https://pptla.uk/ Sun, 24 May 2026 14:55:12 +0000 MyBB https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=86 Mon, 18 May 2026 10:10:54 +0000 L Bow]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=86
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 06 April 2026. The notice itself is dated Friday, 17 April 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: UNSURE. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Premier Inn, Ulverston.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 21 April 2026 (15 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

I do not have the actual text used for the appeal, I do not seem to be able to access them from the Horizon appeal website. However, I selected from the drop down menu on the appeal form that I was there to use the EV charging facilities. I attached an invoice for the charging showing correlation with the entry and exit times from the ANPR.
The car park is free to use, but according to Horizon users need to register their presence in the Premier Inn. The chargers are operated by GeniePoint and have designated spaces in the furthest corner of the car park from the Premier Inn entrance. GeniePoint chargers automatically add an overstay charge if vehicles are connected for over 90 minutes.

Additional notes provided:
I did not register my car at Premier Inn, I thought that by using the charging facilities (which generates a information chain by which it can be ascertained that my car was at the charger at the time concerned) would be sufficient proof of being a valid user of the car park. My appeal to Horizon was made on 01 May 26 and has been rejected on 14 May 26. They have given me a reference number should I wish to appeal to POPLA within 28 days. I also have the option to pay the lower £60 charge within 14 days of the date of the letter.
I have written to both Premier Inn and GeniePoint, but both have replied to say they cannot help.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]>
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 06 April 2026. The notice itself is dated Friday, 17 April 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: UNSURE. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Premier Inn, Ulverston.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 21 April 2026 (15 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

I do not have the actual text used for the appeal, I do not seem to be able to access them from the Horizon appeal website. However, I selected from the drop down menu on the appeal form that I was there to use the EV charging facilities. I attached an invoice for the charging showing correlation with the entry and exit times from the ANPR.
The car park is free to use, but according to Horizon users need to register their presence in the Premier Inn. The chargers are operated by GeniePoint and have designated spaces in the furthest corner of the car park from the Premier Inn entrance. GeniePoint chargers automatically add an overstay charge if vehicles are connected for over 90 minutes.

Additional notes provided:
I did not register my car at Premier Inn, I thought that by using the charging facilities (which generates a information chain by which it can be ascertained that my car was at the charger at the time concerned) would be sufficient proof of being a valid user of the car park. My appeal to Horizon was made on 01 May 26 and has been rejected on 14 May 26. They have given me a reference number should I wish to appeal to POPLA within 28 days. I also have the option to pay the lower £60 charge within 14 days of the date of the letter.
I have written to both Premier Inn and GeniePoint, but both have replied to say they cannot help.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=85 Sat, 16 May 2026 22:23:22 +0000 James53436]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=85

  IMG_20260516_172128_447~2.jpg (Size: 63.27 KB / Downloads: 4)

  WWVHdSs5MDIzbmpaNzFsUHczODBqdnhvcHpjMU05NEJWK3l3V1J1UGVWenRmbW4wcktGdkEramVZL0E9OjpjOWYyZmMyODlmNTYxOTllYTBjZjgyZGQ0ZGJmOWNkMw==.jpeg (Size: 86.01 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]>

  IMG_20260516_172128_447~2.jpg (Size: 63.27 KB / Downloads: 4)

  WWVHdSs5MDIzbmpaNzFsUHczODBqdnhvcHpjMU05NEJWK3l3V1J1UGVWenRmbW4wcktGdkEramVZL0E9OjpjOWYyZmMyODlmNTYxOTllYTBjZjgyZGQ0ZGJmOWNkMw==.jpeg (Size: 86.01 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=84 Fri, 15 May 2026 17:36:50 +0000 Arbitration]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=84
I am thinking of arguing grounds:

1. Inadequate information provided
2. It was 2 years ago and I only just received CCJ

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Saturday, 01 June 2024. The notice itself is dated Thursday, 27 November 2025, and I first became aware of it via first aware via letter of claim.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Malcom X Community Centre, Bristol.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 01 December 2025 (548 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Operator's own legal department
- Operator legal team: Civil Enforcement Ltd (in-house legal)

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Wednesday, 06 May 2026, deemed service Monday, 11 May 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Monday, 08 June 2026.

