Key Worker discount

We welcome the decision of the BPA to instruct its members not to issue PCN’s to NHS staff and to cancel any tickets issued since 20 March 2020, and we look forward to the IPC following suit.

If you are a keyworker, such as NHS or emergency services staff, a registered Carer, a teacher, HGV Delivery driver, Social Worker, Magistrate or Judge, or listed on the BBC Website as being a Key worker in this time of crisis, and you get a Parking ticket  between now and 20 September 2020 that is NOT covered by the BPA’s decision, we will offer you a 10% discount on our usual service fees to deal with the matter for you.

Just complete our appeal form as normal, then at the payment screen, enter discount code  DZM8P99W for your automatic 10% discount.

Please also provide us with proof of your keyworker status, such as photo ID from your employer or similar; we will be performing random checks.

Coronavirus and Private Parking Appeals

We are all concerned about the impact of Coronavirus (Covid-19) on the UK population, and we are aware of a number of people who are taking steps to reduce their exposure to the condition.


PPA Staff work from home in the majority of cases, and attend our office in Basingstoke infrequently. As a result, even in the event of your case handler being under isolation, this will not affect their ability to continue to support you in your appeal.


Tests suggest that Covid-19 can survive on paper and card for 24-36 hours. As a result, our mail service will involve a delay of 2 days following receipt before a document received by post will be processed. You should ideally be sending documents to us as PDF by email in any case. Documents prepared for you by us, and posted out will, for the most part, have been electronically printed and sent from our mail fulfilment centre in Kent, and as such will not be touched outside the Royal Mail delivery process.

During this period, we will not be accepting any deliveries which require signatures, and any such items will not be collected and will be returned undelivered.


If you have a court hearing, we recommend that you contact the court before the hearing to confirm that the court is open and that the hearing is taking place at least 7 days before the hearing. If you show any of the symptoms, notify the court at that stage, and ask for the matter to be re-scheduled.
Our Lay Representatives will be attending court as usual until the medical advice on travel changes, but will take precautions to avoid physical contact and/.or infection, which may include face masks, failing to shake hands, using electronic copies of documents rather then printed papers, and not sitting immediately adjacent to you in the waiting room or in court. Please be assured that this is not intended to offend.

During this uncertainty, we expect that the number of Parking tickets issued by parking companies will be reduced, and as a result, we are already seeing companies rolling back to old tickets, in some cases going back a full 5-6 years; we are in a position to assist with these no matter how much the parking company or Debt Collector says is owed, and no matter how threatening their correspondence is. Just fill in our appeal form, and we will start working for your immediately.

Mail Handling

PLEASE do not send us “recorded delivery” or “signed for” post.

Private Parking Appeals operates three mail handling centres in the UK, one in Glasgow, on in Hampshire, and one, dedicated to legal matters, in Bristol.

When you post a letter to us, just because you have put Glasgow, or Bristol on the letter does not mean it will be delivered to, or be handled there. We have arrangements for mail handling that involve all items being scanned into our systems, then the original paper is shredded for security and recycled. This is in line with our company policy statements.

However, if an item is sent to an address using a “signed for” mail product, this MUST be delivered to the address shown on the envelope. As a result, a Signed For item may not be received by us for up to a week after posting, since we have to make arrangements for someone to be in the mail handling centre at the exact time the mail arrives, ready to sign for it, even if that person was not scheduled to work from that location that day. This means that often a card is left, although sometimes a card is NOT left, so we have no idea that the item is waiting for us.

For that reason, this means that “signed for” mail is NOT the best way of making sure we receive something. The best and most reliable way to make sure we receive your documents is by scanning them to PDF and emailing them to us, or by faxing the originals to us. You SHOULD NOT send us original documents by post, and especially not original Disabled badges etc. As used to be said on BBC’s “Take Hart” we cannot return originals to you.

Finally, please do not send documents to us that are not intended for us. We are not the parking company, the local council ticket appeals office, or POPLA, and any mail received which is not about an ongoing appeal that you have paid for will not be forwarded, acknowledged or returned.


