1
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: December 10, 2025, 11:45:06 pm »
Just as an fyi - 1st debt collector letter received 28th November 2025.
No action taken.
No action taken.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: November 01, 2025, 09:31:59 am »
Understood, thanks.
Is there any point in contacting UK Car Park Management to acknowledge this decision or do you think they will contact me before handing over to a debt collection agency?
Have we missed something in our position of 'relevant land' that the adjucator has seen in the contract that was provided to them to make them think they can win in court?
Is there anything else I can obtain to prove this further without any doubt?
Thanks
Is there any point in contacting UK Car Park Management to acknowledge this decision or do you think they will contact me before handing over to a debt collection agency?
Have we missed something in our position of 'relevant land' that the adjucator has seen in the contract that was provided to them to make them think they can win in court?
Is there anything else I can obtain to prove this further without any doubt?
Thanks
3
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: October 31, 2025, 02:48:22 am »
And here we have the response:
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): 7xxxxxx6
Vehicle Registration: DxxxxxxB
Date Issued: 28/07/2025
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"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.
The Appellant's vehicle has been recorded as entering this site at 20.02 and leaving at 20.38. No e-permit was held for the vehicle, nor was payment made to remain on site.
The Appellant is liable as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has satisfied me that they have the relevant contract with the landowner to enforce parking restrictions at this site.
The signage is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms.
The Appellant should have seen the signage and should have realised that payment was required to park or registration at the kiosks in reception was required.
Having considered all the relevant issues raised and the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Thoughts? Next action?
The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) has received a decision from the Independent Adjudicator regarding your recent appeal for the below PCN.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): 7xxxxxx6
Vehicle Registration: DxxxxxxB
Date Issued: 28/07/2025
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
The Adjudicators comments are as follows:
"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.
The Appellant's vehicle has been recorded as entering this site at 20.02 and leaving at 20.38. No e-permit was held for the vehicle, nor was payment made to remain on site.
The Appellant is liable as the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has satisfied me that they have the relevant contract with the landowner to enforce parking restrictions at this site.
The signage is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms.
The Appellant should have seen the signage and should have realised that payment was required to park or registration at the kiosks in reception was required.
Having considered all the relevant issues raised and the evidence submitted, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed. "
As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.
As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.
You should contact the operator within 28 days to make payment of the charge.
Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.
Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service
Thoughts? Next action?
4
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: September 19, 2025, 10:26:21 pm »
Superb!
Thank you kindly. Will update here in due course.
Thank you kindly. Will update here in due course.
5
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: September 19, 2025, 04:20:10 pm »
Here would be my response with some help from AI:
Re: IAS Appeal – PCN [Reference], Vehicle [Reg], Cranbrook Primary School, IG1 3PS
Dear Adjudicator,
I note the operator’s response. It is submitted that their case remains fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
Land Ownership and Statutory Control
The HM Land Registry Title Register (EGL505126) confirms the freehold is owned by The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Redbridge
summary_of_title_EGL505126_GOV.
Land owned by a local authority is, by definition, subject to statutory control. POFA Sch.4 para.3(c) excludes such land from being “relevant land,” regardless of whether a TRO is currently in place. The operator has misstated the legal test by narrowing it to TROs under the RTRA 1984.
Keeper Liability Cannot Apply
Because the land is not relevant land, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper under POFA. Their reliance on Schedule 4 is therefore misconceived.
Failure to Evidence Landowner Authority
The operator relies on a supposed “private agreement” but has refused to produce the unredacted contract. Without documentary proof of authority from the council, their claim cannot be substantiated. Mere assertion is inadequate.
Misuse of Personal Data
The operator’s continued attempt to pursue keeper liability where POFA does not apply amounts to unlawful processing of my data. This is a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to discharge their burden of proving that the site is “relevant land” under POFA. The Land Registry evidence conclusively establishes that the land is local authority–owned and thus excluded from POFA. Keeper liability cannot therefore apply, and the PCN must be cancelled.