Additional notes provided:
I have spoken to the land owner and asked them to provide a letter asking for enforcement of PCN to be dropped - I am awaiting a response ( I am the registered keeper but have since sold the car changing the owner and moved address. The LBA does not state the alleged exact offence but it may be alleged at some point that the parking camera caught the driver allegedly overstaying with a purchased ticket. It was so long ago that it is difficult to remember the details of the event.


  Adobe Express - file.jpg (Size: 113.18 KB / Downloads: 1)

  Adobe Express - file-2.jpg (Size: 91.04 KB / Downloads: 1)

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---

@b789 your expert advice would be hugely valued, would love to give CEL both barrels in court]]>
I am thinking of arguing grounds:

1. Inadequate information provided
2. It was 2 years ago and I only just received CCJ

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Saturday, 01 June 2024. The notice itself is dated Thursday, 27 November 2025, and I first became aware of it via first aware via letter of claim.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Malcom X Community Centre, Bristol.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 01 December 2025 (548 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Operator's own legal department
- Operator legal team: Civil Enforcement Ltd (in-house legal)

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Wednesday, 06 May 2026, deemed service Monday, 11 May 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Monday, 08 June 2026.

Additional notes provided:
I have spoken to the land owner and asked them to provide a letter asking for enforcement of PCN to be dropped - I am awaiting a response ( I am the registered keeper but have since sold the car changing the owner and moved address. The LBA does not state the alleged exact offence but it may be alleged at some point that the parking camera caught the driver allegedly overstaying with a purchased ticket. It was so long ago that it is difficult to remember the details of the event.


  Adobe Express - file.jpg (Size: 113.18 KB / Downloads: 1)

  Adobe Express - file-2.jpg (Size: 91.04 KB / Downloads: 1)

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---

@b789 your expert advice would be hugely valued, would love to give CEL both barrels in court]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=83 Fri, 15 May 2026 12:12:33 +0000 3Sh3roo]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=83
The registered keeper (not driver) received the following PCN by post, can you please advise best defense? (Edited as date of contravention is 01/05/2026 NOT 08/05)

----------
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 01 May 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Spring Hall Medical Practice, Spring Hall Lane, Halifax.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---------

  PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 67.71 KB / Downloads: 2)

  PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 117.27 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]>
The registered keeper (not driver) received the following PCN by post, can you please advise best defense? (Edited as date of contravention is 01/05/2026 NOT 08/05)

----------
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 01 May 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Spring Hall Medical Practice, Spring Hall Lane, Halifax.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---------

  PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 67.71 KB / Downloads: 2)

  PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 117.27 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=82 Thu, 14 May 2026 08:11:49 +0000 JoeBloggs90]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=82
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Collingham House, Wimbledon, London.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: Yes
- Letter of Claim source: Unsure

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

A response was sent to BW Legal following receipt of a Letter of Claim in March 2025.

The alleged debt was disputed. The Defendant confirmed the correct address for service and requested the matter be placed on hold for 30 days pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

No admission was made as to the identity of the driver.

The response also challenged the additional £60 debt recovery/admin sum and requested clarification as to the legal basis of the additional charges.

Subsequent correspondence from BW Legal continued to assert liability and justify the £60 add-on as debt recovery costs.

Letter of Claim response already sent (verbatim where possible):

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. XXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Smart Parking Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

XXX

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount.

I also requested clarification regarding the legal basis of the additional £60 debt recovery/admin charges being claimed.

No admission was made as to the identity of the driver.

Yours faithfully,
XXX

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Wednesday, 06 May 2026, deemed service Monday, 11 May 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Monday, 08 June 2026.

Additional notes provided:
The claim form appears to relate to two separate alleged contraventions dated 08/01/2023 and 23/04/2023 at Collingham House, Wimbledon.

The original PCNs and earlier correspondence were not received at the time due to an old V5C address being held.

The Defendant later updated BW Legal with the correct address during pre-action correspondence in March 2025.

Smart Parking are understood not to rely on PoFA keeper liability wording in their notices, and throughout all correspondence no admission has been made as to the identity of the driver.

Coincidentally, I am personally familiar with Collingham House. It is a vaguely signposted rooftop parking level above an Evans Cycles store. Some bays appear to be allocated to Evans Cycles customers whilst others appear to belong to private businesses/offices within the building. From memory, the layout and signage could easily cause confusion between customer bays and privately allocated bays.

I note there are two separate alleged contraventions. Given the location and layout, it appears entirely plausible that a visitor to Evans Cycles may have mistakenly parked in an incorrect bay due to unclear differentiation between the spaces.

