Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hey all,

I’d like some objective opinions on a private parking ticket I’ve been given.
The layout:
I regularly shop at Seoul Plaza on a busy street. There are two vertical parking bays right outside, clearly marked with white lines. Just above those two bays, there’s space where a third car could fit, but this space isn’t marked with white lines. I parked in that spot.
There’s a sign on a pole next to it saying “Private Land – Parking Charge £100.” However, the same style of signs are also drilled into the wall of the shop itself (which is part of a larger building). Because of that, and the fact the two marked bays are obviously for customer use, I genuinely believed the unmarked space was also part of the shop’s customer parking. To make matters more confusing, I’d previously asked cashiers in the shop where to park and was told to park opposite the shop — which is exactly where these bays are.
The enforcement:
As soon as I pulled in, a guy in a van immediately started taking photos — one of my car, one of me exiting the vehicle, and even photos of me and my partner walking away towards the shop (back view, not face). He was taking pictures for total of 5 minutes (I left shop after 7 mins according to my bank payment and the start of his picture taking). If it had been in good faith, he could have just asked me to move, which I would have happily done.
The visit:
I was parked there for roughly 7 minutes while shopping at Seoul Plaza. I acted in good faith as a customer of the shop, using what I genuinely thought was customer parking.
The appeal so far:
I appealed to the parking company on the basis that:
* The layout is misleading (the unmarked space looks like part of the same bays).
* I was a genuine customer, shopping in good faith.
* Their operative acted predatory, taking photos instantly.
* Photographing me personally was unnecessary and intrusive.
They rejected it, stating “NO PERMIT, this space is not part of shop car park.” I’ve now escalated to the IAS, but as much as I keep reading about it, I realise tie IAS is useless and will side with the prive land owner.



Because I have appealed I have now lost the discount period.

Company issueing PCN: Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd.

I parked between the white line and pole:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4458258,-1.9320858,3a,75y,46.87h,56.66t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWECOZw1OP8HGkEJQvDtHtg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D33.34366392720621%26panoid%3DWECOZw1OP8HGkEJQvDtHtg%26yaw%3D46.866971643756756!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I would appreciate your advise.

Hey,

thanks for replying, please see the links.

https://ibb.co/KpSd69jD
https://ibb.co/8DXFyTd4
https://ibb.co/HTcbbrLR
https://ibb.co/fL424ym
https://ibb.co/TNtMdYw
https://ibb.co/tp3T1bwd
https://ibb.co/9H011Qq0
https://ibb.co/dJ0CQxV5
https://ibb.co/nMh0289M
https://ibb.co/vxm6Tgfw
https://ibb.co/cKssqF2K
https://ibb.co/fY9cfKm5
https://ibb.co/Ld0Yv7Vb
https://ibb.co/mC42cCJc
https://ibb.co/4Z6G3h1L
https://ibb.co/ZRzZQRxj
https://ibb.co/JRz8m97k
https://ibb.co/ccfwtXNh
https://ibb.co/cXNX4KQQ

I have stated I am a driver unfortunately. My close friend is a keeper, therefore I wanted to take the liability of her.

But the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was addressed to the Keeper. If you are not the Keeper, how can you appeal a charge not addressed to you? If the Keeper is not the driver, you have managed to FUBAR what would have been a simple process.

All the Keeper had to do was refer PPE to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971) and carried on with their life. The Keeper could not be liable in law. Only the driver and until you blabbed your identity, they had no idea who that was.

Anyway, you are where you are and the IAS will not find in your favour. Do not pay anything. The IAS decision is not binding on you. You can safely ignore all subsequent debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you eventually receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we can advise on how to proceed from there.

When you receive the IAS rejection of your appeal, you can have a bit of fun with this cabal of incestuous firm (IPC/IAS), you could try sending the following to The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) – Head of Adjudication/Head of Legal:

Subject: IAS decision – proof of assessor’s legal qualification and authorship

Dear Sirs,

PCN: [PCN ref]
Vehicle: [VRM]
Site/Date: [Site / Date]

Your decision letter asserts that the adjudicator is “legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor)”. You also rely on the proposition that “it is a criminal offence to impersonate a solicitor”, yet the adjudicator remains anonymous. That position is untenable. A representation about professional status must be capable of verification.

