Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The terms and conditions of the car park are displayed on signage in prominent locations thoughout the car park.  Any vehicle found to breach these terms and conditions will be subject to a Contractual Parking Charge Notice.  Photographic evidence of the breach of contractual term is avaliable by request.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. You are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when you are visiting the site.

Our signage complies with the International Parking Community's Code of Practice.

We respond as follows :

1.      In relation to your suggestion that your parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss we confirm we have obtained legal advice in this regard and have been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they are in line with the Independent Parking Community guidelines, and that they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but they are likely to amount to liquidated damages (where the issue of pre-estimate of loss is not relevant). This is because the Court’s position is that where the parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract - which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage - a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is classed as liquidated damages.  Either way, our parking charges are fully enforceable and no not amount to a “penalty”.  You should also be aware that in accordance with the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank the onus of proving that an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party against whom the parking charge is claimed);

2.      If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal the IAS will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of your first rejection letter. Please visit www.theias.org for full details.

3.      Again, you do not specify in which way you allege we not have authority to issue charges over the land where the car park is located.  However, we can assure you that the parking management at the car park where you received a parking charge has been contracted to us.  Again, we are able to confirm that we have been successfully audited by an independent assessor on behalf of the International Parking Community.

Please supply copies of your receipts for the day in question or your bank statement with your private details erased showing the transaction(s) on our client's site.  As a gesture of goodwill we may re-evaluate your appeal.  Please do not send in original documents as they will not be returned.

We have taken into account your appeal and requested additional information from you to investigate further. Your appeal will only be re-considered if you provide this information within 14 days, otherwise no further investigation will be undertaken.

Have you named the driver or did you appeal as the keeper?

IAS is typically a waste of time.

I am writing to challenge the absurd parking charge you have issued, which cites "Term breached: Parked and left site Central Six Retail Park, Warwick Rd, Coventry, CV3 6TA.." The lack of specificity in your allegation (Parked and left site) is staggering. Who allegedly left the site? Was it the driver, a passenger, or perhaps someone entirely unrelated? You have presented no evidence of any breach, let alone identifying who supposedly breached this arbitrary term.

1. Lack of Evidence and Specificity:

The Notice to Keeper includes photos of a vehicle parked in a marked bay. Nothing more. No evidence of any person leaving the site. Your allegation is so vague and ill-defined that it would struggle to hold up under any scrutiny, let alone in court.

2. Contractual Terms Only Bind the Driver:

Even if you had managed to capture photos of someone leaving the site (and I'm still waiting to see any evidence), you fail to understand that passengers are not bound by your ridiculous terms. Only the driver enters into any so-called contract, and you cannot prove the driver left the site. If you think this baseless claim will survive any legal challenge, I suggest you reconsider your intellectual approach.

3. Undefined "Site" Boundaries:

It is a sign of intellectual malnourishment that you expect anyone to adhere to rules regarding a “site” when you have failed to define what the boundaries of the “site” are. The ambiguity in your signage would be comical if it weren’t an attempt to scam drivers with made-up breaches.

4. Your Operative's Inaction:

If your operative who took the photos witnessed someone "leaving the site," why did they not inform the driver that a breach was about to occur? The entire basis of this charge is not only malicious but stinks of an attempt to scam money. If you intend to claim this nonsense is enforceable, you clearly need to re-educate your staff on the basics of contractual law and fairness.

5. No Loss or Damage:

You’ve suffered no loss. The vehicle was parked in a marked bay, and there is no evidence that any contract was breached. This £100 charge is nothing more than a penalty dressed up to look legitimate, and it would be laughed out of court.

It is clear this charge is unenforceable. Should you reject this challenge and try to escalate this matter, be advised that I am more than prepared to expose the intellectual and legal deficiencies of this case in front of a judge. I expect this nonsense to be cancelled immediately.

Always choose other.