Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

I'd change the wording of this - it could be read as you saying you agree that the parking company's enforcement procedures are in line with your AST.

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?

Did you dispute this in your appeal? If not, I'd say it isn't relevant. If you did, then take a look at the Code of Practice and see what it says on evidence and observation periods.

You've covered the points very well. However, I think there may be a character limit for the rebuttal and I'd suggest you submit your response as follows:

APPELLANT REBUTTAL TO VCS OPERATOR EVIDENCE

This rebuttal responds concisely to each of VCS's points, which are largely repetitive, legally flawed, and ignore fundamental principles of land law and contract. For ease of reference, the operator’s assertions are addressed by number.

1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13 – Signage and Alleged Contract
The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the flat associated with the parking bay in question. Their Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) grants an exclusive right to use the allocated parking space. The tenancy agreement contains no clause requiring a permit, nor does it incorporate or reference any third-party scheme. It overrides any alleged contract based on signage. VCS is a stranger to the AST and cannot impose new terms on the Appellant's use of land they already have rights over. This is settled legal principle: a third party cannot override superior rights held under a lease.

4 – Enforcement Method
Irrelevant. The Appellant's rights to park derive from the AST. Any purported “enforcement” is ultra vires where a pre-existing right to park applies.

5 & 6 – Observations and Photographs
The Appellant’s vehicle was parked in their own allocated bay, and a permit was displayed (as a courtesy, not as a requirement). The operator’s photos do not prove otherwise and were taken from a distance that does not fairly evidence the dashboard. Regardless, no contravention can exist where no contractual obligation applies.

7 – Compliance with the Single Code of Practice
The Single Code of Practice requires a minimum consideration period before a contract can be formed. The Appellant was parked in their own bay with a right to do so, so no consideration period is applicable. However, the operator has not shown that the vehicle remained on site beyond that minimum, nor that any signage was capable of forming a binding contract. The claim fails on both formation and standing.

8 – Keeper Liability under PoFA
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of parking. A timestamp is not a period. If the assessor is, as claimed, a solicitor or barrister, they will be familiar with the persuasive decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], which confirmed that PoFA requires an actual duration of parking, not a mere moment in time.

Furthermore, even if PoFA had been complied with (which it has not), the Appellant’s tenancy grants them a primary and exclusive right to park in their space. No third-party operator can override that right. The land may be “relevant” under PoFA, but keeper liability is void where the underlying right to park already exists independently of the operator's scheme.

10 – Operator Contract
The Appellant put VCS to strict proof that their authority to manage parking on the site includes the legal right to override a residential tenancy agreement and impose terms on tenants. The operator's claim to possess a landowner contract is not enough; they must show how their terms were incorporated into the Appellant's lease, which they have not done.

11 – 24-Hour Helpline
Irrelevant. The Appellant has no need to call a helpline to confirm the scope of their own tenancy agreement, which already includes a right to park.

Conclusion
This charge is fundamentally flawed. VCS has failed to establish any binding contract with the Appellant, has no standing to override tenancy rights, and has issued a Notice to Keeper that does not meet the statutory requirements of PoFA. The appeal must be upheld.

So VCS have responded as follows:

1. The time and date contravention photographs clearly show that at the time observation by the PO no valid permit was displayed in the windscreen of the appellant's vehicle, as per the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions of parking.

2. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by implications a motorist enters into a contract with VCS and accepts the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. The appellant's residency of an adjacent property did not nullify their only park in compliance of the terms and conditions.

3. The NTK complies with the POFA 2012. The PCN was issued for a parking period related contravention; it was issued for the contravention parking without displaying a valid permit.

Should I respond to this by emphasising my above points made previously, as theirs just seem to be repetitive?

You can respond with the following:

Appellant's Rebuttal to Operator's Comments

1. No Permit Displayed

The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the space in question, with a tenancy that grants exclusive use of the parking bay. There is no requirement in the tenancy agreement to display a permit, and any prior display was purely out of courtesy. VCS is not a party to that tenancy and cannot unilaterally impose terms upon a resident’s demised property. The Appellant’s right to park derives from a superior interest in land and cannot be fettered by VCS signage.