-------
Thoughts?
Re: IAS Appeal – PCN [Reference], Vehicle [Reg], Cranbrook Primary School, IG1 3PS
Dear Adjudicator,
I note the operator’s response. It is submitted that their case remains fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
Land Ownership and Statutory Control
The HM Land Registry Title Register (EGL505126) confirms the freehold is owned by The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Redbridge
summary_of_title_EGL505126_GOV.
Land owned by a local authority is, by definition, subject to statutory control. POFA Sch.4 para.3(c) excludes such land from being “relevant land,” regardless of whether a TRO is currently in place. The operator has misstated the legal test by narrowing it to TROs under the RTRA 1984.
Keeper Liability Cannot Apply
Because the land is not relevant land, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper under POFA. Their reliance on Schedule 4 is therefore misconceived.
Failure to Evidence Landowner Authority
The operator relies on a supposed “private agreement” but has refused to produce the unredacted contract. Without documentary proof of authority from the council, their claim cannot be substantiated. Mere assertion is inadequate.
Misuse of Personal Data
The operator’s continued attempt to pursue keeper liability where POFA does not apply amounts to unlawful processing of my data. This is a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.
In conclusion, the operator has failed to discharge their burden of proving that the site is “relevant land” under POFA. The Land Registry evidence conclusively establishes that the land is local authority–owned and thus excluded from POFA. Keeper liability cannot therefore apply, and the PCN must be cancelled.
-------
Thoughts?
6
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: September 19, 2025, 04:12:32 pm »
Hello
Thank you very much for your patience and due diligence. Much Appreciated.
I have followed the appeal process and have logged the appeal with IAS.
The operator has replied today as follows:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/09/2025 11:15:07.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 31/07/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/07/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.
The vehicle was at the car park for 35 minutes, evidence of this can be seen in the attached document '70XXXX26'.
The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.
Signage clearly states "MOTORISTS MUST REGISTER WITH A VALID E-PERMIT OR HAVE A VALID EXEMPTION BY ENTERING THEIR FULL, CORRECT VEHICLE REGISTRATION INTO THE KIOSKS LOCATED WITHIN THE RECEPTION AREAS OR BE REGISTERED VIA SIPPI".
Please be advised, physical permits are not currently in use at this location. Our records indicate that vehicle registration DSXXXLB was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the attached document '70XXXX26'.
The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.
Please be advised that the appellant has submitted the same evidence within their IAS appeal as was provided in their original online appeal.
You have argued that the site in question is subject to statutory control and thus excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
We must clarify that not all land owned by a local authority is subject to statutory control. In this case, the parking area at Cranbrook Primary School is not governed by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), nor is it subject to enforcement under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
This specific site is managed under a private agreement between the landholder and our client, under which we are authorised to operate a private parking enforcement scheme. Therefore, the land qualifies as “relevant land” under Schedule 4 POFA, and keeper liability may be pursued where the driver is not identified.
The Appellant accepts that they were the registered keeper of this car at the time of this incident but has not been prepared to identify the driver. The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act schedule 4 enable the Parking Operator to recover against the keeper if they fail or refuse to name the driver.
We note your concerns under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. As a precaution and in line with our internal protocols, your correspondence and data concerns have been forwarded to our Data Protection Officer, who will review your claims separately.
Please be assured that all personal data is processed in compliance with the UK GDPR, and only for purposes directly related to the enforcement of this charge and legitimate interest in site management.
You have requested a copy of the unredacted landowner agreement. Please note that we are not obligated to share proprietary contractual documents with third parties during the appeals process. However, we can confirm that we have valid, written authorisation to operate on this site, in line with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.
The PCN was issued correctly under this authority and in full accordance with industry regulations.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.
-------
As they say, in for a penny, in for a hundred pound
-
I have until 26/09/2025 23:59 to respond.
