Thanks for all the guidance, I've put together the following responses, mainly be referring to previous advice from you good folk. I am not very experienced at this and do need help on point 7, also can you please advise if my responses are on point?
1. The Sxxxxx Cxxxx Residential Car Park is private land and motorists are allowed to park their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
APP: Once again, The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property associated with the parking space in question. An Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space. The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage, terms, or scheme operated by the parking company. The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use, and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed obligations.
2. The signage on site states, ‘Parking is strictly reserved for valid parking permit holders Only' and ‘A valid parking permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen of the vehicle with all details clearly visible at all times.' The signage makes it clear that anyone observed to be in contravention of these Terms and Conditions will become liable for a PCN.
APP: Signage is irrelevant, VCS is not a party in the AST and therefore cannot impose terms and conditions on parking.
3. Site photos supplied show that the signage can be seen throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
APP: Once again, signage is irrelevant as VCS are not a party in the AST
4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by POs who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions. Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead, a Notice to Keeper is subsequently issued by post, this practice falls in line with the process and procedures as per site management using ANPR technology.
APP: Enforcement for parking is solely in line with the AST.
5. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds and when digitally recording the contravention the PO noted ‘Vehicle not displaying a valid parking permit.'
APP: The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred. The vehicle was parked in the Appellant's allocated space. A valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although the operator's photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach of any enforceable term.
6. The contravention photographs supplied, which are time and date stamped corroborate the PO's observations, clearly show that no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle and highlight the proximity of the vehicle to contractual VCS signage.
APP: As the photos were taken from a distance, they do not show the missing permit which is always present in the car as a courtesy, further there are no signs.
7. Both the period of observation by the PO and our photographic evidence comply with the Single Code of Practice.
APP: Need help on how to respond to this point? Do they comply with the Single Coe of Practice?
8. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which where explained in the formal Notice sent on 24/04/2025. We note that the appellant has also declined to name the driver of their vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require those details.
APP: The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H].
Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1). No contract could have been formed without first allowing the driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when the motorist entered the car park. When entering this private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the terms and conditions stated that vehicles must clearly display valid permit otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice.
APP: VCS cannot form a contract with the appellant as the appellant has an AST in place granting them rights to park in their allocated space without the need of a valid permit.
10. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site, including where the appellant parked their vehicle was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal.
APP: VCS needs to demonstrate how its “authority” to manage parking has been incorporated into the residents’ AST
11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is clearly displayed on all EPS signage for any motorist experiencing difficulty or who has any questions or concerns. This was not utilised by the appellant. If the terms and conditions were in any way unclear to the appellant, or they were unsure if they applied to them, they had the option of contacting us for advice.
APP: As an existing AST is in place which allows the appellant to park in their allocated space, using this number is completely unnecessary and irrelevant.
12. The appellant has presented no evidence of either possessing a valid permit or of residency of an adjacent Signal Court property. However such evidence would not nullify the facts of their contravention or their liability for the charge. The terms and conditions for parking on this private land are clearly advertised by the signage on site.
APP: A valid permit, though not necessary, is always on display on the vehicle, no evidence was requested to show this permit, if it was requested it a copy of it would have been presented to VCS.
13. The appellant became liable for a Charge Notice as per the Terms and Conditions displayed by parking without displaying a valid permit.
APP: Once again, as the appellant has an AST in place for their allocated space a valid permit is not needed.