Gladstones solicitors sink to new low

John Wilkie is NOT an officer of the court. As a result, he is not bound by the rules that Solicitors, Barristers and other representatives who are supervised by Legally trained principals are. Nonetheless, he willingly complies with such rules, because acting unprofessionally in court is the fastest way to annoy the judge and lose the claim.

It appears that Gladstones Solicitors, the pet firm of most IPC based parking companies, have forgotten that their first duty is to the court, as in a recent claim they have applied for a default judgment, despite both receiving and acknowledging receipt of a defence, and making an offer of settlement!

In a claim which was defended robustly by a landowner parked on their own land, both the County Court and Gladstones confirmed that they received a defence filed and served on 2 January 2020. Indeed Gladstones has since offered to settle the claim for £200.

Yet despite this, and no doubt due to some error at Northampton, Gladstones has applied for a default judgment.

This is yet another example of the abuse of process by John Davies and his staff, with other examples being issuing 6 claims for 6 tickets, rather than one consolidated claim, or asking for £60 debt collection charges and £50 fixed costs, when they charge between £20 and £70 for this process, and only then on a a no-win, no-fee basis.

Gladstones is currently under investigation by the SRA for forging witness statements, and indeed it also appear that they are forging supporting identity documents as well, we have had sight of a driving licence issued to the staff member of a PPC before they could have applied for one, as well a ex-policemen who can’t spell their name, staff who can’t remember if they work in London or Brighton, and staff members who can’t even remember changing their name by deed poll…

Are you being pursued by Gladstones Solicitors for a parking debt? We have not lost a case against these charlatans since 2017, apply for our services now.


HX Car Park Management fail in court

Following the recent report on BBC Radio 4, John Wilkie recently represented one of our clients at a court case in Manchester, involving HX Car Park Management, an IPC company.

Needless to say that HX did not send their witness, Kenneth Marland, to court, and its probably quite a good job that he didn’t come as his witness statement was not well received by the court. It was also a duplicate of pretty much every statement produced by Gladstones Solicitors, the only difference being who forged the signature this time around.

John Wilkie, in compliance with his first duty to the court, took the judge through the witness statement, then proceeded to show how incorrect it was. The court agreed, particularly as the photographs were not of a parked vehicle, and the contract required 4 such photographs of a parked vehicle, not simply 2 photos taken by ANPR. As a result, the court could not be sure that the vehicle was, in fact parked for the period claimed.

Additionally, the Notice to Keeper was found to not comply with the stringent requirements of Keeper Liability,  the Landowner Contract did not give authority for HX to enforce against the keeper, and the contract required parking patrols, not ANPR.

The claim was dismissed, and the Defendant was awarded full costs due to the unreasonable behaviour of the Claimant.

Unsurprisingly, as yet the Claimant has not paid the court order!

BBC Radio 4 Moneybox, again

John Wilkie, our head of legal, was delighted to be invited back to the BBC Money Box show this weekend, to discuss parking tickets in general, and HX Car Park Management in particular.

HX Car Parking, like most IPC companies, doesn’t comply with Keeper Liability and seeks the most flimsy of excuses to charge customers, who pay for parking, up to £100 for made-up infringements of the terms and conditions, when often the reason for the breach is their own actions. For example, you have to but a ticket within 10 minutes of ENTERING the car park, not within 10 minutes of Parking…

But, more importantly, the standard HX Car Park Management contract doesn’t allow the use of ANPR, only patrols, and also doesn’t allow them to seek keeper details from the DVLA, only to issue charges to Drivers.

We have made the decision that if Becky, the aggrieved motorist from today’s programme, wishes to pursue this matter further, we will support her going forward, at no cost.

In the meantime, our court record against IPC companies speaks for itself – we have not lost a claim involving an IPC member company in the last 18 months.


Problems with an IPC Company? complete our appeal form now


Seasons Greetings

Whatever your persuasion or belief, this time of year is always the best for a proper celebration of the past year, and enthusiasm for the year to come.

I spend Christmas with my family in Scotland, and this year will be no exception. And, for the first time, our phone lines will not be manned on Christmas Day, instead going to our answerphone from 9pm on Christmas Eve until 9am on Boxing Day morning.