I am unclear why after contesting this now several years later I have received a claim form out of nowhere.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/dis...mbledon/p1

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Collingham House, Wimbledon, London.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: Yes
- Letter of Claim source: Unsure

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

A response was sent to BW Legal following receipt of a Letter of Claim in March 2025.

The alleged debt was disputed. The Defendant confirmed the correct address for service and requested the matter be placed on hold for 30 days pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

No admission was made as to the identity of the driver.

The response also challenged the additional £60 debt recovery/admin sum and requested clarification as to the legal basis of the additional charges.

Subsequent correspondence from BW Legal continued to assert liability and justify the £60 add-on as debt recovery costs.

Letter of Claim response already sent (verbatim where possible):

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. XXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Smart Parking Ltd

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

XXX

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount.

I also requested clarification regarding the legal basis of the additional £60 debt recovery/admin charges being claimed.

No admission was made as to the identity of the driver.

Yours faithfully,
XXX

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Wednesday, 06 May 2026, deemed service Monday, 11 May 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Tuesday, 26 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Monday, 08 June 2026.

Additional notes provided:
The claim form appears to relate to two separate alleged contraventions dated 08/01/2023 and 23/04/2023 at Collingham House, Wimbledon.

The original PCNs and earlier correspondence were not received at the time due to an old V5C address being held.

The Defendant later updated BW Legal with the correct address during pre-action correspondence in March 2025.

Smart Parking are understood not to rely on PoFA keeper liability wording in their notices, and throughout all correspondence no admission has been made as to the identity of the driver.

Coincidentally, I am personally familiar with Collingham House. It is a vaguely signposted rooftop parking level above an Evans Cycles store. Some bays appear to be allocated to Evans Cycles customers whilst others appear to belong to private businesses/offices within the building. From memory, the layout and signage could easily cause confusion between customer bays and privately allocated bays.

I note there are two separate alleged contraventions. Given the location and layout, it appears entirely plausible that a visitor to Evans Cycles may have mistakenly parked in an incorrect bay due to unclear differentiation between the spaces.

I am unclear why after contesting this now several years later I have received a claim form out of nowhere.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/dis...mbledon/p1

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=81 Tue, 12 May 2026 17:20:29 +0000 SDC.99]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=81
The notice appears to have been issued as Other. Issue method detail: Warden took photos of the permit and vehicle. The PCN was then arrived through post .. Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Chapel Estate, SO14 5GL.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NOT_APPLICABLE: PoFA timing check is unavailable for 'Other' issue method. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 30 April 2026 (5 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

I’m a resident at The Chapel Estate and I’ve received a PCN from Countrywide Parking Management. I’m looking for advice on how to handle this, as today (May 12th) is the final day of the 14-day discount period. I thought I had 28 days to appeal.

The Incident:
I was actively cleaning my car in my usual spot. The warden actually encountered me while I was cleaning; I told him I was just finishing up. He then went away to check other cars in a nearby location. In the time it took me to go up to my flat to put the vacuum and extension lead away, he circled back. From my balcony, I saw him taking photos and issuing the ticket immediately. It appears he waited for the exact moment the vehicle was unattended to "pounce," despite knowing I was the resident attending to the car minutes prior. I still had to come back out and sort the car out like the dashboard and therefore would have fixed the permit.

The Location Error :
The PCN lists the location as Chapel Estate SO14 5GL. However, I was parked in a completely different area of the estate at SO14 5FJ (the street down from the location listed). Since the notice specifies a different street/postcode than where the car was actually located, is this helpful ?

The Permit:
I have a valid resident permit, I’ve been a resident for 20 years. In their evidence photos, the permit is visible. Although the "heading" was slightly obscured, every vital piece of information is clearly legible.

Previous History:
I have had 3 or 4 tickets from this company here before for the same issue (permit visibility). I ended up paying those after appealing and I likely identified myself as the driver in those previous appeals. Will this affect my ability to appeal as "Registered Keeper" now?

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

https://ibb.co/album/zsYqrd]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as Other. Issue method detail: Warden took photos of the permit and vehicle. The PCN was then arrived through post .. Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Chapel Estate, SO14 5GL.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NOT_APPLICABLE: PoFA timing check is unavailable for 'Other' issue method. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 30 April 2026 (5 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

I’m a resident at The Chapel Estate and I’ve received a PCN from Countrywide Parking Management. I’m looking for advice on how to handle this, as today (May 12th) is the final day of the 14-day discount period. I thought I had 28 days to appeal.