There are two options:
1. Submit a response
2. Refer case to arbitration
Thank you very much for your patience and due diligence. Much Appreciated.
I have followed the appeal process and have logged the appeal with IAS.
The operator has replied today as follows:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/09/2025 11:15:07.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 31/07/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/07/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.
The vehicle was at the car park for 35 minutes, evidence of this can be seen in the attached document '70XXXX26'.
The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.
Signage clearly states "MOTORISTS MUST REGISTER WITH A VALID E-PERMIT OR HAVE A VALID EXEMPTION BY ENTERING THEIR FULL, CORRECT VEHICLE REGISTRATION INTO THE KIOSKS LOCATED WITHIN THE RECEPTION AREAS OR BE REGISTERED VIA SIPPI".
Please be advised, physical permits are not currently in use at this location. Our records indicate that vehicle registration DSXXXLB was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the attached document '70XXXX26'.
The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.
Please be advised that the appellant has submitted the same evidence within their IAS appeal as was provided in their original online appeal.
You have argued that the site in question is subject to statutory control and thus excluded from the definition of “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
We must clarify that not all land owned by a local authority is subject to statutory control. In this case, the parking area at Cranbrook Primary School is not governed by a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), nor is it subject to enforcement under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
This specific site is managed under a private agreement between the landholder and our client, under which we are authorised to operate a private parking enforcement scheme. Therefore, the land qualifies as “relevant land” under Schedule 4 POFA, and keeper liability may be pursued where the driver is not identified.
The Appellant accepts that they were the registered keeper of this car at the time of this incident but has not been prepared to identify the driver. The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act schedule 4 enable the Parking Operator to recover against the keeper if they fail or refuse to name the driver.
We note your concerns under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. As a precaution and in line with our internal protocols, your correspondence and data concerns have been forwarded to our Data Protection Officer, who will review your claims separately.
Please be assured that all personal data is processed in compliance with the UK GDPR, and only for purposes directly related to the enforcement of this charge and legitimate interest in site management.
You have requested a copy of the unredacted landowner agreement. Please note that we are not obligated to share proprietary contractual documents with third parties during the appeals process. However, we can confirm that we have valid, written authorisation to operate on this site, in line with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.
The PCN was issued correctly under this authority and in full accordance with industry regulations.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice.
-------
As they say, in for a penny, in for a hundred pound
-I have until 26/09/2025 23:59 to respond.
There are two options:
1. Submit a response
2. Refer case to arbitration
7
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: September 07, 2025, 07:18:22 pm »
Correct, not hirer or lessee.
I'm not sure what that means, it is puzzling.
I'm not sure what that means, it is puzzling.
8
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: September 07, 2025, 10:31:37 am »
I have receieved the following from Car Park Management Ltd on September 4th in response to my appeal:
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 28th July 2025
PAYMENT DUE DATE: 18th September 2025
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £60.00
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX,
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 35 minutes with no permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name. This is for your records only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to the full amount of £100.00.
Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;
Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28 days of this rejection.
The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.
If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.
If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future.
UK Car Park Management Ltd
Switchboard: 0345 463 5050
www.uk-cpm.com
Follow us on LinkedIn
Part of Agena Group. Read our ESG Report >
Graphical user interface, application, Word
Description automatically generated
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. It may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by UK-Car Park Management Ltd in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
GDPR – to view how we use and process your data and your rights, including how to object or restrict such use, please see our privacy policy available online at UK CPM Privacy Policy
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Unless any additional relevant information or evidence is provided, UK Car Park Management considers this to be their final decision regarding this appeal.
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 28th July 2025
PAYMENT DUE DATE: 18th September 2025
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £60.00
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX,
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 35 minutes with no permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Please note, a new notice will automatically be generated and sent to you, as the liability has been transferred into your name. This is for your records only and does not allow you to appeal again internally or transfer liability. You now have 14 days from the date of your new notice to make payment at the reduced fee of £60.00. If payment is not received within 14 days, the fee will increase to the full amount of £100.00.
Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
To make payment of the total amount due as shown above, please use one of the following payment options;
Online: www.paymyticket.co.uk
Telephone: 0345 463 4040 (24hr)
Post: Payments & Collections, PO Box 3114, Lancing, BN15 5BR
Alternatively, if you do not agree with your internal appeal outcome and you wish to dispute the matter further, as you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 28 days of this rejection.
The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. If you decide to appeal to the IAS, you will need to visit their website and use your PCN reference and corresponding vehicle registration. All PCN's will be uploaded to the IAS website by the end of this working day.
If you appeal this charge further then you will lose the ability to pay at the reduced rate (if applicable). In the event that your IAS appeal is unsuccessful, the full amount for the PCN will then be payable. If you lodge an appeal with the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to that appeal being determined, then the appeal will be withdrawn, and you will not be given a further opportunity to contest the charge.
If you do not wish to dispute the matter further and payment is not received within 28 days of the date of this correspondence then additional charges may be incurred, for which you may be liable. If the charge continues to remain outstanding, the matter may be later referred for litigation in the County Court which could result in a County Court Judgment being made against you; this may impact on your ability to obtain credit in the future.
UK Car Park Management Ltd
Switchboard: 0345 463 5050
www.uk-cpm.com
Follow us on LinkedIn
Part of Agena Group. Read our ESG Report >
Graphical user interface, application, Word
Description automatically generated
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. It may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by UK-Car Park Management Ltd in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
GDPR – to view how we use and process your data and your rights, including how to object or restrict such use, please see our privacy policy available online at UK CPM Privacy Policy
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Unless any additional relevant information or evidence is provided, UK Car Park Management considers this to be their final decision regarding this appeal.
9
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 10, 2025, 07:00:02 pm »
Apologies if I have offended anyone, that certainly was not my intention and I do not want to waste anyones time. I am merely trying to gain as much knowledge and do my homework, as you say it is likely to go to court.
just to cover off:
- I read this - https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/private-land-enforcement/court-cases-private-land/court-cases-for-private-parking-tickets/ in which case CPS vs Stephen Thomas it seems like this evidence was used.
If you're not the RK, then in what capacity are you even trying to deal with this PCN? Consider your opening post...
- I am assisting the RK and my bad - I was writing in the first person as they would however I have been given permission to act on their behalf and will be helping them to fight this case. I previously used the website pepipoo however that is no longer online and I found this forum which I thought had individuals who would be as helpful.
Again I apologise, I will not waste your time. I will submit the appeal and take it from there.
Thank you for your help. Much appreciated.
just to cover off:
Given that >20,000 PCNs are issued every day, the idea that parking companies read this forum just in case one of their PCNs is being discussed does not make sense. They don’t care if one of their PCNs fails because enough people just pay up on receipt of the remaining 19,999.
- I read this - https://penaltychargenotice.co.uk/private-land-enforcement/court-cases-private-land/court-cases-for-private-parking-tickets/ in which case CPS vs Stephen Thomas it seems like this evidence was used.
If you're not the RK, then in what capacity are you even trying to deal with this PCN? Consider your opening post...
- I am assisting the RK and my bad - I was writing in the first person as they would however I have been given permission to act on their behalf and will be helping them to fight this case. I previously used the website pepipoo however that is no longer online and I found this forum which I thought had individuals who would be as helpful.
Again I apologise, I will not waste your time. I will submit the appeal and take it from there.
Thank you for your help. Much appreciated.
10
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 10, 2025, 11:15:49 am »
Thanks for the detailed information.
Just to clarify as I know that UKCPM read these forums and then rely on them later in court and I am unable to edit the post - I am not the registered keeper [fact] therefore there should be no assumption that the original post in this thread is admitting liability for being the registered keeper and driver and also there can be no assumption on probability that these posts are from the registered keeper.
