's not entirely clear which of these 5 are the subject of the Letters before claim.
1. Definitive Legal Adjudication on Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)
The main problem with this argument is you haven't received definitive legal adjudication on keeper liability. Four cases have gone to the IAS on broadly identical grounds, 2 have been upheld and 2 have been refused. You mention that a "legally qualified IAS Adjudicator" has said that 2 of the appeals should be upheld, but a (presumably) equally legally qualified IAS Adjudicator has said that the 2 that are the subject of this case are enforceable. This is incorrect, and all 4 appeals should have been upheld and the charges cancelled, and you should point this out, but I'd avoid affording too much weight to the IAS process at all.
The risk you face in saying that the 2 that were upheld are somehow "definitive" is that it looks like you are saying "The IAS are correct and competent when they find in my favour, but are incorrect and incompetent when they don't find in my favour". A judge will/should have little regard for the IAS' findings, what he should care about is the law.
They have no lawful right to pursue me for these debts. Any attempt to litigate these remaining claims despite an independent body ruling their transfer process illegal constitutes vexatious litigation.
Finding that they failed to transfer liability does not mean that their process was ruled to be "illegal". At any rate, this relates again to my point above - the "independent body" did not reach that same conclusion in these cases. I'm not sure you can argue they are acting vexatiously in pursuing parking charges that the IAS have found they are entitled to pursue. I'd switch the focus here. You can still point out that 2 identical appeals were upheld and the same conclusion should have been reached here, but I'd keep the focus on why (i.e. the legal basis behind it) rather than what the IAS found in other cases.
3. Formal Request for ADR
They will point out that they have offered ADR in the form of an IAS appeal. They aren't required to offer it again in the event the resolution is not to your satisfaction. I'd skip this point. If it goes to a claim, there'll be mediation then anyway.
Finally, I'd make more explicit reference to the fact they've issued 2 letters of claim. State that you expect them to be consolidated into one claim if a claim is issued.
-
A couple of initial observations:
Your proposed response refers to 5 different PCNs, which you label A-E. However from a read of the response, it's not entirely clear which of these 5 are the subject of the Letters before claim.
1. Definitive Legal Adjudication on Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)
The main problem with this argument is you haven't received definitive legal adjudication on keeper liability. Four cases have gone to the IAS on broadly identical grounds, 2 have been upheld and 2 have been refused. You mention that a "legally qualified IAS Adjudicator" has said that 2 of the appeals should be upheld, but a (presumably) equally legally qualified IAS Adjudicator has said that the 2 that are the subject of this case are enforceable. This is incorrect, and all 4 appeals should have been upheld and the charges cancelled, and you should point this out, but I'd avoid affording too much weight to the IAS process at all.
The risk you face in saying that the 2 that were upheld are somehow "definitive" is that it looks like you are saying "The IAS are correct and competent when they find in my favour, but are incorrect and incompetent when they don't find in my favour". A judge will/should have little regard for the IAS' findings, what he should care about is the law.
They have no lawful right to pursue me for these debts. Any attempt to litigate these remaining claims despite an independent body ruling their transfer process illegal constitutes vexatious litigation.
Finding that they failed to transfer liability does not mean that their process was ruled to be "illegal". At any rate, this relates again to my point above - the "independent body" did not reach that same conclusion in these cases. I'm not sure you can argue they are acting vexatiously in pursuing parking charges that the IAS have found they are entitled to pursue. I'd switch the focus here. You can still point out that 2 identical appeals were upheld and the same conclusion should have been reached here, but I'd keep the focus on why (i.e. the legal basis behind it) rather than what the IAS found in other cases.
3. Formal Request for ADR
They will point out that they have offered ADR in the form of an IAS appeal. They aren't required to offer it again in the event the resolution is not to your satisfaction. I'd skip this point. If it goes to a claim, there'll be mediation then anyway.
Finally, I'd make more explicit reference to the fact they've issued 2 letters of claim. State that you expect them to be consolidated into one claim if a claim is issued.
-
Quite right - hadn't spotted the link!
