Show Posts - milkywaycartwheelbatman

Does "warning notice of transfer to solicitors" count?

Redacted letters:https://ibb.co/6RJf7ZKyhttps://ibb.co/SD5c29zWYour support is appreciated!

RK has now received two follow up letters, most recent of which is from ZZPS stating:QuoteWe have previously written to you requesting payment of the balance noted above. You have chosen to ignore our attempts to resolve this and therefore, left with no alternative, we will pass this case to GCTT Certified Enforcement Agents unless you contact us within 7 days to pay the amount outstanding or to agree a suitable repayment plan.

Honestly this is so infuriating. Where is the common sense?QuoteThe adjudicator made their decision on 29/12/2025 16:59:33.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.A number of images have been provided to me by the P.O which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the parking operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land. If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have accepted them immediately.In this case, the Appellant made no effort to read the signage. The CCTV shows that they remained in the vehicle, looking at their mobile phone. They were therefore not considering the terms and conditions of parking and are not entitled to a free period of parking.The courts have interpreted parking as including stopping, so long as the vehicle is stationary and in a fixed position for a period of time, no matter how short or whether the vehicle remains occupied or vacant. I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked for the reasons stated above.The NTK was validly served and the specified period of parking was from 12:46:33 to 12:48:11.I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the parking operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

The only addional thing I can think to say, in relation to the consideration period expiring:QuoteIt is important to note that where there is evidence the consideration period has expired the minimum period of time for the consideration is not relevant however, the operator should retain evidence to show how the consideration period had ended.It's not possible to assert that the driver had accepted the terms on the basis the a passenger enters the vehicle. The driver can have read the terms, decided not to agree with them, and request that the passenger returns to the vehicle so as to leave within the consideration period.

QuoteWe re-iterate our prima facie comments;The appellants comments do not affect the validity of the charge,The Single code of practise defines being parked as a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving with a note that a vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle and/or turned off the ignition.The vehicle has parked in contravention to the terms and therefore a charge is now due I have the option to update and add more comments or refer the case to the arbitrator

I have the opportunity to update the appeal so I will add the comments from @b789 for burden of proof

Here's the update from the operator on the IASQuoteThe operator made their Prima Facie Case on 19/11/2025 14:08:01.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 30/10/2025.A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.The ticket was issued on 25/10/2025.The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.The charge is based in Contract.The operator made the following comments...We note the appellants comments, however it does not exempt them from the terms and conditions of the site. We are instructed by the freehold landowner to enforce parking on site in accordance with the displayed terms. There are numerous signs on site and It is the motorists responsibility when parking on private land to review the terms and conditions of the site and park accordingly. The displayed terms state that parking is only permitted for pre-authorised Autodeals vehicles. The exemption data shows that the vehicle was not pre-authorised and therefore was not permitted to park on site.We note the appellants comments, however they do not affect the validity of the charge.The contravention photos provided show that the appellant parked on site. After a period of time a passenger is seen entering the vehicle with goods before the vehicle proceeds to leave. The appellant has therefore parked and made use of the land.The appellant makes reference to a consideration period. A consideration period is afforded to every motorists to review the terms and conditions of a site and decide whether to park. It is not for motorists to make use of the land. By parking and making use of the facilities the appellant has parked and accepted the displayed terms and therefore is no longer afforded a consideration period.All notices were sent in accordance with POFA and therefore the registered keeper can be held liable.By parking on site and making use of the facilities without being pre-authorised the appellant is in direct contravention to the terms and conditions of the site and therefore contractually agree to pay a parking charge.

Not sure if I can update my appeal now because I was advised to appeal with the same points as the OPS appeal.

Quoteutter brown stuffYeah it felt very copy/paste pre-canned BS.

