08-27-2026, 06:02 PM
Thankyou again @b789. A response has been received:-
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 27/08/2026 14:37:11.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 28/07/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 12/07/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
On 12/07/2026 at 07:50 vehicle xxxxxxx arrived at The Embankment - Stratford-upon-Avon (LPS) - CV37 7LS (See image in pack). The vehicle left at 10:23 (see image in pack).
The vehicle was on site for 153 minutes. Therefore, overstaying the purchased time of 120 minutes. No further payment was made for the overstay which is in contravention of the Terms and conditions of parking at the site as displayed on the signage (see signage). There are numerous signs on site (see site map)
An NTK was sent (NON POFA) on 28/07/2026 (see copy in pack)
The operator received an appeal from the driver of the vehicle on 05/08/2026 (see copy in pack). The appellant provided no evidence that they had made further payment for parking despite the local signage clearly displaying the chargeable parking times. Therefore, the operator considered the charge valid and declined the appeal on 23/08/2026 (see copy in pack).
As the keeper, they were invited to provide the full name and serviceable address of the driver if they were not the person in control of the vehicle on the date in question. They have not done so.
While the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not apply, this does not prevent the operator from pursuing the individual who was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the contravention. In the absence of driver details, and based on the information available, they are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was also the driver. This position has been supported in case law, including Elliott v Loake, where the court accepted that keeper responsibility may give rise to a reasonable inference as to the identity of the driver when no alternative explanation is provided.
As the Registered Keeper has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they were not the driver, nor have they provided the details of the person who was driving. Accordingly, the operator is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that they were the driver at the time of the parking event and remain liable for the outstanding charge.
The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.
You now have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 04/09/2026 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 27/08/2026 14:37:11.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 28/07/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 12/07/2026.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
On 12/07/2026 at 07:50 vehicle xxxxxxx arrived at The Embankment - Stratford-upon-Avon (LPS) - CV37 7LS (See image in pack). The vehicle left at 10:23 (see image in pack).
The vehicle was on site for 153 minutes. Therefore, overstaying the purchased time of 120 minutes. No further payment was made for the overstay which is in contravention of the Terms and conditions of parking at the site as displayed on the signage (see signage). There are numerous signs on site (see site map)
An NTK was sent (NON POFA) on 28/07/2026 (see copy in pack)
The operator received an appeal from the driver of the vehicle on 05/08/2026 (see copy in pack). The appellant provided no evidence that they had made further payment for parking despite the local signage clearly displaying the chargeable parking times. Therefore, the operator considered the charge valid and declined the appeal on 23/08/2026 (see copy in pack).
As the keeper, they were invited to provide the full name and serviceable address of the driver if they were not the person in control of the vehicle on the date in question. They have not done so.
While the provisions of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 relating to keeper liability do not apply, this does not prevent the operator from pursuing the individual who was responsible for the vehicle at the time of the contravention. In the absence of driver details, and based on the information available, they are entitled to reasonably infer that the keeper was also the driver. This position has been supported in case law, including Elliott v Loake, where the court accepted that keeper responsibility may give rise to a reasonable inference as to the identity of the driver when no alternative explanation is provided.
As the Registered Keeper has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they were not the driver, nor have they provided the details of the person who was driving. Accordingly, the operator is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that they were the driver at the time of the parking event and remain liable for the outstanding charge.
The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.
You now have TWO options:
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge any by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond. You have until 04/09/2026 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take.
- OR -
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided is not capable of showing that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