I'm also attaching the land registry document for UK Car Park Management LTD as this can save a lot of wasted time going through appeals.
I've also been reading up on the legislation and for peace of mind have downloaded the land registry - see attached. It definitely is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge therefore a London council and hence does meet the requirement of not a relevant land as you say and therefore unenforceable:
This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.
(2)It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
“parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)
the Secretary of State;
(b)
the Welsh Ministers;
(c)
Transport for London;
(d)
the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)
the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)
a parish or community council;
(g)
the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.
(4)In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in—
(a)any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b)any subordinate legislation, whenever made,
and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.
The appeals body is actually IAS therefore I believe the wording will need to change slightly - let me know what you think:
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. UK Car Park Management LTD 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 but not if the land is not relevant land as per POFA 2012 and the evidence attached. UK Car Park Management LTD have no hope at the Independant Appeals Service, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Just to clarify as I know that UKCPM read these forums and then rely on them later in court and I am unable to edit the post - I am not the registered keeper [fact] therefore there should be no assumption that the original post in this thread is admitting liability for being the registered keeper and driver and also there can be no assumption on probability that these posts are from the registered keeper.
I'm also attaching the land registry document for UK Car Park Management LTD as this can save a lot of wasted time going through appeals.
I've also been reading up on the legislation and for peace of mind have downloaded the land registry - see attached. It definitely is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge therefore a London council and hence does meet the requirement of not a relevant land as you say and therefore unenforceable:
This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.
(2)It is immaterial for the purposes of this Schedule whether or not the vehicle was permitted to be parked (or to remain parked) on the land.
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
“parking place” has the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)
the Secretary of State;
(b)
the Welsh Ministers;
(c)
Transport for London;
(d)
the Common Council of the City of London;
(e)
the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f)
a parish or community council;
(g)
the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.
(4)In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from this Schedule) contained in—
(a)any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b)any subordinate legislation, whenever made,
and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.
The appeals body is actually IAS therefore I believe the wording will need to change slightly - let me know what you think:
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. UK Car Park Management LTD 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 but not if the land is not relevant land as per POFA 2012 and the evidence attached. UK Car Park Management LTD have no hope at the Independant Appeals Service, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
11
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 09, 2025, 12:42:01 pm »
Thank you for the confirmation.
Appreciate your time on this.
Do you know if there are actual court/tribunal cases online that have used these arguments and won re: relevant land and where the registered keeper did not disclose the identity of the driver - I'd like to understand when going to court the decisions that have been made and past precedence on cases.
I've had a look online and most refer to either not seeing the sign, unfair charges or most commonly offer and acceptance of contract.
Thanks
Appreciate your time on this.
Do you know if there are actual court/tribunal cases online that have used these arguments and won re: relevant land and where the registered keeper did not disclose the identity of the driver - I'd like to understand when going to court the decisions that have been made and past precedence on cases.
I've had a look online and most refer to either not seeing the sign, unfair charges or most commonly offer and acceptance of contract.
Thanks
12
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 09, 2025, 11:16:58 am »
I have a question:
The statement mentions Horizon?
Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Who are Horizon? Should this be UKCPM UK Car Park Management?
The statement mentions Horizon?
Horizon has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Who are Horizon? Should this be UKCPM UK Car Park Management?
13
Private parking tickets / Re: Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 08, 2025, 04:59:05 pm »
Thank you much appreciated!
Will review and come back.
Will review and come back.
14
Private parking tickets / Parking Charge UK Car Park Management
« on: August 08, 2025, 10:37:43 am »
Hi All,
I received a Parking Charge from UK Car Park Management.
The car park is attached to a sports club.
My daughter attended a club and she thought that the club finished at 8pm. I arrived to pick her up however she then told me that they have not finished yet and they are due to finish at 8.30pm. I therefore sat in the car and waited for her to finish. This was the first time we used the Car Park.
