Author Topic: Elite Parking Management - Parked in Contractor/Visitor Bay without valid permit - British Estate  (Read 1484 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Choose "other", the text of your appeal covers the grounds.

Thanks! will it suffice if I simply upload a pic of the windscreen ticket and the rejection letter from Elite?

I wouldn't upload either of those, as I'm not sure the contents of either are relevant to your appeal. Your appeal is on the grounds that, following a windscreen ticket, Elite have failed to issue a Notice to Keeper. If Elite want to provide a copy of that windscreen ticket they can do.

Update - Elite have uploaded their "evidence". The Operator Case Summary given is: "The motorist has said The driver has not been identified and will not be identified. There is no legal obligation on a Keeper to name the driver and there is no lawful presumption and can be no inference that the Keeper was the driver. However, it is down to the keeper of the vehicle to inform us of the driver of the vehicle so we can process a transfer of liability. If they do not follow this procedure the keeper of the vehicle i then liable."

What do I need to do now?

Thanks in advance 

Please show us a redacted version of their evidence pack.

Sorry for the delay - please find redacted version of their evidence pack here

Would really appreciate any steer.

Thanks

Their evidence pack lacks any Notice to Keeper, as expected.

You can possibly reply using the following:

Quote
RESPONSE TO OPERATOR EVIDENCE

The operator has not proven compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8.

A windscreen Notice to Driver was issued on 22 November 2025. Where an NtD has been given and the driver is not identified, PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 requires service of a compliant Notice to Keeper within the statutory day 29 to day 56 window. The operator has not produced any NtK in evidence.

Without compliance with PoFA, there is no lawful basis to pursue the Keeper. The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and the operator may not rely on assumption or inference.

The appeal must therefore be upheld because the person being pursued cannot be liable for the charge in law.

Conclusion

The operator has ignored and failed to rebut the main ground: the operator has failed to produce or evidence service of any Notice to Keeper as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 and is put to strict proof of posting. The driver is unidentified. The appeal must be allowed.