-
PCN - School Car Park Over Stayed without Registering.
Posted by LondonTraveller84 on 30 Jul, 2025 23:46 -
Hi All,
First private PCN, may have to pay but thought I'd get your advice before I do.
The primary schools parking is now managed by ' ' and there is a free period (I believe 30 minutes) during school pickup and drops, if its any longer you have to go into the main office and register your VRN on the tablet. On the last day my wife ended up staying a 37minutes and forgot to put the VRN in and has now received the attached.
We are unable to call the school to ask if they can cancel as the schools are now closed.
Is there any valid and genuine way to appeal this or not?
Regards
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Is this a private school or council?
-
-
IMO, assuming the car was parked within the signed perimeter of the school, and therefore on school grounds, then IMO this is not 'relevant land'.
Cranbrook Primary would appear to be a 'community school' owned and maintained by the 'local authority':
https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/schools/admission-arrangements-2024-25/
https://www.gov.uk/types-of-school
3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)....
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
control.
(2)In sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
.........;
“traffic authority” means each of the following—
(a)
(b)
;
(c)
;
(d)
..;
(e)
the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
OP, don't go to the school, go to the council. Get written confirmation as to the legal status of Cranbrook Primary School and who owns the land and buildings. -
-
Cranbrook Primary School is a community school under the control of the London Borough of Redbridge. It is not an academy or independent school, and therefore its land is under statutory control.
Since Cranbrook Primary School is a local authority-maintained community school, its land is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA. This means the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper under PoFA Schedule 4.
As CPM is relying on PoFA to pursue the keeper (rather than the driver), their claim is legally flawed. You can challenge the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the land is not relevant under PoFA, and therefore keeper liability does not apply.
The Keeper must always refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
I advise you send the following as your appeal from the Keeper:QuoteSubject: Formal Challenge to Parking Charge 70009722 – Invalid Reliance on PoFA
To Whom It May Concern,
I am responding as the Registered Keeper (RK) to Parking Charge Notice 70009722, issued as a Notice to Keeper (NtK) in relation to an alleged contravention on 18 July 2025 at Cranbrook Primary School, The Drive, Ilford, IG1 3PS.
Your NtK explicitly invokes paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), asserting a right to recover the unpaid charge from the registered keeper. This reliance is legally flawed.
Cranbrook Primary School is a community school under the control of the London Borough of Redbridge. As such, the land on which the vehicle was parked is subject to statutory control and does not meet the definition of “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA. Keeper liability under PoFA applies ONLY to land that is privately owned and NOT subject to statutory control.
Therefore, your attempt to transfer liability to the keeper is invalid. You are required to cancel this charge immediately. Any continued pursuit of this notice will be considered an attempt to misrepresent legal rights and will be reported to the relevant authorities, including the DVLA and the ICO, for breach of data handling obligations.
I require written confirmation that this charge has been cancelled. No further correspondence will be entered into unless you provide compelling evidence that the land in question is relevant under PoFA—which, given the school's status, you cannot.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Just be aware that CPM and any other IPC member firm will reject any appeal and the secondary appeal service, the IAS, is also likely to do the same as they are nothing but a Kangaroo court. However, you have to go through the motions.
It will also involve some useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
The most likely outcome of this will be an eventual county court claim which will never reach a hearing as it would be either struck out or discontinued. Unfortunately, the process is prolonged and will take anything from 9 months to over a year to conclude.
However, if you follow the advice you receive here, you will not be paying a penny to CPM and you are likely to learn a lot about your rights and how to defend them.
-
-
I have just submitted the following FoI request to foi@redbridge.gov.ukQuote
Dear FOI Team,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request the following information regarding parking enforcement at Cranbrook Primary School, The Drive, Ilford, IG1 3PS:
Has the London Borough of Redbridge, or any delegated authority thereof, contracted UK Car Park Management (CPM) to operate parking enforcement services at the above site?
If so, please provide:• The name of the contracting party or authority.
• The date the contract was initiated.
• The scope and duration of the contract.
• A copy of the contract or agreement (with any necessary redactions).
If CPM was contracted by the school directly, please confirm whether the school had delegated authority from the borough to enter into such an agreement concerning land use and enforcement.
This request concerns the legitimacy of private enforcement activity on land that appears to fall under local authority control. Please treat this as a matter of public interest and procedural accountability.
I look forward to your response within the statutory 20 working days.
Yours faithfully,
B789
This will establish who to make an official complaint to about the fact that CPM are acting unlawfully by issuing PCNs claiming Keeper liability under PoFA.
As CPM are clearly breaching the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) this also warrants a formal complaint to the DVLA, if only to establish a paper trail about their breach of the PPSCoP and therefore the KADOE contract. -
-
Hey all,
Sorry for the late reply, forgot to turn on notification on reply and just checked today.
I'm not sure of who owns what element as the block itself, has 3 different properties, School, Sports Club (Frenford) and Rocket Padel, the latter two have their own car parks. The car park in question is used by others at times also I beleive, with a shared enterance drive through to get to each. While the school is a council run school, not sure if the car park is or if its part or some form of a private ownership - If it is private and not council owned, then where does that leave us?