The Incident:
I was actively cleaning my car in my usual spot. The warden actually encountered me while I was cleaning; I told him I was just finishing up. He then went away to check other cars in a nearby location. In the time it took me to go up to my flat to put the vacuum and extension lead away, he circled back. From my balcony, I saw him taking photos and issuing the ticket immediately. It appears he waited for the exact moment the vehicle was unattended to "pounce," despite knowing I was the resident attending to the car minutes prior. I still had to come back out and sort the car out like the dashboard and therefore would have fixed the permit.

The Location Error :
The PCN lists the location as Chapel Estate SO14 5GL. However, I was parked in a completely different area of the estate at SO14 5FJ (the street down from the location listed). Since the notice specifies a different street/postcode than where the car was actually located, is this helpful ?

The Permit:
I have a valid resident permit, I’ve been a resident for 20 years. In their evidence photos, the permit is visible. Although the "heading" was slightly obscured, every vital piece of information is clearly legible.

Previous History:
I have had 3 or 4 tickets from this company here before for the same issue (permit visibility). I ended up paying those after appealing and I likely identified myself as the driver in those previous appeals. Will this affect my ability to appeal as "Registered Keeper" now?

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

https://ibb.co/album/zsYqrd]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=80 Tue, 05 May 2026 09:38:07 +0000 Natedog]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=80
I have previously been receiving advice from @b789 over on ftla here is the link to the thread

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...-a-permit/

I have been allocated a court date in June. The claimant has until 12th May to pay the court fee and I have until the 14th May to submit my witness statement, which I intend to rely upon, to both the court and the claimant.

I am just looking for some help to prepare a good witness statement, in case DCB Legal proceed with the hearing. If anyone can help me with that, I’ll be truly grateful. Thanks.]]>
I have previously been receiving advice from @b789 over on ftla here is the link to the thread

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...-a-permit/

I have been allocated a court date in June. The claimant has until 12th May to pay the court fee and I have until the 14th May to submit my witness statement, which I intend to rely upon, to both the court and the claimant.

I am just looking for some help to prepare a good witness statement, in case DCB Legal proceed with the hearing. If anyone can help me with that, I’ll be truly grateful. Thanks.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=79 Fri, 01 May 2026 20:36:57 +0000 3Sh3roo]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=79


This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by HX Car Park Management Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 16 April 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Charlestown Road Retail Park, Charlestown Rd, Halifax, HX3 6AB.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

  Charlestown P1.jpeg (Size: 125.91 KB / Downloads: 3)

  Charlestown P2.jpeg (Size: 120.11 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>


This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by HX Car Park Management Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 16 April 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.

The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Charlestown Road Retail Park, Charlestown Rd, Halifax, HX3 6AB.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

  Charlestown P1.jpeg (Size: 125.91 KB / Downloads: 3)

  Charlestown P2.jpeg (Size: 120.11 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=78 Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:41:19 +0000 Kenny Jockins]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=78
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: UNSURE. Equality Act considerations: Unsure. The location is stated as Lancaster University.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Additional notes provided:
The car i was driving that day was a mobility car for my son, as my car was unavailable, I have been working on the university and paying parking daily but did forget to pay this day but don't remember getting any letters about it until getting a letter from DCBL Collection Bailiffs.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: UNSURE. Equality Act considerations: Unsure. The location is stated as Lancaster University.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Additional notes provided:
The car i was driving that day was a mobility car for my son, as my car was unavailable, I have been working on the university and paying parking daily but did forget to pay this day but don't remember getting any letters about it until getting a letter from DCBL Collection Bailiffs.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=77 Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:19:19 +0000 Barbudaprince]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=77
The notice appears to have been issued as Other. Issue method detail: By post, without anything affixed to the vehicle windscreen. Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road W4 5BB.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NOT_APPLICABLE: PoFA timing check is unavailable for 'Other' issue method. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Monday, 24 March 2025 (5 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: BW Legal

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Friday, 17 April 2026, deemed service Wednesday, 22 April 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Wednesday, 20 May 2026.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---

The registered keeper is a tenant at the site.

Postcode is incorrect on PCN

Two different times for the incident and issued time have been added to the PCN and the follow up "final demand before action" letter respectively. The PCN  issued time precedes the time of incident, oddly.

