Free Traffic Legal Advice

Have just checked IAS website which says I have 28 days from date of rejection from the operator (BPM state it's 14 days). Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my appeal too?

Expand on your original points, remembering that the assessor will have no prior knowledge of the car park. Show us a draft before sending anything.

I'd be minded once you've appealed to file a complaint on the specific issue of their failure to offer a 40% discount.

Have you done this?

Can I use the fact they've given incorrect timings in my appeal too?

It's not, on the face of it, a reason why the charge is not owed, but I'd put it in there to highlight further evidence of their incompetence.

If you haven't yet complained to BPM about the discount issue, I would also add in a point around them misrepresenting the time allowed to appeal.

Which parts of PoFA are we suggesting they fail to comply with?

Sorry for sounding stupid, but I'm not clear on the non compliance with pofa? Can anyone spell it out to me how it's non compliant please?
Thank you.

Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that the notice state that the creditor will, if all applicable conditions under this Schedule are met, have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount that remains unpaid.


The section in bold appears to be missing from the operators NtK?

9(2)(f) requires that, amongst other things, the NtK warn the keeper that the parking operator is required to comply with all aspects of schedule 4 in order to rely on it.

Reply disputing the points not covered in their response.

Specifically the non PoFA compliance.

Also challenge their evidence regarding the disabled bay markings (if that's what they are) as they are simply applied OVER the already applied bay markings and are in a state of total dis-repair.

You do not need to pay anything and the chances of this going to hearing a very small - even if it did, you would easily defend it.

Put some comments together and post it up for further guidance.

Nothing to worry about.


Just re-examined the pictures and the bay markings are clearly visible for your bay - this needs to be specifically drawn to the assessors attention.

Also, when I checked on GSV (when you first posted), I am sure that you could use GSV to demonstrate that the 'cross hatch' had been added retrospectively - meaning that the original bay markings would already have been present?

This picture;

Was going to send this, is it ok? Thanks.