OK, rejected. Not a surprise I suppose, and fails to address most of the points in the appeal.QuoteThank you for your appeal received on 09/11/2025 regarding the above parking charge reference. Theappeals team have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made.This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the multiple date/time stamped pictures gathered atthe time of event, along with any applicable comments from the enforcement team, weighted against anyrelevant and fully substantiated mitigating circumstances that may have been supplied with this appeal.Reason for issue: Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit) / Vehicle not Pre-Authorised (No E-Permit)It’s important to understand that that parking on private land that is contracted to and managed by OneParking Solution (OPS) is not a right, its conditional, the (T&C’s) apply to all users of the site and are fullyand clearly displayed on the parking signs (“The Parking Contract”).Whilst a consideration period is typically afforded to the driver to read the parking T&C’s sign they musteither comply with the T&C’s or remove the vehicle from site, a grace/consideration period is not a free parking period and will not apply if the driver is making use of the land, in addition choosing to not read theT&C’s of parking is not considered a mitigating circumstance it’s a choice.When the driver decided to park and/or remain on the contacted land (“The Site”) whilst failing to complywith the clearly displayed T&C’s the driver automatically entered into a contractual agreement with OPSand agreed to pay the amount stated on the parking contract to The Creditor (OPS).At the time the vehicle was parked on site it was not pre-authorised to do so as the vehicle wasn'tregistered on the E-Permit system.The appeals team are writing to inform you that the appeal has been unsuccessful. The driver failed topark the vehicle in accordance with the clearly displayed T&C’s, additionally the appellant has failed tosubstantiate and/or provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.As the passenger made use of the land this Parking Charge has been issued.The internal appeals team find this parking charge to be issued correctly, we must advise you that oncethe discounted settlement rate (if applicable) passes it will not be offered again, you have now reached theend of our internal appeals procedure. You may now either pay the amount due OR appeal further withthe Independent Appeals Service.If you still believe that the parking charge was issued incorrectly, then you may appeal further to theIndependent Appeals Service (IAS). You must submit an appeal directly to them online using the followinglink: https://www.theias.org/appealIf you wish to appeal to the IAS, you should ensure to do so within 28 days of the date of this letter.Please note, that should you choose to use the IAS, you will automatically lose the opportunity to pay thediscounted rate of the charge. If you appeal to the IAS and then subsequently pay the charge prior to theappeal being determined, then the appeal will be cancelled, and you will not be given a further opportunityto contest this charge.If you are not appealing to the IAS, you are now required to make a payment of £60 to reach us by26/11/2025 or £100 to reach us by 10/12/2025 to avoid this charge being passed on to a debt resolutionfirm, and/or to avoid county court proceedings. Please be advised that any further action will incuradditional costs.Payments can be made using a debit or credit card calling the automated payment line on 0333 0063428 or paying online at www.oneparkingsolution.co.uk please note OPS do not accept AmericanExpress (AMEX), the payee will need the parking charge reference number and the vehicle registrationmark (VRM) to use the digital payment services.Alternatively, payments can be made by cheque or postal order made payable to One Parking SolutionLimited, it is recommended that all post is sent recorded delivery to the following address:Payment Processing DepartmentOne Parking Solution Limited95 Arundel RoadWorthingWest SussexBN13 3EUPlease ensure you write the parking charge reference number and vehicle registration clearly on thereverse, it is advised that you do not send cash through the post, all postal payments that arrive bechecked and verified against the date of sending on the envelope.Please note that we are unable to take telephone conversations regarding appeals.The internal appeals process is full and final, and we are unable to issue any further correspondenceregarding this matter

Wow. Thank you, this is very comprehensive. Should I include all these points in my appeal?

The passenger got out when the car was not in the monitored area, then the driver reversed into the monitored area and the passenger returned to the car. So there’s no view of the passenger getting out - it could be viewed as picking someone up

Not obstructing anything or stopped in a hatched area.Yes, they have photographs of the passenger returning to the car.

Sorry.Here are the image links. Pretty sure I've redacted correctlyhttps://ibb.co/TM1tFW5yhttps://ibb.co/SwxRtmzshttps://ibb.co/RJ7tBSF