1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Private ticket whilst working parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
« on: Today at 09:08:14 am »
Post up the PCN - this sounds like a council issued notice?
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.
2
Private parking tickets / Re: Penalty Notice from Saba for not paying for parking
« on: Today at 08:44:00 am »
As others have said, drag this process out as much as possible.
Is there any chance that the vehicle is subject to a finance agreement? I ask because if that were true, the 'owner' would be a finance company - that would mess them up!
I'd defiantly appeal as this will give you further access to the POPLA appeal process which will further consume a period of time.
Also, personal experience tells me that POPLA are unlikely to agree with the operators statement regarding 'reasonable assumption' with regard to keeper liability - the fact is, there is no legal mechanism which can move liability from the owner to the keeper. If liability could be shifted from party to party so easily then there would be no need for the processes set out in PoFA. The fact that PoFA exists clearly demonstrates that the law requires something greater than 'reasonable assumption' when moving liability to the keeper. The operator's claim of reasonable assumption is being made out of necessity rather than any proven legal process. VCS v Edward also confirms the legal position of reasonable assumption with regard to keeper liability.
Is there any chance that the vehicle is subject to a finance agreement? I ask because if that were true, the 'owner' would be a finance company - that would mess them up!
I'd defiantly appeal as this will give you further access to the POPLA appeal process which will further consume a period of time.
Also, personal experience tells me that POPLA are unlikely to agree with the operators statement regarding 'reasonable assumption' with regard to keeper liability - the fact is, there is no legal mechanism which can move liability from the owner to the keeper. If liability could be shifted from party to party so easily then there would be no need for the processes set out in PoFA. The fact that PoFA exists clearly demonstrates that the law requires something greater than 'reasonable assumption' when moving liability to the keeper. The operator's claim of reasonable assumption is being made out of necessity rather than any proven legal process. VCS v Edward also confirms the legal position of reasonable assumption with regard to keeper liability.
3
Private parking tickets / Re: UKCPS Leeds Station - Notice to Keeper (Postal-PoFA) - no recollection of stopping
« on: Today at 08:20:25 am »
You obviously submitted a strong appeal - this is evidenced by their failure to engage with any points raised.
You now have a choice - I personally recommend going down the IAS route as it shows that you are willing to engage / resolve the issue.
Could you post the content of your original appeal?
You now have a choice - I personally recommend going down the IAS route as it shows that you are willing to engage / resolve the issue.
Could you post the content of your original appeal?
4
Private parking tickets / Re: Airport
« on: Yesterday at 09:59:56 pm »
As the OP is so unsure, I'd leave out the extra comments for the time being.
5
Private parking tickets / Re: UKCPS PCN small claims court HELP
« on: Yesterday at 09:55:56 pm »https://ibb.co/ZRDwsFZq
Here is the POC I have been sent
Thanks
Show us the whole form only redacting personal details!
6
Private parking tickets / Re: Euro car park - Fullwell cross Leisure centre.
« on: Yesterday at 04:06:10 pm »
POPLA Parking Appeal for PCN reference xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx xxx
I wish to appeal the PCN on the grounds that there is no PoFA invoked keeper liability at this car park site.
The driver is not known to the parking operator and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver in this circumstance.
Furthermore, the PCN issued by Euro Car Parks is unlawful as it falsely claims that PoFA can be applied in order to move liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper - this appears to be a deliberately misleading claim designed to pressure the keeper into paying.
The claim of keeper liability is also a clear breach of the operator's own Code of Conduct which EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS the mentioning of PoFA (in a PCN) in instances where PoFA cannot apply - any breach of the Code of Conduct is also a breach of the operators KADOE agreement - as a result, the keeper data released to the operator has also been misused.
Furthermore, the issues with PoFA were outlined in my original keeper appeal but again Euro Car Parks issued a response which once again mis-stated their true legal position and again implied that liability could be moved onto the keeper - this appears to illustrate the incompetence of the Euro Car Park staff who are clearly mishandling valid appeals. It also illustrates the fact that Euro Car Parks are not accessing the nature of the land before commencing their parking enforcement - as a result they are issuing unlawful and non-compliant NtKs.