-
It's hard to advise on the quality of a response to a letter, when we haven't seen the letter it is responding to... Please show us the Letter of Claim.
I think they’re linked to in Reply #24.
-
It's hard to advise on the quality of a response to a letter, when we haven't seen the letter it is responding to... Please show us the Letter of Claim.
-
Please add this to your original post - those are the rules.
This will also help others in the future who are forced to go through the same process with this operator.
-
Hi Everyone,
Bumping this with a new thread since my original (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/universal-parking-enforcement-passenger-or-driver-left-the-premises-whilst-vehic/15/) post didn't get any replies.
Out of 4 identical IAS appeals, 2 were allowed and 2 were dismissed. Universal Parking Enforcement (UPE) has now issued a Letter before Claim (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1q6T_XJXWf_j7gpTTXiLLU7cM2fL9MEPY?usp=sharing) for the two dismissed ones.
I used AI to draft the response below to Credit Investigation Services (the debt collectors). Could the forum seniors please review it? Let me know if it looks good to send or if I'm leaving any loopholes open.
Thanks in advance!
FORMAL RESPONSE TO LETTER BEFORE CLAIM — INTENT TO DEFEND
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in formal response to the Letters Before Claim dated 15 July 2026 issued by Universal Parking Enforcement Ltd regarding Debt References X and Y. I deny any liability to your client for these alleged debts.
Please note that this matter is heavily disputed. If your client chooses to issue formal court proceedings without attempting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), I will bring this response directly to the attention of the Court to seek formal sanctions and a full conduct cost order against them under Paragraph 13 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
My defense rests on the following binding grounds:
1. Definitive Legal Adjudication on Keeper Liability (POFA 2012)
The alleged debts stem from a series of five PCNs issued within a brief window at 391 Dunstable Road involving hire vehicles where I was the hirer, not the driver.
While your client may reference earlier dismissed historical appeals, the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has since issued definitive, final rulings on identical tickets involving the exact same hirer, location, and operating procedures (see PCN C and PCN D). In decisions dated 04/06/2026, the legally qualified IAS Adjudicator explicitly ruled:
"To transfer liability to the hirer as the hirer, POFA sets out specific requirements, referenced by the Appellant, which have not been met... The appeal is allowed."
Your client completely failed to comply with the mandatory statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Specifically, your client failed to provide the mandatory hire documentation "together" with the Notice to Hirer in the post. Your client only supplied these documents months later during the IAS appeal platform stages.
Because your client's administrative mailing process is fundamentally non-compliant with PoFA, keeper liability has failed to transfer. They have no lawful right to pursue me for these debts. Any attempt to litigate these remaining claims despite an independent body ruling their transfer process illegal constitutes vexatious litigation.
2. Procedural Failure and Absolute Lack of Service (The 5th PCN: E)
I am aware through my hire company, Enterprise, that a fifth citation exists (PCN E, issued 31/12/2025). Your client failed to ever serve a statutory Notice to Hirer to my home address for this ticket, completely denying me my consumer right to access the portal and appeal. Consequently, liability has completely failed to transfer under PoFA 2012, and any claim on this ticket will be robustly defended as an abuse of process.
3. Formal Request for ADR
To avoid wasting valuable court time, I formally request that you refer these accounts back to independent ADR or mediation. Given that the IAS has already established that your client's hire transfer documentation is legally invalid, a neutral mediator will confirm that pursuing these claims is completely unsustainable.
4. Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Document Request
To narrow the issues, please provide the following documentation within 14 days:
1.Full copies of the original single-page mandatory PoFA-compliant documentation your client claims to have served "together" to transfer liability for PCNs A and B.
2.A copy of the direct contract providing your client with landowner authority to operate at 391 Dunstable Road.
If you fail to provide these or reject ADR to rush into a claim, I will immediately request the Court to stay the proceedings until you comply and seek full conduct costs.
I expect your written confirmation that these accounts have been placed on a formal protocol hold.
Yours faithfully,
-
Morning All,
I am struggling to get a response on my post for quite a while, just wanted to understand if it’s because I am in a breach of any forum rules. The last response I’ve had was on 29 March.
