09-23-2026, 03:22 PM
(09-22-2026, 12:17 PM)b789 Wrote: @KHarHar, you’re very welcome.
You’ve done everything that needed to be done at this stage. The IAS now has the full legal argument, the photographs of the signage and, importantly, the contemporaneous WhatsApp evidence explaining exactly why the vehicle was there.
I agree with your expectations about the IAS, so I would not read too much into the outcome either way. If they reject it, that does not suddenly make PCM right, nor does it make the £100 legally due. It simply means PCM may continue pursuing the alleged debt and, ultimately, would have to prove its case if they chose to issue a court claim.
The important thing is that you now understand the actual issues: this was genuine loading/unloading of heavy furniture at a residential property; PCM’s own signage does not expressly prohibit loading; Jopson v Homeguard is directly relevant; and their attempt to manufacture a presumption from Elliott v Loake is legally absurd.
For now, just wait for the IAS decision and post it up when it arrives.
Apologies for the deleted post - I had an issue with an edit and decided to just start over.
Thank you very much for this! PCM have responded and provided their Prima Facie case. Unsurprisingly it fails to deal with any of the points of law that we have made, and tries to assert the primacy of the parking code of practice over the actual case law of Jopson. They also assert that they have satisfied schedule 4 of PoFA however they have not said how or why. I'm sure you'll notice a hundred more things, but it seems really weak.
They have also included a site map of the area, as well as a scan of the sign posts, the original PCN and the text of my original appeal to them.
The text of their response is as follows:
"Site background:
Parking Control Management UK Ltd has been contracted by our client to manage the parking in this area by enforcing the
parking restrictions. This site is private land and is managed and operated by Parking Control Management. The Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued in accordance with this parking management scheme.
The contravention:
On this occasion, the vehicle was parked in an area for permit holders only.
The advertised contractual terms require drivers parked in this area to have their vehicle registered for a valid virtual
permit. This is clearly outlined by signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. I can
confirm that the vehicle in question did not have a valid virtual permit registered at the time of enforcement.
Response to the appellant’s representation:
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’), the operator may seek to recover unpaid parking
charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle. The conditions of the Act have been satisfied and as, to date, the full
name and “address for service” for the driver have not been provided, the operator will be exercising their right to pursue
the appellant.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice defines “parked” as “a vehicle being stationary other than in the course
of driving” and further specifies that “a vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has left the vehicle
and/or turned the ignition off”. In this case, it is clear that the vehicle was parked.
The signage on site makes no concessions to allow temporary parking to those loading and unloading. The entrance
signage makes it clear that the area is applicable to permit holders only and further signage goes on to clarify that vehicles
must be registered for a valid virtual bay corresponding resident permit. As the vehicle was not registered for a virtual
permit, unfortunately one risked enforcement action in line with the conditions advertised throughout the site.
The charge arises from a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signs. It will be noted that we,
as the operator, are a principal (not an agent) in this contract. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the
landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process.
However, whilst we maintain that we do,
in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract); the existence
of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA
Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this
is not provided as evidence in this appeal, however, this document is available for the IAS to review at their convenience.
The fact remains that the vehicle entered the permit-controlled land at 18:03 and exited at 18:14, 11 minutes later
without being authorized to park on site for any reason. As such, a charge was issued correctly in line with the advertised
conditions of parking. It is on that basis that PCM maintain the decision to reject the appellant’s appeal."
The IAS now gives me 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.
- 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."
Do you think it is worth responding on how weak their argument is?
Kind regards