The facts in the case are;
The land at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge.
The London Borough of Redbridge is a Council and therefore, legally, constitutes a traffic authority.
The car park is therefore council owned and, in law, represents 'a parking place provided by a traffic authority.'
It appears that Euro Car Parks have been appointed by the council to help manage the car park.
Whilst it appears that Euro Car Parks are entitled to help manage the car park, this DOES NOT automatically make it a location where PoFA can suddenly be used to invoke keeper liability.
In particular, Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that point as Paragraph 3(1)(b) expressly excludes 'a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority' from being 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA.
The car park at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is not therefore defined as 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA and therefore liability can never be moved from the driver to the keeper as Euro Car Parks are continually stating.
I now invite POPLA to uphold this appeal.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxx xxx
I wish to appeal the PCN on the grounds that there is no PoFA invoked keeper liability at this car park site.
The driver is not known to the parking operator and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver in this circumstance.
Furthermore, the PCN issued by Euro Car Parks is unlawful as it falsely claims that PoFA can be applied in order to move liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper - this appears to be a deliberately misleading claim designed to pressure the keeper into paying.
The claim of keeper liability is also a clear breach of the operator's own Code of Conduct which EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS the mentioning of PoFA (in a PCN) in instances where PoFA cannot apply - any breach of the Code of Conduct is also a breach of the operators KADOE agreement - as a result, the keeper data released to the operator has also been misused.
Furthermore, the issues with PoFA were outlined in my original keeper appeal but again Euro Car Parks issued a response which once again mis-stated their true legal position and again implied that liability could be moved onto the keeper - this appears to illustrate the incompetence of the Euro Car Park staff who are clearly mishandling valid appeals. It also illustrates the fact that Euro Car Parks are not accessing the nature of the land before commencing their parking enforcement - as a result they are issuing unlawful and non-compliant NtKs.
The facts in the case are;
The land at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is owned by the London Borough of Redbridge.
The London Borough of Redbridge is a Council and therefore, legally, constitutes a traffic authority.
The car park is therefore council owned and, in law, represents 'a parking place provided by a traffic authority.'
It appears that Euro Car Parks have been appointed by the council to help manage the car park.
Whilst it appears that Euro Car Parks are entitled to help manage the car park, this DOES NOT automatically make it a location where PoFA can suddenly be used to invoke keeper liability.
In particular, Schedule 4 of PoFA confirms that point as Paragraph 3(1)(b) expressly excludes 'a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority' from being 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA.
The car park at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is not therefore defined as 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA and therefore liability can never be moved from the driver to the keeper as Euro Car Parks are continually stating.
I now invite POPLA to uphold this appeal.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
7
Private parking tickets / Re: £100 fine for 2 min stop
« on: Yesterday at 03:16:49 pm »
Yes.
Although IAS are unlikely to find in your favour.
This is highly unlikely to get to a court hearing if you follow advice.
Although IAS are unlikely to find in your favour.
This is highly unlikely to get to a court hearing if you follow advice.
8
Private parking tickets / Re: SNOW
« on: Yesterday at 12:17:10 pm »
There are always ground to contest.
Post up the PCN for examination - only redact personal info and leave all dates viable as this could be out of time for keeper liability.
Post up the PCN for examination - only redact personal info and leave all dates viable as this could be out of time for keeper liability.
9
Private parking tickets / Re: APCOA Parking Charge - Luton Airport
« on: Yesterday at 09:39:56 am »
Yes.
10
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59 seconds
« on: Yesterday at 09:28:20 am »
Parking Charge Reference: xxxxxxx
20th January 2026.
Parking Charge Notice appeal for Sens Close, Chester. CH1 2NR.
This appeal is made as the vehicle keeper - I was not the driver at the material time.
This appeal is made purely on the basis that no legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.
The PCN states that the 'Period of Parking' was 2 minutes and 59 seconds - this is materially incorrect since the two ANPR images on the PCN show that the vehicle was only on site for 2 minutes and 59 seconds - clearly it was not parked that entire time since it takes time to enter / park / exit etc - my point being that the parking operator is seeking to make the period of parking seem as long as possible and, as such, they clearly include periods of 'non-parking' in their calculations - I understand that IAS has a particular definition of what constitutes 'parking'?
