LPS Ltd - PCN - Private Access Road - Delivering On Site & Vehicle Breakdown

[TheParkingmeister]

Thanks for the draft it was very helpful. 

This is what I submitted today: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18SUNpsz...p=drivesdk

I guess I was meant to change the "Registered Keeper" to the name of the company ??‍♂️

In my defence it's been a long week already, dealing with various parking companies and councils. Why is everyone out to scam money out of you, it's crazy and very mentally draining. I have submitted a fraud report for a parking company operating on a public highway that has an active TRO for the same restriction the parking company is attempting to enforce. Then GLA is using this same parking company to enforce "fines" for a no waiting restriction on their private road. They specifically state they are enforcing "no waiting" and not parking and so apparently no parking period is required ? I submitted a LGSCO complaint regarding GLA. I've got Havering council that keep offer a discounted £65 charge for a Charge Certifcate they issued in October 2024, yes 2024. They won't register the debt with TEC. I had a Bexley's monitoring officer on the phone the other day ensuring me they are investigating the critically flawed "Overnight Waiting Ban on commercial vehicle zone" scheme. Then Lancashire County Council overdue on a EIR by over 20 days. The list goes on. No accountability anywhere in this country it seems.

Rant over.

I used a lot of your draft, but rearranged it and added stuff in. I felt it was important to include the Annex F Appeal Charter Exemptions for example. I put the tests in last because I'm cautious that the assessors like to overlook that stuff or have a very loose interpretation of requirements.

[b789]

It's very good. However, you must remember that an IAS appeal is virtually useless because the assessors are only interested in protecting their members. They will have a conclusion and then work backwards from there. You never know though. You could be one of the 4% lucky ones.

If any of the other cases you mention are to do with private parking firms, then feel free to start a new thread for each one.

[TheParkingmeister]

The operator uploaded their response to my appeal. I was expecting an 'evidence pack' containing their original version of the Notice to Keeper, a copy of my appeal, pictures of their signage etc unless they only provide that to the assessor maybe. But their response said this:

"Operator's Prima Facie Case

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 25/03/2026 10:03:28.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 09/02/2026.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 03/02/2026.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The Operator respectfully submits that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.

The contemporaneous photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that the vehicle remained stationary on a restricted private access roadway for a continuous period of approximately 39 minutes. This was not a momentary stop or transient presence but a prolonged stationary period in an area where such conduct is expressly prohibited by prominently displayed signage. The duration alone evidences that the vehicle was “standing” on the access roadway in clear breach of the site restrictions.

It is also relevant that the Appellant's account of events has materially changed. In the initial appeal, it was asserted that the vehicle was moving at the time of the alleged event. This position is directly contradicted by the operator's photographic record, which shows the vehicle stationary throughout the material period. Only at a later stage was an alternative explanation advanced, namely that the vehicle was subject to a mechanical issue. This inconsistency significantly undermines the credibility of the Appellant's account.
The reliance on an alleged mechanical defect is unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was immobilised or incapable of being moved to a different location. The repair documentation merely confirms attendance at a repair facility at a later time and does not establish that the vehicle could not have been repositioned during the relevant period. A lighting defect does not, in itself, prevent a vehicle from being moved safely away from a restricted access roadway.

The assertions regarding statutory necessity, frustration of contract, and emergency exemption are therefore misplaced. Any such exemption applies only where the presence of the vehicle is unavoidable and only for the minimum duration necessary. On the evidence available, that threshold is not met.

The suggestion that a site occupier instructed the driver to remain is also without merit. The landholder has expressly informed all occupiers that vehicles must not park or remain stationary on the access roadway. This restriction forms part of the wider site controls, including planning requirements which prohibit vehicles from “standing” on the access roads. A third-party occupier has no authority to override or vary those restrictions, and any such instruction cannot displace the contractual terms in force.

For completeness, it is noted that the Appellant has been involved in previous similar matters at this location and appears to advance a recurring position that such restrictions are not enforceable. Previous charges were cancelled on a discretionary basis due to earlier limitations in camera positioning which did not capture the full duration of events. That issue has since been rectified, and the enforcement equipment now records a complete sequence of the vehicle's presence, as demonstrated in this case.

Finally, the Operator notes that the Appellant's representations demonstrate a pattern of challenging enforcement despite clear and repeated breaches of the site terms. This location comprises a single vehicle access roadway serving multiple commercial units. By remaining stationary on that roadway for approximately 39 minutes, the vehicle created an obstruction and interfered with the safe and efficient use of the access route by other authorised users. The restrictions are in place for legitimate operational and safety reasons and must be adhered to.

In summary, the evidence demonstrates a clear and prolonged breach of the site restrictions, the Appellant's account is inconsistent and unsupported, and no valid exemption applies. The charge was therefore issued correctly and remains enforceable."

Any advice on how to respond? I note that their comment "Appellant's account of events has materially changed" is a mischaracterisation, as the account hasn't changed, telematics show the vehicle was moving at the time of issue stated on the Notice, that never changed, I just provided further information as to why the vehicle had been stationary prior.

