6 PCNs - No permit

[newpcnappeal]

Hello, I have am posting a follow up here over from FTLA.uk website regarding my post there: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...ames-gate/

Update as of now:

1. As expected, all appeals to UKCPS and the IAS have been dismissed. 

The IAS give the following response:

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

I have previously determined the Appellant's appeal against PCN no. z509896, z462713, z483355, z483360 and z518315. Whilst each appeal is determined on its own merits, the Appellant appeals this PCN on the same basis as the aforementioned PCNs. Therefore my considerations are largely the same.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and this is not disputed by the Appellant. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant's distinction between permit holders and non-permit holders is not correct. The terms and conditions apply to all drivers. The difference between them is that permit holders are able to comply with the terms (provided they correctly display their permit), whereas non-permit holders cannot. This is the exact desired effect of the terms and conditions; permit holders are permitted to park and non-permit holders are not. The Appellant claims to have rights under his tenancy agreement which he purports is for the address he sets out in his response. However, the document provided appears to be either a redacted or template tenancy agreement. It does not contain any key information such as the property address, parties names or dates and is unsigned. Therefore, I have no evidence that this document has any relevance or connection to the Appellant or to this site. It is certainly not evidence of an unrestricted right to park and no other evidence demonstrating this is provided. It is often the case that a right to park on a site is subject to the rules and regulations put in place by the landowner, such as a parking enforcement scheme. If the Appellant has a connection to a property on this site, whether by way of a tenancy agreement or otherwise, the Appellant may wish to check the position to avoid any future PCNs being issued to him. The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established a breach of PoFA. Whilst the NTK sets out the time of issue, as is appropriate, the period is the time over which the vehicle is observed as shown in the images (which the keeper is directed to on the NTK). The period shown in the images provided to me is 20:54 - 21:00. On the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the NTK is compliant and that the Operator is entitled to pursue the Appellant as the registered keeper. The Appellant's contention that the Operator's evidence relies on a single moment in time and is therefore insufficient is also not accepted for this reason. Whilst I cannot comment on the Appellant's argument that the Operator has not engaged with him on substantive legal issues, this is not a basis upon which I could allow the appeal in any event. The pertinent point in this appeal is that I am satisfied that the Operator has established their prima facie case that the Appellant failed to display a valid permit. In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. The Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued and therefore the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision. For the reasons I have set out above, the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

2. In parallel I have submitted formal complaints to the estate management company in an attempt for them to order UKCPS to cancel all charges but they have refused, which now allows me to escalate to the property ombudsman 

They gave the following response to my 2nd formal complaint:

Thank you for your patience while we reviewed your concerns. We understand that parking disputes can be frustrating; however, after a full internal review, our position remains as follows:

Contractual Basis and Information Sharing:

We recognise your frustration regarding the lack of direct documentation provided by Trinity Estates. As the managing agent, our relationship is with the Freeholder/Leaseholder. Any specific clauses, restrictions, or regulations pertaining to your individual tenancy are the responsibility of your landlord or letting agent to provide. We cannot advise on or provide contracts to which we are not a party.

Residential Use and "Quiet Enjoyment":

While we understand the impact this has had on your residence, any claims regarding the "quiet enjoyment" of your property must be directed to your landlord. Your tenancy agreement is held with them, and they are the appropriate party to address concerns regarding the terms of your residency.

Regarding the enforcement action: the parking operators act in accordance with the established site policy. Without a valid permit, the area cannot be used for loading, unloading, or parking for any duration. As the ticket was issued according to these set terms, any dispute regarding the validity of the fine must be handled through the formal parking company appeals process.

Trinity’s Role as Managing Agent:

Trinity’s responsibility is to oversee the management of on-site services, which includes subcontracting the parking enforcement to maintain order for all residents. By entering and using the managed parking areas, all residents and visitors are bound by the terms clearly displayed on the site signage.

Final Outcome:

Trinity Estates will not be engaging with the parking company on your behalf. Our instruction to the enforcement team is to uphold the terms of the site; by using the car park, you effectively agree to the conditions advertised on the signage.

This represents our final response on this matter, and we will not be providing further comment or correspondence regarding this specific dispute.


If you remain dissatisfied or feel your complaint has not been fully addressed, you may seek an independent review through The Property Ombudsman.

- Also I have moved address 2 weeks ago , I have updated my V5C logbook and drivers licence. Should I inform UKCPS? 

I would appreciate any advice as to how I should now proceed. I have no intention to pay UKCPS. 

Thanks