In this instance, the driver entered the car park, found a space and promptly parked.
The driver then left the vehicle and moved across the car park to examine signage which he had spotted on arrival - I understand that there is signage in the vicinity of the gate way? This is all well inside the Code of Conduct stated period of consideration and is also a clear demonstration that 'consideration' was taking place.
The driver had been intending to visit a relative in a nearby apartment block.
On moving towards the gate way, the driver observed that there may actually be a parking space available in the nearby apartments - the driver checked and there was a space.
The driver then observed that the only method of payment open to him would involve the downloading of some kind of 'parking app' - namely; The ParkPayStay App.
The driver then rejected the operators offer of contract, returned to his vehicle and promptly exited the site - again, well within the consideration period and, once again, the drivers behaviour is completely inline with the behaviour of someone who had simply rejected the offer of contract.
The driver then parked in the next door site and accessed the apartment block.
The drivers total time on site was a mere 179 seconds - well inside the consideration period.
The drivers movements are completely supported by the operators own CCTV evidence.
Further point for the assessor;
After some online research, it has become apparent that 'I Park Services Ltd' have a good number of appeals against them on exactly the point; namely failure to apply the Code of Conduct required period of consideration - in each instance the operator comes up with some kind of highly subjective reasoning as to ignore the period of consideration - the operators behaviour is demonstrably 'predatory' in nature.
This is a clear misuse of DVLA provided Keeper data and a breach of the operators KADOE agreement.
I expect this appeal to be upheld.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
20th January 2026.
Parking Charge Notice appeal for Sens Close, Chester. CH1 2NR.
This appeal is made as the vehicle keeper - I was not the driver at the material time.
This appeal is made purely on the basis that no legitimate contract was formed between the driver and the parking operator.
The PCN states that the 'Period of Parking' was 2 minutes and 59 seconds - this is materially incorrect since the two ANPR images on the PCN show that the vehicle was only on site for 2 minutes and 59 seconds - clearly it was not parked that entire time since it takes time to enter / park / exit etc - my point being that the parking operator is seeking to make the period of parking seem as long as possible and, as such, they clearly include periods of 'non-parking' in their calculations - I understand that IAS has a particular definition of what constitutes 'parking'?
In this instance, the driver entered the car park, found a space and promptly parked.
The driver then left the vehicle and moved across the car park to examine signage which he had spotted on arrival - I understand that there is signage in the vicinity of the gate way? This is all well inside the Code of Conduct stated period of consideration and is also a clear demonstration that 'consideration' was taking place.
The driver had been intending to visit a relative in a nearby apartment block.
On moving towards the gate way, the driver observed that there may actually be a parking space available in the nearby apartments - the driver checked and there was a space.
The driver then observed that the only method of payment open to him would involve the downloading of some kind of 'parking app' - namely; The ParkPayStay App.
The driver then rejected the operators offer of contract, returned to his vehicle and promptly exited the site - again, well within the consideration period and, once again, the drivers behaviour is completely inline with the behaviour of someone who had simply rejected the offer of contract.
The driver then parked in the next door site and accessed the apartment block.
The drivers total time on site was a mere 179 seconds - well inside the consideration period.
The drivers movements are completely supported by the operators own CCTV evidence.
Further point for the assessor;
After some online research, it has become apparent that 'I Park Services Ltd' have a good number of appeals against them on exactly the point; namely failure to apply the Code of Conduct required period of consideration - in each instance the operator comes up with some kind of highly subjective reasoning as to ignore the period of consideration - the operators behaviour is demonstrably 'predatory' in nature.
This is a clear misuse of DVLA provided Keeper data and a breach of the operators KADOE agreement.
I expect this appeal to be upheld.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxx
11
Private parking tickets / Re: Padstow Parking Charge - Paid at meter, No receipt given, screen shot of debit, money not taken
« on: Yesterday at 08:20:28 am »
Nothing to do now.
Just wait.
They'll be loads of begging debt letters which can safely be ignored.
Wait for a letter before claim or similarly worded letter and we can then consider a response.