You'll see in the images - I was about to leave the car park after she told me but since I didn't have my phone on me I reversed back into the car park and waited.
1st Image - reversing back into the car park 20:02:37.617
2nd Image - leaving the car park 20:38:23.203
It's a shame if I had left and then came back, it seems this would have been ok.
I have now receieved this Park Charge for £60 at a reduced rate within 14 days or appeal. If I appeal and lose it will be £100.
I will need to revisit the car park to see if there is any signage but as I did not get out of the Car I don't believe I saw any at that time.
I have now looked online and apparantly this changed recently in Dec 2024 where users have to scan a QR code and then parking is waived. It seems they do allow drop off & collections of 30min but I was unaware that there was any charge at all. Since this was 5minutes over I am now being charged the penalty.
This is on their website:
New Process To Ease The Congestion
Frenford and Cranbrook School Car Park New Parking Method from Monday 23rd December 2024:
After parking your car, please head towards Frenford’s main building or Large Astro. You will find a Sippi sign with a beacon in the middle of the sign.
1. Download Sippi Parking App https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/sippi/id6451398275
2. Search for location using code "10870"
3. Bring device close to beacon at Frendord
4. Press "Park here" (IGNORE £20 quoted price)
5. Enter your vehicle details
6. Choose parking duration using slider (select 12 hours)
7. At the bottom - slide to start parking session
8. Add payment details
9. NEW PRICE OF £0.00 WILL NOW SHOW
10. Complete the payment and your parking begins
Warning: Do not attempt to verify parking unless you are within half a metre of the beacon.
FYI - There is a 30 minute ‘grace’ period for drop off & collections.
Other than asking for a gesture of goodwill since it was only 5minutes and my first time using the car park and I did not get out of the car - is there anything else that I can do for a successful appeal?
Thank you in advance.
I received a Parking Charge from UK Car Park Management.
The car park is attached to a sports club.
My daughter attended a club and she thought that the club finished at 8pm. I arrived to pick her up however she then told me that they have not finished yet and they are due to finish at 8.30pm. I therefore sat in the car and waited for her to finish. This was the first time we used the Car Park.
You'll see in the images - I was about to leave the car park after she told me but since I didn't have my phone on me I reversed back into the car park and waited.
1st Image - reversing back into the car park 20:02:37.617
2nd Image - leaving the car park 20:38:23.203
It's a shame if I had left and then came back, it seems this would have been ok.
I have now receieved this Park Charge for £60 at a reduced rate within 14 days or appeal. If I appeal and lose it will be £100.
I will need to revisit the car park to see if there is any signage but as I did not get out of the Car I don't believe I saw any at that time.
I have now looked online and apparantly this changed recently in Dec 2024 where users have to scan a QR code and then parking is waived. It seems they do allow drop off & collections of 30min but I was unaware that there was any charge at all. Since this was 5minutes over I am now being charged the penalty.
This is on their website:
New Process To Ease The Congestion
Frenford and Cranbrook School Car Park New Parking Method from Monday 23rd December 2024:
After parking your car, please head towards Frenford’s main building or Large Astro. You will find a Sippi sign with a beacon in the middle of the sign.
1. Download Sippi Parking App https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/sippi/id6451398275
2. Search for location using code "10870"
3. Bring device close to beacon at Frendord
4. Press "Park here" (IGNORE £20 quoted price)
5. Enter your vehicle details
6. Choose parking duration using slider (select 12 hours)
7. At the bottom - slide to start parking session
8. Add payment details
9. NEW PRICE OF £0.00 WILL NOW SHOW
10. Complete the payment and your parking begins
Warning: Do not attempt to verify parking unless you are within half a metre of the beacon.
FYI - There is a 30 minute ‘grace’ period for drop off & collections.
Other than asking for a gesture of goodwill since it was only 5minutes and my first time using the car park and I did not get out of the car - is there anything else that I can do for a successful appeal?
Thank you in advance.
Pages: [1]