It is crucial for me to obtain the timely advice so that I don’t miss on any time bound deadlines, like responding to operator on IAS Portal in a certain timeframe.
If someone could come back to me with an advice on my recent post, will be highly appreciated.
Regards
A
-
Dear All,
Quick update — UPE have now responded to the last two IAS appeals with the text below. I’d really appreciate some guidance on whether I should reply further (if so, what should be the response) or move straight to arbitration, as the deadline to respond to the operator is 22nd May, so I’m a bit tight on time.
Regards
A
The operator made their response on 15/05/2026 22:30:07.
Transfer of Liability attached.
The appellant is claiming not to be the driver but they have submitted no evidence to confirm that they were not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the contravention. Until such, it is assumed that the registered keeper was the driver hence the reason they do not want to provide the driver's details.
-
Please post up the IAS response.
Dear InterCity125,
The IAS responses for both appeals were shared earlier for you and the other seniors to review — link is available here (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1X2SeChsEaJw0No0gwy27lAnTXEEGt4N5?usp=sharing).
Could you please let me know if there’s anything I should be doing at this stage?
I also submitted two more IAS appeals yesterday using the same format, though I expect the outcome will likely be similar.
However, there’s one remaining PCN (from 31/12/2025) that the hire company notified me about on 12 March. I still haven’t received the actual PCN at my address. When I check the operator’s website, the appeal status shows as “locked”, and unlike the others, there’s no option to appeal. I’m not sure how to proceed with this one and would really appreciate any guidance.
Many Thanks
A.
-
Hi,
Both responses are available here (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1X2SeChsEaJw0No0gwy27lAnTXEEGt4N5?usp=sharing) and are identical. Please advise if any action required at this time.
Many thanks for all the advise so far.
Regards
A
-
Please post up the IAS response.
-
Dear All,
Quick update on the situation.
As expected, the IAS has rejected both the appeals. Interestingly, I received “ACTION REQUIRED TODAY” letters from TNC for each PCN about a week before the IAS even issued their decisions. Shortly after, TNC sent two “Notice of Intention to Instruct Solicitors” letters, which I’ve attached (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mEdLM464CqhBnAjPOOJmlZJSSq4uU03a?usp=sharing) for reference.
In addition to the original two PCNs, I’ve now received three more for the same location and circumstances, bringing the total to five so far. My intention is to challenge the remaining PCNs in the same way unless advised otherwise.
At this stage, I have not received any Letter of Claim. Am I expected to take any action in response to these threatening letters from TNC, or is this simply part of their standard escalation process? I’d appreciate any advice on what my next steps should be, aside from continuing to contest the new PCNs that may still be on the way.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards
A
-
Nothing to worry about.
The operator has basically admitted that they didn't send you the required documents.
You maybe able to comment on the operators submission.
Something short and along the lines of;
Comments on the operators evidence.
The operator appears to confirm that they haven't complied with the precise mandatory requirements of PoFA in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer - the specified documents where never sent to me and therefore the operator has not met the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 14(2)(a).
The operator clearly suggests that I should have obtained the required documents through other means if I needed them - however, the legislation makes it very clear that the operator MUST include copies of the required documents with their NtH - supplying the documents either separately and/or at a later date does not meet the requirements of the wording set out in Schedule 4 of PoFA - the NtH and copies of the documents must be served "together".
Furthermore, the operators own comments suggest that they are unsure of the correct statutory mechanism which PoFA Schedule 4 demands when transferring liability to a hirer.
In this instance I was not the driver and there is no legal requirement for me to nominate a driver.
Keeper liability is again denied since PoFA cannot be invoked by the operator.
-
Dear All,
Quick update on the situation, I appealed (as per instructions) to the IAS and now Operator has responded with these documents (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1phMF7Okv9dwJgv8u88xGTx1UtyiNrd3U?usp=sharing).
I’ve removed all personal details from the Transfer of Liability notices. Could you please look through everything, especially the “CCTV Footage and Response” documents for both appeals and let me know what you think the next steps should be? I’m not sure whether I should send anything further at this stage or just move straight to arbitration.