Detail lacking in the particulars of claim (within the claim form)

Includes contractual recovery costs of £70 in the claim.


I will create a Google drive here and post all of the documents received thus far.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...EHUVAkKs1f]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as Other. Issue method detail: By post, without anything affixed to the vehicle windscreen. Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Wheatstone House, 650-654 Chiswick High Road W4 5BB.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NOT_APPLICABLE: PoFA timing check is unavailable for 'Other' issue method. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Monday, 24 March 2025 (5 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: Yes
- County Court claim: Yes
- Letter of Claim responded to: No
- Letter of Claim source: Bulk litigation firm
- Letter of Claim firm: BW Legal

County Court claim deadlines: issue date Friday, 17 April 2026, deemed service Wednesday, 22 April 2026, AoS deadline 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, defence deadline without AoS 4pm Wednesday, 06 May 2026, and defence deadline with AoS 4pm Wednesday, 20 May 2026.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

---

The registered keeper is a tenant at the site.

Postcode is incorrect on PCN

Two different times for the incident and issued time have been added to the PCN and the follow up "final demand before action" letter respectively. The PCN  issued time precedes the time of incident, oddly.

Detail lacking in the particulars of claim (within the claim form)

Includes contractual recovery costs of £70 in the claim.


I will create a Google drive here and post all of the documents received thus far.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...EHUVAkKs1f]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=76 Tue, 21 Apr 2026 12:44:21 +0000 johnny p]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=76
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Location:Mill Hill - Waitrose, 2 Langstone Way, NW7 1GU.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 09 March 2026 (17 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. G24 has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Britannia Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Additional notes provided:
This was the initial response to the above from Brittania:

Re: Parking Charge Number A7346736

Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.

Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings, we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
It is our choice as a car park management company, to decide whether to refer to the Keeper
Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, when we issue a Parking Charge. Not referring to
or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charges does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
It is not a requirement that we must notify you of your Parking Charge within 14 days. This only
applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a
Parking Charge. As we did not, we have 6 months in which we may notify you of the Parking
Charge.

We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please submit the requested additional evidence or comments through our website using the link
below. You will need your Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration:
https://www.britannia-parking.co.uk/en-gb/appeal/

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Location:Mill Hill - Waitrose, 2 Langstone Way, NW7 1GU.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 09 March 2026 (17 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. G24 has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Britannia Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Additional notes provided:
This was the initial response to the above from Brittania:

Re: Parking Charge Number A7346736

Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.

Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings, we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
It is our choice as a car park management company, to decide whether to refer to the Keeper
Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, when we issue a Parking Charge. Not referring to
or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charges does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
It is not a requirement that we must notify you of your Parking Charge within 14 days. This only
applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a
Parking Charge. As we did not, we have 6 months in which we may notify you of the Parking
Charge.

We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please submit the requested additional evidence or comments through our website using the link
below. You will need your Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration:
https://www.britannia-parking.co.uk/en-gb/appeal/

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=75 Sat, 18 Apr 2026 12:33:40 +0000 Dom.mcck]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=75
The notice appears to have been issued as On vehicle (windscreen ticket only). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Foundry, Chichester.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates WAITING: This is still pre-NtK under PoFA paragraph 8. Wait for a postal NtK. Route applied: Pre-NtK stage after windscreen NtD. The notice is treated as given on Not available (1 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Additional notes provided:
I put my reg in the system in the pub and it said it was valid until 07:00. No AM or PM listed so I assumed the parking is 24hrs but it was 12hrs. The length of time wasn’t listed anywhere. I have attached an image of an example of how the time is formatted on the iPad.
I was a paying customer at the pub but just misunderstood the parking system.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as On vehicle (windscreen ticket only). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Foundry, Chichester.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates WAITING: This is still pre-NtK under PoFA paragraph 8. Wait for a postal NtK. Route applied: Pre-NtK stage after windscreen NtD. The notice is treated as given on Not available (1 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Additional notes provided:
I put my reg in the system in the pub and it said it was valid until 07:00. No AM or PM listed so I assumed the parking is 24hrs but it was 12hrs. The length of time wasn’t listed anywhere. I have attached an image of an example of how the time is formatted on the iPad.
I was a paying customer at the pub but just misunderstood the parking system.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=74 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:00:56 +0000 TheParkingmeister]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=74
With that in mind, I'm wondering how best to tackle this.

