Park direct uk ltd refused transfer of liability

winnahwinnah2025

Johnersh said:

Personally I wouldn't add anything about signage because the appellant O/P was not the driver and was not party to the contract. Whether or not the driver saw the signs *on that day* or agreed to the terms are not something the O/P can give direct evidence on.

This is a case where if you throw in the kitchen sink, the very good "best argument" that the PPC is not applying the law correctly, risks being lost amongst what they'll argue is 'more internet template'.

Lol. Page 11 already and they haven't even issued proceedings yet! 

Makes sense, so I'll just let them focus on the fact ppc refused transfer of liability. If in my favour would the ias get the pcn cancelled over this ? 

h2g2

PpcRscum2025 said:

So i re wrote it using a bit of @Coupon-mad @kryten3000

Dear adjudicator, This is my keeper appeal for this Parking Charge Notice from Park Direct uk for an alleged breach of contract at 233 high st UB8 1LD on the 04/04/2025

On receipt of Park Direct uk Notice to Keeper, I responded providing the name and a servicable  address of the driver as requested.

Despite complying with their invitation in full, Park Direct uk have declined to accept this as a transfer of liability and are continuing to pursue me for the charge

Park Direct uk then asked me to provide them with the nominated drivers proof and copy of drivers licence and insurance documents as if they are the law and this is a criminal offence, they should not be asking me for that and no where does it state in POFA 2012 or IPC code of conduct does it require for registered keeper to provide to creditor in order to transfer liability. Park direct uk in fact have created a ficticious obstacle not in line with POFA 2012 or IPC code of conduct and carried on demanding those documents from me or to pay up. As soon as I transferred liability to driver they should have discharged me from any liability and sent correspondence to the nominated driver as in a (NTD) form which they did not bother to and just refused to transfer liability from the start, this is very unfair and I have been treated unfairly and been forced to take liability for this PCN from park direct uk and that is why it has got to this stage of appeal.

Park direct uk actions also constitute clear breaches of thier KADOE contract with the DVLA, by continuing to process my personal data and pursuing me for a charge I am not liable for, park direct uk has engaged in unlawful data processing.

<SNIP>

The signs park direct uk have up are only along the left side of the short wall and is about knee/waist height so when cars are parked along the side the signs are obscured from view of the public and in my case the red pedestrian barrier in the picture was covering the sign next to my car so you would not be able to see any sign at all entering and not to mention the warden moved red barrier to take a picture which is very sneaky of him and just to note there are no other signs anywhere else none on entry or none on the right side of the great big wall and no road markings to make clear of no stopping/parking in fact they have parking bays with white lines that make it seem like you can park there very misleading and there is no road markings to differentiate from private land and public highway as they are adjacent.

<SNIP>

A few typos: "servicable" -> "serviceable"; "ficticious" --> "fictitious" --> "thier" --> "their".

Both of the longer paragraphs have a lot of run-on sentences. Try to keep sentences short and to the point. It makes them feel more authoritative and is easier to read. I would also advise against the more emotive points like "... as if they are law and this is a criminal offence". That kind of thing works well with people who already agree with you, but makes you look less convincing to anyone else.

There are a few places in each where it looks like you started writing one thing, and changed your mind on how to formulate the sentence partway through. This creates some grammatical oddities that should be cleaned up before sending the appeal.

Consider instead:

Park Direct UK then asked me to provide them with a copy of the nominated driver's drivers licence and proof of insurance. Nowhere does the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (POFA 2012) nor the IPC code of conduct require the registered keeper to provide this extra data order to transfer liability. Not being the driver, I do not have access to those documents, nor any lawful method to demand them.

Park Direct UK have created a fictitious obstacle not in line with POFA 2012 nor the IPC code of conduct and carried on demanding those documents from me or to pay up. As soon as I transferred liability to driver they should have discharged me from any liability and sent correspondence to the nominated driver as in a (NTD) form. They did not do this and just refused to transfer liability, as required by law. This is very unfair. Park Direct UK are attempting to forced me to take liability for this PCN which I cannot be held liable for.

I did notice that every time you write "Park Direct UK" you used fewer and fewer capital letters each time, which was quite funny as a subtle way to disrespect them.

Kaizen2024

This thread may be 11 pages long, but it's still less than a week old.

And strengthens my previous point. 

ChirpyChicken

Have Park direct replied to the appeal on the IAS portal?