As I mentioned before, I was expecting more PCNs because there were several visits to this location up until the first week of January. The hirer told me last night that another notice has arrived (again, hirer was not the driver but present in the vehicle in all occasions). This one relates to an incident that happened two days earlier than the previous PCNs, so I’m not sure why it took them over six weeks to send it out. I’m wondering if that delay helps our case in any way.
I’ll probably receive the actual PCN in a week or two. In the meantime, I’m unsure whether to follow the same process as the earlier ones or just pay this one, especially if more are still on the way.
To be honest, I’m getting a bit anxious about how many more might show up and what could happen if this ends up going to court. Any guidance on how to handle this without letting it spiral would be really appreciated.
Best Regards
A
-
There’s a “they” missing from the text in one place
Well-spotted. Amended above.
-
As @DWMB2 says above. There’s a “they” missing from the text in one place but otherwise it’s pretty much in line with my post which was made at the same time.
-
A) How do I appeal to IAS and what should the wording be.
The rejection letters advise on this - you'll need to visit the IAS website and submit on there. As you have 2 PCNs, you'll need to submit 2 separate appeals.
This is written quickly, so someone may ham it up a bit more, but here's a starter for 10:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Universal Parking Enforcement (UPE) as the Hirer of the vehicle. I was not the driver on this occasion, and the IAS must therefore consider my liability as the hirer.
UPE have failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), and therefore cannot recover the charges from me as the hirer of the vehicle.
To transfer liability from the Keeper to the Hirer, PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 14(2) explicitly requires that the operator provides: "a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;".
The documents mention in paragraph 13(2) are:- a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
- a copy of the hire agreement; and
- a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.
UPE failed to provide me with any of these documents. In their response to my appeal, UPE stated that they received this information from the keeper, but simply receiving this information is not sufficient. PoFA is clear that UPE must also provide copies of these documents to me, the hirer, alongside the Notice to Hirer. UPE did not do this. As a result, they have not met the conditions set by PoFA, and cannot recover the charges from me the hirer.
As I was not the driver, I cannot be held liable as the driver. As UPE have failed to comply with PoFA as detailed above, I cannot be held liable as the hirer. The appeal must therefore be upheld.
-
I would make a single point appeal to the IAS that you are not liable as hirer in place of the driver because the requirements of PoFA were not met.
Any other appeal points will just divert the IAS to reject your appeal on other grounds.
The thing you circled is utter rubbish, so in your appeal to the IAS you must point this out. If UPE obtained the documents, but then didn’t send them to you as required, so what. The law is clear.
The fact that you were not the driver doesn’t really change anything. They are trying to make you liable as hirer, because they don’t know who the driver was.
I already explained above what to do if the IAS does not uphold your appeal.
-
Thank you, I will stand my ground with your advice and backing as long as it gets me out of this situation.
As expected, they refused to cancel both PCNs (linked here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iJkksJ6h2P0Q6BOX8AJt0t4Xzj1cVAa8/view?usp=sharing) and here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e9CrEon4rQzB3bhwLqEHTUmYmwpnThG2/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iJkksJ6h2P0Q6BOX8AJt0t4Xzj1cVAa8/view?usp=sharing)) and asking to appeal to IAS if needed. The downside is the charge will need paying in full i.e. £100 if IAS refuses too.
Please review the encircled text in both refusals and advise if there is any catch in there. Another twist to the situation which I forgot to mention in the original post is that, the hirer of the vehicle wasn't even the driver at the time of both contravention but was on passenger seat, does this go in our favor or against us.
So in terms of next steps:
A) How do I appeal to IAS and what should the wording be.
B) what happens when they refuse? do we need to take any further action or just wait for letter of claim to come through in the post?
Best Regards
A
-
Appeal to the IAS, if for no reason other than it costs UPE £23.
IAS is not “independent” and only upholds 4% of appeals.
If the IAS, as expected, sides with UPE it’s not binding on you.
Ignore debt collectors.
Come back when you get a Letter of Claim.