[b789]

That’s typical evidence of why the IAS is a kangaroo court

They don’t require the operator to properly evidence the claim in a transparent way. Instead of a full evidence pack being served to you (as would be required in any fair process), you just get a narrative summary while the assessor either sees more or simply accepts what’s asserted.

That’s why it operates the way it does. The operator isn’t being put to strict proof in any meaningful sense. But don’t waste energy attacking that directly in the appeal — it won’t go anywhere.

They’ve provided no actual evidence. No NtK, no signage, no landowner authority, no full image sequence, no engagement with telematics — just assertions. So the position stays simple: they haven’t proved their case.

And on the “account changed” point — it hasn’t. Telematics shows movement at the stated time. You’ve just added context about the earlier stop. That’s clarification, not inconsistency.

Strip it back to that and force everything onto proof. Below is a tight rebuttal you can submit.

Appellant’s Response to Operator’s Prima Facie Case

The Operator’s submission is noted. It consists primarily of assertion and commentary rather than evidence capable of establishing liability. The Operator is put to strict proof of each element required to found a contractual claim.

Alleged inconsistency in the Appellant’s account

The Operator’s claim that the Appellant’s account has “materially changed” is incorrect.

The position has been consistent throughout. Telematics evidence shows that at the time stated on the Notice to Keeper the vehicle was moving. That position has not changed. Additional information was subsequently provided explaining why the vehicle had been stationary earlier, namely a mechanical defect requiring attention.

Providing further detail is not inconsistency. It is clarification.

The Operator has not addressed the telematics evidence at all. Instead, it relies solely on its own selected photographs. The Operator is therefore put to strict proof that its images represent a complete and continuous record of the vehicle’s presence, rather than a partial capture of events.

Failure to establish a contractual offer

The Operator’s case proceeds on the assumption that the presence of a stationary vehicle for “39 minutes” establishes liability. That is not the legal test.

The Operator must demonstrate that:

• a valid contractual offer was made by the signage;
  
• that the terms were capable of acceptance; and
  
• that the driver accepted those terms.
  

The Operator has not produced the signage relied upon nor demonstrated that it constitutes a contractual offer rather than a prohibition.

A prohibition such as “no parking” does not create a contract. It withdraws permission. The Operator has not addressed this point.

Reliance on duration alone is legally insufficient

The Operator repeatedly relies on the duration of approximately 39 minutes. Duration is not determinative of liability.

A vehicle being stationary does not, in itself, establish that:

• a contract was formed;
  
• the terms applied to that vehicle; or
  
• those terms were breached.
  

The Operator must prove contractual liability. It has not done so.

Implied licence and commercial access

The Operator asserts that vehicles must not remain on the access roadway but does not address the fact that the roadway serves active commercial premises.

Vehicles attending those premises operate under an implied licence for access in the course of business. The Operator has not demonstrated how its scheme overrides that licence or how its terms were capable of binding delivery vehicles engaged in legitimate commercial activity.

A general statement that “vehicles must not stand” is not sufficient to displace that pre-existing right.

Mechanical defect and necessity

The Operator dismisses the mechanical defect on the basis that a lighting issue does not prevent movement. That is an oversimplification and does not address the legal point.

A vehicle with a defect affecting its lighting system may be unsafe or unlawful to operate, particularly depending on conditions and timing. Drivers are under a legal obligation not to operate unsafe vehicles.

The Operator has provided no evidence to show that the vehicle could have been lawfully and safely moved elsewhere. It merely asserts that it could have been.

The evidential burden rests with the Operator. Assertion is not proof.

If compliance with the alleged terms would have required the driver to operate an unsafe vehicle, the Operator must explain how such terms can be enforced in those circumstances.

Standing and authority

The Operator asserts that restrictions form part of “site controls” and “planning requirements” but has provided no evidence of its own legal standing to enforce those restrictions in its own name.

The Operator is put to strict proof of:

• its authority from the landholder;
  
• its right to enter into contracts with motorists; and
  
• its right to pursue charges in its own name.
  

General statements about site rules are not evidence of legal standing.

Misapplication of legitimate interest

The Operator claims that the vehicle caused obstruction and interfered with site use. No evidence of actual obstruction has been provided.

This is not a retail car park scenario. It is a commercial access road. The presence of delivery vehicles is inherent to the function of the site.

The Operator has not demonstrated any legitimate interest comparable to that required to justify a £100 charge.

Conclusion

The Operator’s submission does not establish contractual liability. It relies on:

• assertion rather than evidence;
  
• duration rather than legal analysis; and
  
• dismissal of relevant facts without proof.
  

The Operator has failed to demonstrate:

• that a contractual offer existed;
  
• that any such terms were accepted;
  
• that those terms applied to a vehicle attending a commercial tenant;
  
• that the vehicle was not compelled to stop due to safety concerns; and
  
• that it has standing to enforce the charge.
  

In the absence of proof of these elements, liability cannot arise.

Key strategic notes (not to include in the submission):

• You’ve neutralised their “inconsistency” attack cleanly.
  
• You’ve shifted focus away from “39 minutes” to contract formation and burden of proof.
  
