Total Parking Solutions - Stamford - Oak Legal letter stage

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @Alexander6. The Oak Legal letter is not a Letter of Claim. It is just another debt-collection letter, and Oak Legal Services is a trading name of ZZPS Limited, a bunch of utter shysters.

Do NOT respond to that letter. The more important action is an immediate complaint to St Mary's Medical Centre requesting cancellation.

1. PoFA position

The original appeal overstated the PoFA defects.

• Paragraph 9(2)(f): the NtK appears compliant. The paragraph beginning "IMPORTANT NOTE" contains the required warning that, after 28 days, TPS may recover the unpaid amount from the keeper if the driver remains unidentified.
  
• Paragraph 9(2)(a): "observation times" and a stated 23-minute duration may technically be challenged as ANPR records vehicle movement rather than an actual period of parking. However, a court may consider that wording sufficient. It is not a particularly strong standalone defence.
  
• Paragraph 9(2)(e): this remains arguable. The NtK says that if the recipient was the driver, they should pay; otherwise, they should identify the driver. It does not clearly invite the keeper, in their capacity as keeper, to pay the charge. The statutory requirement is to invite the keeper either to pay or, if not the driver, provide the driver's details. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9
  

So, TPS appears to have complied with paragraph 9(2)(f), but keeper liability remains disputed because the NtK arguably fails paragraph 9(2)(e), and TPS must prove strict compliance with every applicable requirement of Schedule 4.

Do not continue asserting that the NtK contains no paragraph 9(2)(f) warning. That would undermine the more credible arguments.

2. The most important immediate step: contact the surgery

Stamford Surgery publicly states that its ANPR system exists to protect spaces for "patients and visitors", and that both groups must register within ten minutes.

More significantly, in May 2026 the surgery acknowledged that genuine visitors had received PCNs despite entering their registration details, referred to a possible TPS software problem, and expressly instructed affected visitors to contact the practice for assistance. Surgery statement concerning erroneous PCNs

Parking charges

We are aware that some patients have unfortunately received parking fines when visiting our practices, despite entering the correct registration details at reception.

We are working closely with Total Parking Solutions to find the cause, which could be a software issue due to a recent update on their system.  If you get a fine following an appropriate visit to either Sheepmarket or St Mary’s please contact the team who will be able to assist further.

We are urging TPS to remedy the situation as quickly as possible as we know how frustrating an unwarranted parking fine can be.
Thanks for bearing with us while we work hard to find a resolution.

Published: May 22, 2026

That statement does not prove that the same software problem existed in October 2025, but it demonstrates that:

• registration failures have occurred;
  
• the practice can intervene despite previously claiming otherwise; and
  
• TPS's registration records cannot simply be treated as infallible.
  

The complaint should identify exactly why the vehicle was there, who was visiting the premises, and whether anyone attempted to register the VRM. Evidence of the visit should be included if available.

Email the medical centre the following:

Request for cancellation of TPS parking charge AT5144746

Dear Practice Manager,

I am asking the practice to instruct Total Parking Solutions to cancel Parking Charge AT5144746, arising from a genuine visit to St Mary's Medical Centre on 9 October 2025.

The vehicle was present for only 23 minutes in connection with a genuine visit to the premises. It was not being used for unrelated town-centre parking.

The practice's published information confirms that the car park is provided for patients and visitors. The practice has also subsequently acknowledged that genuine visitors have received parking charges because of apparent problems with TPS's registration system and has asked affected visitors to contact the practice for assistance.

Please therefore check the practice's attendance and registration records and instruct TPS to cancel this charge. It would be wholly disproportionate for a genuine short visit to the medical centre now to result in a threatened county court claim for £170.

Please confirm once the cancellation instruction has been issued.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

Adapt the factual paragraph accurately. Do not claim the VRM was entered unless somebody actually entered or attempted to enter it.

3. "Visitor" is not, by itself, a defence

I would not argue that entitlement is "self-evidently" established merely because somebody was a visitor. TPS would say that visitors were permitted to park only if they registered within ten minutes.

The relevant arguments are instead:

• the vehicle was present for an authorised purpose;
  
• whether the registration obligation was sufficiently prominent before parking;
  
• whether the obligation and consequences were clearly communicated at the entrance and at the point where registration was required;
  
• whether registration was attempted or completed;
  
• whether TPS's system correctly retained and matched registrations; and
  
• whether imposing £100 for an innocent or inadequately communicated registration failure was disproportionate and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
  

If the driver remained in the vehicle while an occupant visited the surgery, that does not necessarily mean that the vehicle was not "parked". That argument should not be treated as a principal defence.

4. Defence points if a claim is eventually issued

Subject to seeing the POPLA evidence pack and actual signs, the likely defence would include:

• No driver admission and no presumption that the keeper drove.
  
• Strict proof of full PoFA compliance, particularly paragraph 9(2)(e).
  
• Inadequate notice and prominence of the VRM-registration requirement and £100 consequence.
  
• Genuine authorised visit and failure of the registration arrangements.
  
• Strict proof of the accuracy and completeness of TPS's registration and ANPR records.
  
• No proof of TPS's landowner authority to contract, enforce and litigate.
  
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 transparency, prominence and fairness.
  
• The additional £70: no proven loss, no properly incorporated contractual entitlement, double recovery, and the PoFA paragraph 4(5) keeper-liability ceiling.
  
• Deficient Particulars of Claim, if TPS eventually issues the usual generic contractual allegations.
  

The POPLA evidence pack, POPLA decision, photographs of every sign and the exact circumstances of the visit will determine whether signage/system failure or the technical PoFA point should lead the eventual defence. On the current material, landowner cancellation is considerably more promising than another substantive exchange with Oak.

Can you post the POPLA response (please break it into readable paragraphs) and the name of the assessor.