3. One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud  (Read 2621 times)

0 Members and 299 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
« Reply #30 on: »
I would respond as follows:

Quote
It is noted that the operator has attempted to submit further argument after my rebuttal to their prima facie case. The IAS process does not provide for continuous back-and-forth exchanges, and the operator’s attempt to reopen submissions does not strengthen their position. It merely highlights that they have still failed to address any of the substantive defects identified. The charge remains invalid for the reasons already stated, and no amount of repeated assertion alters the facts or the applicable rules.

For the avoidance of doubt, the operator has still not addressed the core issues. The Single Code of Practice definition they rely on does not override the mandatory five-minute consideration period. A vehicle recorded for only 98 seconds cannot be treated as parked in breach of terms because the driver was still within the allowed time to read the signs and decide whether to stay. The operator’s photos do not show any use of the land beyond a brief occupied stop. The Code does not permit issuing a charge during the consideration period.

The signage on site is prohibitive. It allows parking only for pre-authorised vehicles and forbids all parking, loading, unloading, idling or waiting for everyone else. This is not an offer of a contractual licence. A contract cannot be formed on prohibitive wording and no charge can arise from it.

The operator has also not provided evidence of landowner authority. A bare assertion of instruction is not proof.
The boundary between the Tesco car park and the private area is unclear. Any ambiguity must be resolved against the operator.
The Notice to Keeper cannot create keeper liability because it describes a “period of parking” that is too short to constitute parking in the ordinary sense and is entirely within the mandatory consideration period.

The operator’s repeated assertion that the comments “do not affect the validity of the charge” is not evidence. They have not rebutted any of the substantive points raised. The charge is not valid and should be cancelled.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
« Reply #31 on: »
Honestly this is so infuriating. Where is the common sense?

Quote
The 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.
Logged
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
« Reply #32 on: »
Stop fretting about the kangaroo court decision of the IAS. They are a corrupt and mendacious part of the IPC, the very same ATA that the parking operator is a member of.

That rejection is clear evidence of how dishonest the IAS assessors are. Besides falsely claiming to be legally trained to solicitor level or higher, it is clear that this lying toad would fit in to a North Koran court system. They are NOT legally trained and tht is why their decisions are anonymous and unsigned.

Here is a graphic that show why the IPC and the IAS are judge, jury and executioner, all in one. Ignore their decision.



The decision is not binding on you and you do to pay anything.

All this means is that now you will start to receive useless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Debt collectors are powerless because they are not a party to the the contract allegedly breached by the driver. All they can do is try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) that gives you 30 days to pay. Ignore everything else that comes from a useless debt collector.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2025, 07:42:00 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud
« Reply #33 on: »
Nothing to worry about with this one - their case is very weak.

Further evidence that the adjudicators at IAS are not legally trained.

Most of the adjudication is just wrong.

You are entitled to a period of consideration - glancing at your mobile phone does not detract from that - the adjudicator is simply looking for any opportunity to disregard the correct rules.

His comments on what constitutes 'parking' are also questionable - again the adjudicator is simply looking for the best possible interpretation of parking from the operators perspective - the courts have actually determined that brief stops do not constitute parking.

The adjudicators comments on 'instant contracting' are just laughable and would have no chance in any court hearing.


Just sit back now and play the process. Nothing to worry about.
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »
  3. One Parking Solution NtK - Vehicle not pre-authorised (No e-permit) - Stratford Road, Stroud