Just wait.
They'll be loads of begging debt letters which can safely be ignored.
Wait for a letter before claim or similarly worded letter and we can then consider a response.
12
Private parking tickets / Re: I Park Services - Sens Close Chester 26.12.2025 - 3 mins 59 seconds
« on: January 19, 2026, 06:20:38 pm »
You may get differing answers on this one.
Personally I'd appeal to IAS but I'd keep it dead simple. Something along the lines of;
The driver initially pulled into the car park and was considering his options when he noticed that they maybe a possibility of a space in a neighbouring car park. The driver quickly investigated this and subsequently left the car park well within the consideration period. This is completely backed up by the CCTV evidence.
If you give me 24 hours I can write a proper appeal for you?
Personally I'd appeal to IAS but I'd keep it dead simple. Something along the lines of;
The driver initially pulled into the car park and was considering his options when he noticed that they maybe a possibility of a space in a neighbouring car park. The driver quickly investigated this and subsequently left the car park well within the consideration period. This is completely backed up by the CCTV evidence.
If you give me 24 hours I can write a proper appeal for you?
13
Private parking tickets / Re: Alliance Parking @ Sea View Car Park, Polzeath in Jan 2023
« on: January 19, 2026, 04:40:38 pm »
If you use a template them you'll need to use one which mentions that you deny keeper liability due to the out of time NtK.
Alternatively, you could send something short and too the point along the lines of;
Thank you for your letter of claim - I have noted contents etc
I am the vehicle keeper.
Unfortunately your client's NtK was issued too late for there to be any transfer of liability to myself and as such I dispute your claim that I 'owe you £170' - Your letter fails to explain how liability has been transferred to me when the driver is unknown to your client.
For the purposes of clarity; there is no legal requirement for me to reveal the driver and I will not be doing so.
I am sorry that I am unable to help you further with this matter.
Best wishes,
xxxx xxxxxxx
Alternatively, you could send something short and too the point along the lines of;
Thank you for your letter of claim - I have noted contents etc
I am the vehicle keeper.
Unfortunately your client's NtK was issued too late for there to be any transfer of liability to myself and as such I dispute your claim that I 'owe you £170' - Your letter fails to explain how liability has been transferred to me when the driver is unknown to your client.
For the purposes of clarity; there is no legal requirement for me to reveal the driver and I will not be doing so.
I am sorry that I am unable to help you further with this matter.
Best wishes,
xxxx xxxxxxx
14
Private parking tickets / Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
« on: January 19, 2026, 12:50:12 pm »
I would send it.
15
Private parking tickets / Re: Airport
« on: January 19, 2026, 12:48:35 pm »Noted,
It will be interesting to see how far this goes.
I`m still looking out for any at Newcastle airport, they seem to have been silent for a while.
I don't think Newcastle Airport is VCS controlled?
It will be interesting to see how other operators get on with the Red Route / no stopping enforcement. In particular, will they try and follow the VCS 'model' of claiming contract with drivers as they enter the airport. The VCS approach has been spectacularly unsuccessful at the court hearing stage with many cases going against them on the grounds of no legitimate contract and/or totally unenforceable blanket terms.
I haven't seen any cases yet where consumer legislation has specifically been used to defeat a parking operator who tries to enforce a 'no stopping zone' but it is only a matter of time.
VCS's claim of contract (as you enter the airport) is made out of necessity rather than any legally recognised contracting process which a consumer would ordinarily encounter. In most cases I strongly suspect that drivers passing the signage would have absolutely no idea that a contract was even being offered in that split second.
In the OP's case, it seems to me that the County Court claim is a fishing exercise. As DWMB2 has shown, the PoC is defective as it states that their case is made against the vehicle keeper - obviously this is not possible at this airport location since PoFA is not available to the operator - the claimant is hoping that the driver will be revealed during the court process.
Also worth noting that the DVLA are coming under increasing pressure to tighten up their 'reasonable cause' definition on the supply keeper data to parking operators. One of the key questions being pushed forward is whether 'reasonable cause' can be used at non-PoFA locations as there can never be any transfer of liability to the keeper - therefore, why does the parking operator need the keeper details?