2. Implied Agreement & Contract

A resident cannot be said to enter into a new contract for something they already possess via their tenancy—namely, the exclusive right to park. There is no consideration and no contractual intention. The signage is irrelevant to the Appellant’s rights, and any such attempt by VCS to override a pre-existing tenancy fails at law. Forcing a resident to ‘agree’ to new third-party terms is legally incoherent and a well-rehearsed fiction in such residential contexts.

3. PoFA Compliance

The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it does not state any “period of parking”. A single timestamp is not a period. This failure alone invalidates any attempt to hold the Keeper liable. If the adjudicator is indeed a qualified solicitor or barrister—as claimed by the IAS—they should be familiar with the persuasive appellate ruling in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], in which the judge confirmed that a specific period of parking is mandatory for PoFA compliance. VCS has provided no such period, only a single observation time.

4. Consideration Period Absent – No Contract Formed

The Appellant reiterates that under Section 5.1 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, a motorist must be afforded a minimum consideration period of at least 5 minutes to review the displayed terms before any contract can be formed. This is not optional—it is a binding requirement under the Code of Practice. A contract cannot be formed merely by conduct in the absence of clear evidence that the driver had a fair opportunity to seek out, read and accept the terms. The operator has produced only a single timestamp, which fails to evidence any period of parking and does not demonstrate that a consideration period took place. If the assessor is legally qualified, as claimed, they will recognise that the absence of a consideration period is fatal to any claim of contractual formation, and therefore the charge is unenforceable.

A further response from VCS, it seems to be a battle of attrition where they keep repeating same/similar statements.

Apologies from me, as I did not notice the photos they had shared (attached), do these prove their point 2? 

1. We note that parking operators are entitled to up to six months from the date of a parking event in order to lawfully request keeper details from the DVLA for the purposes of lawfully issuing a charge, and subsequently up to six years to pursue the outstanding sum of this charge. We have adhered to this timescale.

2. The supplied contravention photographs are time and date stamped and confirm that the appellant's vehicle was observed in situ for 11 minutes and 39 seconds before the PCN was issued. This was a fair and reasonable period.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for this, I will respond with this information. It seems the photos were there and accessible online all along, I didn't notice them, however as you state they are not written in the NtK.

Thanks, sent my rebuttal, let's see what nonsense I get back.

As you can see, the IAS appeal decision is not just flawed—it’s a complete mockery. It pretends to be a fair and impartial process, but in reality, it’s a sham designed to rubber-stamp whatever the parking operator says.

First, the so-called adjudicator doesn’t even have the courage to put their name on the decision. That alone tells you everything you need to know about the credibility of this process. If they were truly legally trained and confident in their reasoning, why hide behind anonymity? Even in the most basic legal settings, decisions are signed. Here, it’s just a faceless pleb making unchallengeable rulings.

Worse still, the appellant is denied access to the very evidence the adjudicator claims to have reviewed. The operator’s contract, the supposed landowner authority, and the site map are all mentioned—but never shown. The operator gets to see everything the appellant submits, but the appellant isn’t allowed to see the evidence used against them. That’s not adjudication. That’s exactly like a secret trial. Even authoritarian regimes often give the accused more rights than this.

The legal reasoning is laughable. The adjudicator admits that leasehold rights would normally override parking signs, but then claims that by displaying a permit, the appellant somehow gave up those rights. That’s nonsense. You can’t waive a legal right just by trying to comply with a system forced on you. It’s like saying if you pay a ransom, you’ve agreed to be kidnapped.

The double standards are glaringly obvious. The appellant is criticised for not providing a full tenancy agreement, but the operator’s so-called landowner authority is accepted without question. No scrutiny, no transparency. Just blind acceptance of whatever the operator says.

The adjudicator also brushes off the argument about PoFA compliance with barely a sentence. They claim the operator only needs to show that no permit was displayed, not a period of parking. That’s simply wrong. PoFA has strict requirements, and they’ve been completely ignored here.

This isn’t an appeal process. It’s a performance. A show. A fake process designed to look fair while always siding with the operator. The IAS is not a real tribunal. It’s a private complaints handler funded by the very companies it’s supposed to oversee. Its decisions aren’t binding, they aren’t transparent, and they certainly aren’t credible.

Honestly, a trial in North Korea would offer more rights than this. At least there, you’d know who your judge is.

Stop worrying. They absolutely do not "have a case". This will never see the inside of a courtroom. Just ignore all the debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out go ignorance and fear.

Come back when you get a Letter of Claim (LoC).