Accordingly, please provide—within 14 days—verifiable proof of the decision-maker’s legal qualification and authorship in this case, or confirm that the statement about “legally qualified” assessors is not relied upon in relation to this decision.

Required minimum particulars (this case only):

• The full name of the adjudicator who decided my appeal.
• Whether they are a solicitor or barrister.
• Their regulator and public register details sufficient for independent verification:

• If a solicitor: SRA roll number and current practising status on the SRA register (on the date of decision).
• If a barrister: BSB register entry and current practising status (on the date of decision).

• A statement signed by your Head of Legal/Head of Adjudication confirming that the named individual personally determined this appeal and that their practising status (above) was valid on the decision date.
• Your conflicts policy and confirmation that no conflict of interest existed for the named adjudicator in relation to the operator.

If you maintain a policy of anonymity, then at the very least provide a signed attestation from your Head of Legal/Head of Adjudication (with their own SRA/BSB registration details) certifying that:

• The named decision-maker is identified on your internal records;
• That person is (and was on the decision date) a current solicitor or barrister; and
• They personally authored the decision in my case.

Please note: a generic assertion that “the IAS has seen” qualifications, or reliance on undisclosed material, is insufficient. A representation that an adjudicator is “legally qualified” is a specific, verifiable factual claim. If it cannot be independently verified for the individual who decided this case, it risks constituting a misleading commercial practice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC, Part 4). The CMA can now directly enforce consumer law and impose significant penalties (including up to 10% of global turnover) for breaches. I therefore require verifiable particulars of the decision-maker’s legal qualification, or your explicit withdrawal of that representation in this case.

If you refuse disclosure, please state the precise legal basis for refusal and whether you contend that anonymisation overrides the need to substantiate a professional status claim relied upon in the decision. In that event, please also confirm whether IAS withdraws or disapplies the “legally qualified” claim in relation to my case.

Absent satisfactory verification, I reserve my position to:

• refer this to the Competition and Markets Authority for potential enforcement under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (misleading commercial practices);
• notify the SRA or BSB (as applicable) if professional status has been misrepresented;
• make a report to Trading Standards regarding misleading claims presented to consumers; and
• place your response (or non-response) before the court if proceedings are issued.

Please provide the verification requested within 14 days or confirm that you withdraw the “legally qualified adjudicator” representation in this case.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

You won't be paying a penny of you just follow the advice.

Debt collectors will not appear at your door. They will send letters, that's it.

The parking company have up to 6 years from the date of the parking event to issue a court claim, but it would be very unusual to take that long. 12/18 months is not unusual.

And in your experience, how often do these companies actually take people to court?

The company in this case aren't one of the bigger ones so it's hard to say for them specifically. My general advice is to presume every case will go to court and prepare accordingly. If it doesn't, great. If it does, you're prepared, up for the fight, and know what you're dealing with. We cannot offer any guarantees but we have a good success rate.

That make sense thanks. I couldn't help myself to visit the "crime scene" and read all the signs. I have found that the 2 white bays also have a private land sign and it states that the parking is for seoul plaza customers which I was. Unfortunately it states clearly that you have to park in the two marked areas. From far It looks like all the other signs that were there. There is another sign below it, which states "Only 2 parking spaced available: Seoul plaza customers only" However it is hang quite low, which was then obstructed by another car at the time of my visit. I am unsure whether this "evidence" will help me or work in their favour. What do you guys think? Is this helpful at all?

The one I park next to:
https://ibb.co/QGfp2jy

In between two legit parking spaces:
https://ibb.co/39BwXw6n

The one obstructed during my visit by a higher car:
https://ibb.co/d43qrTFk

Car picture:
https://ibb.co/TNtMdYw

the one hanged opposite parking spaces on the shop wall:
https://ibb.co/JWZh45XK

Haven't thought of it that way. I will ask my partner, as she know a cashier that was recently hired. Maybe she will be able to help.