• You’ve exposed that they have provided no actual evidence pack.
  
• You’ve forced the assessor into the same trap as before: either address the points or ignore them.
  

Do not over-expand this. If any of the points you raise in that response are sidestepped by the assessor, you have all the evidence you need to prove that the IAS is not fit for purpose.

[TheParkingmeister]

Wow thanks very much, that was very helpful. 

I realised they had submitted documents too, that appear down the right side of the webpage that i somehow missed. 

They consisted of 28 pictures of signs indicating "No Parking" a picture of the entrance sign, and a signage plan map. They also provided the NtK, my appeal, and their email correspondence with me.

The entrance signage is in breach of Annex A of the code. It is on the left hand gate at the entrance which is pinned open during operating hours and so is parallel to the road and easily missed when turning left into the site as almost all traffic does coming from A3044. It is therefore not readable for drivers without needing to look away from the road ahead. It also contains no wording from Group 1 of Table A.1 such as "Pay and display", "pay on exit", "parking for customers only" or "permit holders only". The sign only says: 

LONDON PARKING SOLUTIONS
PRIVATE LAND
NO PARKING 
Terms & Conditions apply
See signage within the car park for details

The non existant car park that is lol

The other signs are more wordy but still only prohibit parking, there is no offer to park anywhere under any terms.

Maybe I should stick one on my driveway and a bunch down my street, I'm missing a trick here

[b789]

Can you show us some of the photos of the signs and the plan.

[TheParkingmeister]

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...GI5Mm6zkuW

[b789]

I understand the situation but as the IAS are unlikely to agree, this would only be resolved if it were to go to court. That sign is fatal to any “contract” argument.

   

It is purely prohibitive. It does not offer parking on terms. It says “NO PARKING” in the largest text on the sign, and then tries to bolt on a £100 charge underneath.

That is not how a contract works. A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. This sign does the opposite — it withdraws permission entirely. There is no offer to park, no licence granted, and therefore nothing capable of being accepted by a driver.

What they are trying to do is have it both ways:

“No parking”
but also
“if you park, you agree to pay £100”

Those two positions are legally incompatible.

If parking is not permitted at all, then there is no contract. The only possible cause of action would be trespass, and they cannot pursue that in their own name or for a fixed sum.

This is exactly why they keep going on about “39 minutes stationary” — they are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that their signage does not create a contract in the first place.

Also note how the sign is structured:

Big bold headline: NO PARKING
Then buried text: “by entering or remaining… you agree…”

That doesn’t create a clear contractual offer. It’s an attempt to impose terms after removing permission.

In short:

• They are not offering parking on terms
  
• They are prohibiting parking entirely
  
• Therefore no contract can be formed
  

That is your strongest point in this case, far stronger than anything about duration or “obstruction”.

Also, the signage in their photos is not clearly legible from a driver’s position.

In the wider shots, the signs are small relative to the environment and positioned off to the side of the roadway. The dominant visual impression is of an industrial access road, not a controlled parking area. A driver entering or exiting the site would not reasonably be expected to stop and read dense contractual wording.

Even where the sign is visible, the only element that is immediately readable is “NO PARKING”. The detailed terms — including the £100 charge and contractual wording — are not legible at distance and would require a driver to stop, approach the sign, and read it closely.

That creates two problems for them:

1. No clear contractual offer. The only prominent term is “NO PARKING”, which is prohibitive, not contractual.
   
2. Failure of prominence and transparency. The charge and terms are not sufficiently prominent to bind a driver, particularly on an access road where vehicles are engaged in active commercial movements.
   

Also, none of their photos demonstrate the driver’s eye view on approach. They show static, curated angles. That is not evidence that a driver would have seen, read, and accepted the terms before the alleged breach.

If this ever got in front of a judge, this is exactly where the case would turn. If no luck with the IAS, would the Keeper to driver be willing to challenge this in court?

[TheParkingmeister]

The Registered Keeper would not be prepared to take it to court sadly, it's the bane of my life recently. Would the driver be willing to, I'm not sure, I'd have to speak with him. Can you can even transfer liability at this point?

[tincombe]

The Registered Keeper would not be prepared to take it to court sadly, it's the bane of my life recently. Would the driver be willing to, I'm not sure, I'd have to speak with him. Can you can even transfer liability at this point?

I'm unclear as to your status in this as you're neither the driver nor the registered keeper. Presumably the NTK was addressed to the RK..your employer? You, again presumably, have a specific but limited role within the company to manage/handle/process such notices. Does this extend to initiating proceedings to an IAS? So far there have been 2 opportunities to pay the lower parking charge but neither has been taken. 
I understand and empathise with your own views about such charges, but I wouldn't want you to go out on a limb beyond your employment remit. Given what you've posted about your employer's attitude to these matters(although exactly how 'they' would pay if all correspondence is handled by you remains unclear) and the clear advice here that prospects at IAS are next to zero, shouldn't the exit strategy be to get out with least financial harm? 

As regards providing details of the driver, this option is open to the RK at any stage before legal proceedings are commenced. As advised in this post, NTKs and IAS are not 'legal proceedings'.