PCN - Total Parking Solutions - Left the site - B&Q Chiswick Hounslow

Swindle56

hi all appreciate any advice

PCN received from the B&Q car park as stated. Vehicle did not exceed the 3 hour limit stated on the signage.

Ive gone back to site to take clearer images of the enforcement notices - they do state you are not allowed to leave the site, I dont know how they can enforce this legally?

Any advice would be appreciated should I appeal or just ignore it?

For an appeal any wording would be much appreciated please?

Thank you!

Car1980

They state they have recorded the alleged breach by use of "cameras" but only supplied photos of a car, not a proof of contractual breach.

I'd appeal as the Registered Keeper and ask for the "camera" evidence that the driver left the site that they claim they possess.

QrizB

they do state you are not allowed to leave the site

Do they also include a map of the "site" with clear boundaries? And are there warning signs or painted markings on footpaths that cross the site boundary warning you that you're leaving?

Coupon-mad

Check on their website photos first to see what images were taken.

Swindle56

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81975613#Comment_81975613

Not that I can see anywhere in the car park or store..

Swindle56

There are 4 pictures of the car alone (no driver to be seen) and 1 picture of their own signage (the same as ive posted above)

Gr1pr

Then appeal and deny the allegation

James_Poisson

They won't have any photos of anyone leaving site as that would be evidence that their operative allowed the breach to happen and did nothing about.

These add on scams are there to trap the gullible nothing else but chasing profit, just do as @Gr1pr suggests.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81975934#Comment_81975934

This. It is for them to prove and they can't.

Swindle56

Right Ive used a few AI tools combined with advice from a few places to come up with this, does it look ok?

Dear Appeals Department,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number: HT3797282

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute this ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability. I make no admission as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

1. Lack of Evidence and Burden of ProofThe PCN alleges the driver left the site. I dispute this allegation. The burden of proof rests with Total Parking Solutions (TPS) to provide clear, contemporaneous evidence that the driver exited the defined boundary of the "premises." The low-resolution photos provided do not show the driver leaving the site. Furthermore, I cite VCS v Ibbotson [2012]; if an attendant observed a driver allegedly leaving the site, they had an opportunity to mitigate any potential loss by informing the driver of the terms, yet chose not to, suggesting a predatory "trap" rather than a genuine parking management interest.

2. Ambiguity of "The Premises" and Inadequate SignageThe signage states "Do not leave the premises," yet fails to define what constitutes "the premises." There is no map provided on the signs, nor are there any perimeter markings or warnings on the footpaths to indicate where the private land ends and public land begins. According to the BPA Code of Practice, signs must be clear and unambiguous. A term that is undefined is unenforceable for vagueness.

3. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012 / Keeper LiabilityAs the keeper, I note that your Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to transfer liability from the driver to myself. I put you to strict proof that your notice meets every statutory requirement of Paragraph 9 of the Act. If it does not, you have no legal right to pursue me as the keeper.

4. Lack of StandingI put you to strict proof that Total Parking Solutions Ltd has the specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue PCNs and to pursue legal action in your own name at this specific location. A witness statement is insufficient; I request to see the relevant contemporaneous contract.

5. Penalty and UnconscionabilityWhile I am aware of ParkingEye v Beavis, the "legitimate interest" in that case was to encourage turnover in a busy car park. As this car park was not full and the parking is free, a £100 charge for a person allegedly stepping across an invisible boundary is "out of all proportion" and remains an unenforceable penalty.

In light of these points, I request that you cancel this charge immediately. If you reject this appeal, I require the appropriate POPLA verification code so that I may take the matter to independent adjudication.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name](Sign as Registered Keeper)

Coupon-mad

Remove point 5.

Remove this because the sign is woeful and you don't want to be admitting that hidden term is readable:

The signage states "Do not leave the premises,"