You want this to go to court because UPE will be spanked there.
It’s more likely that their legal goons will discontinue rather than face a spanking.
The process is designed to intimidate you into paying. As long as you follow the process, with advice you’ll get here, you will eventually pay nothing.
These companies deliberately do not comply with the law because they know that lots of people pay anyway. Just don’t be one of these.
-
Thank you All for you support, highly appreciated. I have submitted appeals for both with suggested wording (omitting the request to send POPLA code).
I just wanted to understand the next steps if they refuse? what route shall I take.
kind Regards
A
-
Despite them bizarrely using TNC for their notices to hirer, UPE are an IPC company, so no POPLA.
Good point, I just looked at the PCN and the BPA logo and didn’t read the words.
So just omit my last sentence from the appeal, I suggest.
-
Despite them bizarrely using TNC for their notices to hirer, UPE are an IPC company, so no POPLA.
-
As long as there were no other documents accompanying the notice to hirer, and as long as the driver has not been identified, you appeal:
I am the hirer/keeper of vehicle [REG]. You have been passed my details as the hirer/keeper. This is not an admission as to the identity of the driver. I will not be naming the driver.
You cannot transfer liability because you have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 for hire vehicles (paras 13–14). A valid Notice to Hirer must be accompanied by:
1. a copy of the hire agreement
2. a statement of liability signed by the hirer
3. a copy of the original notice
These documents were not enclosed with your notice. Therefore there is no hirer/keeper liability and the charge must be cancelled.
Please cancel this charge. If you refuse, please supply a POPLA verification code.
They probably won’t cancel, so be prepared for that, but POPLA probably will.
Send the same appeal for each notice.
-
Morning,
Just received both PCNs in the post today and are attached here (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15wet-_-mHK2uBTAk8DOHC46w_8AaCMX2?usp=sharing). Seniors, a very humble request to please advice on next steps.
Back page of both PCNs are blank. Please let me know if any further information is needed.
Best Regards
-
It's a never ending wait, still nothing in the post til date but will update as soon as I receive the notifications.
Thanks All.
-
Thank you for your response, much appreciated. I shall update this section as soon as I am in receipt of the PCNs.
-
It’s almost certain that UPE will not comply with the legislation to transfer liability to you, as hirer, so when you receive a Notice to Hirer from them, please update us and we can advise on how to appeal. Just make sure you do not identify the driver.
-
Once you receive the PCN(s) in your own name from UPE, show us these and we can then advise on suitable appeals.
-
Hi,
I’m seeking guidance on how to appeal the traffic violation notices issued for a hire vehicle.
My car rental company has informed me that two PCNs were issued for parking on private land (a Shell petrol station, same location) on 22nd and 23rd December 2025 (photo evidence and the notification are available at the link below). I am concerned that additional PCNs may follow, as the vehicle was taken to the same location several times afterwards and no parking restriction signage was noticed—likely because all visits were at night.
According to the PCNs, the vehicle was allegedly left unattended. However, the driver only stepped out briefly to collect food from a nearby shop, and the vehicle was occupied by family members at all times. The photos provided appear to be taken only from the rear, which does not show that the vehicle was never unattended.
I have not yet received the official PCNs from UPE, but the rental company has passed on my details, so I expect them soon.
Could you please advise on my options for appealing the two current PCNs, as well as any potential future ones?
photo evidence and notification available at this link (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vMj0WOcefoQGk7klk5UxHtVfGbAZ5P9M?usp=sharing) link.
Google Map Location (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dunstable+Rd,+Maidenhall,+Luton+LU4+8DA/@51.8906577,-0.4444817,3a,54y,235.16h,74.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snMHpXbLrpvMbCEoP-Lax_A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D15.42923501711644%26panoid%3DnMHpXbLrpvMbCEoP-Lax_A%26yaw%3D235.16497111126264!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x487648e3a82e15e9:0xbde595ee20f6f6f3!8m2!3d51.8905922!4d-0.4449341!16s%2Fg%2F1vg_6ssy?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) - (Vehicle was parked where Black Skoda is seen parked)
Best Regards,
A