The NtK has no period of parking specified but has a time of 14:47 and the two timestamped images show 14:40:31 and 14:40:41.

On their online portal there were 10 photos with timestamps from 14:40:31 to 14:48:05, but the last one with the vehicle in was timestamped 14:47:02. The two after were photos of some signage. I have included the first and last photos of the vehicle with livery and reg edited out (images inbetween are just more images of the vehicle), and the two photos of signage as well as the NtK at the link below:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...ayBDn42kik

- The NtK fails to SPECIFY a Period of Parking
- The photos show the vehicle there for 6 mins 32 seconds.
- The signage is purely prohibitory, "No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on roads at any time." Etc. So there is no offer to park under certain terms and so no basis of a contract.
- This prohibition is also not prominent on the signage and can not be read whilst driving. Stopping is certainly required to do so.
- The relevant land is stated to be "UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ". The vehicle was stopped outside Tomato Plant Limited UB8 2SR.

As I was typing this I remembered I have the evidence from last time.

Including:
- their contract with "TRADE SALES";
- their signage which I suspect is in breach of section 3 and Annex A of PPSSCOP.
- their signage site map.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...XHBKjF9N8Y]]>
With that in mind, I'm wondering how best to tackle this.

The NtK has no period of parking specified but has a time of 14:47 and the two timestamped images show 14:40:31 and 14:40:41.

On their online portal there were 10 photos with timestamps from 14:40:31 to 14:48:05, but the last one with the vehicle in was timestamped 14:47:02. The two after were photos of some signage. I have included the first and last photos of the vehicle with livery and reg edited out (images inbetween are just more images of the vehicle), and the two photos of signage as well as the NtK at the link below:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...ayBDn42kik

- The NtK fails to SPECIFY a Period of Parking
- The photos show the vehicle there for 6 mins 32 seconds.
- The signage is purely prohibitory, "No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on roads at any time." Etc. So there is no offer to park under certain terms and so no basis of a contract.
- This prohibition is also not prominent on the signage and can not be read whilst driving. Stopping is certainly required to do so.
- The relevant land is stated to be "UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ". The vehicle was stopped outside Tomato Plant Limited UB8 2SR.

As I was typing this I remembered I have the evidence from last time.

Including:
- their contract with "TRADE SALES";
- their signage which I suspect is in breach of section 3 and Annex A of PPSSCOP.
- their signage site map.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...XHBKjF9N8Y]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=73 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:29:46 +0000 sinaloa]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=73
The driver parked at Lidl Thornton Heath for 1h 42m while the maximum allowed time was 1h 30m.

Driver kept the receipt from that day. There was a problem at the checkout where one of the items was returning an "unrecognised item".

It took a while for the staff to sort out the problem and that's why the driver went over the allowed time.

Should I, as the registered keeper, appeal to Parking Eye with the receipt? Or try my luck with Lidl directly?

]]>
The driver parked at Lidl Thornton Heath for 1h 42m while the maximum allowed time was 1h 30m.

Driver kept the receipt from that day. There was a problem at the checkout where one of the items was returning an "unrecognised item".

It took a while for the staff to sort out the problem and that's why the driver went over the allowed time.

Should I, as the registered keeper, appeal to Parking Eye with the receipt? Or try my luck with Lidl directly?

]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=72 Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:56:58 +0000 NaiveDL]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=72
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Tandem Centre, High Street Colliers Wood, London, SW19 2TY.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 24 March 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

This was their response:

Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference 3338160741109.
On the day in question your vehicle was parked outside the demarcation of a parking bay, The signage at the aforementioned car park clearly states that
vehicles must be parked fully within the confines of a single marked bay.
The appeal has been reviewed, having considered and investigated your appeal the PCN has been issued correctly. We operate under the code of practice
for Parking Enforcement on private land and public car parks as issued by the International Parking Community (IPC) and our Parking Charge Notice’s are
not deemed to be unfair at law – IPC Code of Practice: https://theipc/code-of-practice
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60.00 to Bank Park Management Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT
OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be
submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter. Please note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS, you will lose the right to pay the discounted
rate of £60.00, and should the IAS reject your appeal you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will
be unable to appeal with the IAS. Please note Please visit www.theias.org for full details.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100.00 and the matter
will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70.00, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit
rating.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Bank Park Management Ltd

Additional notes provided:
I sent an appeal something along the lines of this, using chatgpt, I don't have a copy of what I sent.

"Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is central to this appeal, as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice to me in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
There is no evidence or allegation that I was the driver at the material time. The operator has therefore sought to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
A creditor may only recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper where the strict requirements of Schedule 4 are fully complied with. This is set out at Paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) of Schedule 4.
Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions set out in Paragraph 6 are met. Paragraph 6(1)(b) in turn requires that a Notice to Keeper is given in accordance with Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that the Notice to Keeper must specify “the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The Notice to Keeper in this case fails to meet this requirement. It provides only a single timestamp rather than a defined period of parking. A timestamp does not constitute a “period of parking” as required by the Act.
This failure is fatal to the operator’s ability to transfer liability to the keeper.
As the operator has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, they have no lawful basis to pursue me as the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver, and I decline to do so."

I also saved the photos of the contravention of the vehicle not parked in the bay properly, but it only show time stamp between 11:11:41 to 11:12:53. No driver was shown in the photos

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

  IMG_1989.JPG (Size: 43.88 KB / Downloads: 3)

  IMG_1988.JPG (Size: 66.05 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1987.JPG (Size: 55.61 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1986.JPG (Size: 72.29 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1984.jpg (Size: 111.34 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Tandem Centre, High Street Colliers Wood, London, SW19 2TY.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 24 March 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

This was their response:

Thank you for your recent communication concerning parking charge reference 3338160741109.
On the day in question your vehicle was parked outside the demarcation of a parking bay, The signage at the aforementioned car park clearly states that
vehicles must be parked fully within the confines of a single marked bay.
The appeal has been reviewed, having considered and investigated your appeal the PCN has been issued correctly. We operate under the code of practice
for Parking Enforcement on private land and public car parks as issued by the International Parking Community (IPC) and our Parking Charge Notice’s are
not deemed to be unfair at law – IPC Code of Practice: https://theipc/code-of-practice
Our appeals process is now concluded, you may now choose one of the following options:
1) Pay the parking charge detailed above at the reduced rate of £60.00 to Bank Park Management Ltd. PLEASE REFER OVERLEAF FOR PAYMENT
OPTIONS AND ADDRESS DETAILS.
2) Make an appeal to the independent adjudicator If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be
submitted to the IAS within 28 days of the date of this letter. Please note that if you wish to appeal to the IAS, you will lose the right to pay the discounted
rate of £60.00, and should the IAS reject your appeal you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the parking charge you will
be unable to appeal with the IAS. Please note Please visit www.theias.org for full details.
3) If you choose to do nothing the parking charge will automatically increase after thirty-five days from the date of this letter to £100.00 and the matter
will be passed to our debt recovery agent, at which point you will be liable to pay an additional charge of £70.00, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of parking, and further charges will be claimed if court action is taken against you. Any unpaid court judgement may adversely affect your credit
rating.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Bank Park Management Ltd

Additional notes provided:
I sent an appeal something along the lines of this, using chatgpt, I don't have a copy of what I sent.

"Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is central to this appeal, as the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice to me in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
There is no evidence or allegation that I was the driver at the material time. The operator has therefore sought to rely on the provisions of Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
A creditor may only recover unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper where the strict requirements of Schedule 4 are fully complied with. This is set out at Paragraph 4(1) and 4(2) of Schedule 4.
Paragraph 4(2)(a) requires that the conditions set out in Paragraph 6 are met. Paragraph 6(1)(b) in turn requires that a Notice to Keeper is given in accordance with Paragraph 9.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that the Notice to Keeper must specify “the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The Notice to Keeper in this case fails to meet this requirement. It provides only a single timestamp rather than a defined period of parking. A timestamp does not constitute a “period of parking” as required by the Act.
This failure is fatal to the operator’s ability to transfer liability to the keeper.
As the operator has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, they have no lawful basis to pursue me as the registered keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver, and I decline to do so."

I also saved the photos of the contravention of the vehicle not parked in the bay properly, but it only show time stamp between 11:11:41 to 11:12:53. No driver was shown in the photos

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

  IMG_1989.JPG (Size: 43.88 KB / Downloads: 3)

  IMG_1988.JPG (Size: 66.05 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1987.JPG (Size: 55.61 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1986.JPG (Size: 72.29 KB / Downloads: 1)

  IMG_1984.jpg (Size: 111.34 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>