Am trying to get my head around the technical terms and also the legal elements here and some what daunting as it seems to be a different ball game to the parking PCNs i've had to deal with and some what more daunting - so based on the posts from all, it seems that the key is not to provide any info on the driver and ignore any letters that come for good. - In which case i can send the draft kindly provided by B789.
When would the last day be for me to respond within the 14 days - tomorrow? always unsure if we include the date of the notice or not as a day, or the 1st day is the day after.
Regards
-
-
What 14 days? Do you mean the 'mugs discount'? If you are considering that, then we cannot help you. That "discount" is to persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that they Arte getting a bargain when, in fact, they never ordered anything in the first place.
The PCN is simply a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Why would you pay an invoice simply because it offers a discount?
You owe me £50 for my advice. However, if you pay me within 14 days, I will only charge you £30. Bargain! -
-
What 14 days? Do you mean the 'mugs discount'?
It's somethign I used to do and pay up, to avoid ending up with a bigger fine! However recently used this forum for appealing multiple Civil PCN's, having to give up the discount and go all the way with advice from vetrans here! I learnt a lot and would never pay a discount again, unless there is no chance of winning..
The private PCNs seems like a different kettle of fish and all new to me, you and others here are making it sound even more simple then Civil ones, although you'll receive dozens of debt letters and there will be no adjudication element lol - which would make any one shiver lol
-
-
You owe me another £50 for each occurrence of the word "fine" that you can evidence in any correspondence you have received over this matter.
-
-
Done! submitted appeal using the template now I wait for their reply.
-
-
Response received via email, copied below, I hav highlighted certain text in bold as per their reply.
CN REFERENCE NUMBER: 70009722
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 18th July 2025
PAYMENT DUE DATE: 11th September 2025
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £100.00
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.
At UK CPM we consider all appeals on a case-by-case basis. We take each appeal very seriously and thoroughly investigate any evidence that has been provided. We appreciate your circumstances and understand this is not a situation anyone would like to find themselves in; however, these parking conditions have been put in place to ensure fair usage for all motorists and support the needs of our client. After careful consideration, it is unfortunate that I am writing to you today to advise that on this occasion, your appeal has been unsuccessful.
The decision to uphold your parking charge notice has been made on the following basis.
Whilst we note the comments and reason for appeal, we can confirm that the vehicle remained on site for 37 minutes with no permit to authorise your stay. We must advise that this car park is run by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which take a time and date stamped image of the vehicle on entry and exit, measuring the length of time the vehicle remained on site, this information is then cross-referenced with the data from the permit systems. Due to no permit being found, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued correctly.
Either due to the reason for issue and/or the insufficient evidence provided to support the details of your appeal, we have considered this PCN and found that it does not fall under the category of Annex F the Appeals Charter of the Single Code of Practice. Therefore, if no further evidence is provided, we will deem this to be our final decision.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; either pay or appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) - you cannot do both.
Any thoughts, they mention it doesnt fall under Annex F? -
-
Annex F is utterly irrelevant, have you read it?
Either they are being stupid or, more likely, deliberately spout irrelevant rubbish in the hope that you’re convinced by it and pay up.
Note from Reply #3 that some kind of fabricated reason for a rejection of your appeal was expected. You’ve got to continue the process, as explained in this earlier reply. As long as you don’t identify the driver they can’t use PoFA 2012 as they continue to claim. -
-
I have just submitted the following FoI request to foi@redbridge.gov.uk
Did you ever get anything back from the FOI request for this? -
-
I am about to submit the exacty same resposne to the IAS appeal,
1. I will be copying and pasting the same appeal as before, I assume that is all I need to do? As I will not be able to add or amend anything to the appeal after submitted.
2. The rejection letter states I have 28 days to appeal from notice of rejection (28th Aug) to the IAS or make payment, thus making today the last day if I include the date of rejection as Day 1, however on the IAS page it is saying I have until 29th Sept to complete my appeal application (Basicailly 31 days?) - I assume best to appeal today and not delay to play it safe?
3. The IAS Appeal started by asking me to answer two statements which I've done as follows, hope these are correct:
i. Statement 1: You reported that the appellant was the registered keeper but is not prepared to state who was driving at the time the parking charge was issued.
ii. Statement 2: You reported that the appellant is being held liable for the parking charge.Annex F is utterly irrelevant, have you read it?
A quick google AI response said "Annex F, "The Appeals Charter," was a component of the original (now withdrawn) government-proposed Private Parking Code of Practice, not the current industry-led Single Code of Practice" - Does this mean it doesn't count as its withdrawn? excuse my lack of understanding of this topic/charter. -
-
As long as you don’t identify the driver they can’t use PoFA 2012 as they continue to claim.
If at any point I am asked if I was the drive, would that mean one has to say no or decline to comment, ie nor confirm nor deny? -
Funny x 1
View List
Funny x 1
View List