This is also the time of year for sales – and we are offering two sales this year.

Offer 1 is a one off for a single customer.

As you know, Parking Companies continue to issue tickets around the whole year, and last year we know that ParkingEye alone issued more than 10 tickets on Christmas Day. In fact we have one of them framed in our mail room.  As a result, the first customer to contact us within the 28 days after Christmas, with a Notice to Keeper (postal notice) from a BPA company dated 25 December 2019 will have their service fee refunded, and their ticket will be dealt with free of charge. more than 85% of our customers tickets are cancelled at first or second appeal. In the unlikely event that we  cannot resolve this at first or second stage appeal, this will include any additional support if the company progresses to a court claim, but DOES NOT include representation on the day of any court hearing.

Offer 2 is slightly simpler.

From now until the end of the 12 days of Christmas (6 January 2020) any order quoting the discount code 332UQLRY will receive a 10% discount on the service fees being paid.

Also, from 6 January until 31 January, any order quoting the discount code 3RJY9YAU will receive a 5% discount.

This discount applies to any payment made quoting the relevant discount code. In each case, you must enter the discount code on the payment page for this to apply, and no retrospective discounts will be allowed.

This discount DOES NOT apply to any costs for representation at court.


We would like to wish all of our customers a merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Cool Yule etc, and a prosperous new year.

Enforcing Court Judgments

Private Parking Appeals and its staff have an impressive record of court successes against parking companies, despite their claims that the Beavis Case makes their charges enforceable and fair.

This is for a number of reasons, but the main reason is that the parking companies do not comply with the law that allows them to transfer liability to the keeper.

There are a number of elements that must apply if Keeper Liability is to be relied upon:

  • The parking company must have proof that they have the right to operate on the land
  • The parking company signage must offer a clear and unambiguous contract
  • Notices must be issued in a specified way that complies with the requirements of the law
  • The Keeper details must have been sought from the DVLA
  • The notices must include required information

If these hurdles are not crossed by the parking company, it cannot claim Keeper Liability.


In two recent cases, VCS v Mr F, and UKPC v Dr A, keeper liability was not satisfied, and the judge ordered costs to be paid against both companies.

Unfortunately, as is often that case when parking companies are involved, they are very fast to run to court against those they claim owe THEM money, but very slow to pay their own debts.

VCS part of the Excel group, are famous for denying receipt of court orders, even when they attend court, but on this occasion have sent a cheque for £95 to our client, which has bounced. As a result, enforcement action will be taking place shortly, involving Simon Renshaw-Smith being ordered, under penalty of imprisonment, to attend court to explain why this occurred.


UKPC, by comparison, a company which has been suspended from DVLA access on more than one occasion, has been ordered to pay Dr A £455 in total, and hasn’t yet done so, despite the hearing being over a month ago. They also haven’t responded to a GDPR request, or to a Letter of Claim for their breach of the Data Protection Act in seeking keeper details for locations where they have no right to operate.

UKPC, on their website, says the following about court action:

If you receive a CCJ it can have a major impact on your credit rating and could severely impair your ability to obtain credit. When you contact the bank to apply for a loan or mortgage; for a store or credit card; rent property; lease or hire a vehicle, credit checks may be performed to ensure that you are not a high credit risk. If you have an outstanding or satisfied CCJ on your credit file it is significantly less likely that your application will be successful. Where an individual with a CCJ does manage to obtain credit, they can often end up paying a higher interest rate. Records of CCJs are kept for six years unless they are paid in full within a month of their issue.

Court action is always an option of last resort for UKPC. We always prefer to resolve situations amicably but unfortunately this is not always possible. UKPC feel it is important to make motorists aware of the potential enforcement action that may be taken to recover debts after a court has entered a judgment against an individual. Enforcement can include, but is not limited to:

  • Sending County Court bailiffs to recover goods in the amount of the debt
  • Obtaining an attachment of earnings order, whereby your employer must deduct an amount from your salary to be paid to us until the debt is cleared
  • Obtaining an order for the debtor to attend court and give a detailed statement of means which can include bank details.

UKPC have regrettably had to employ all of these methods previously to recover unpaid debts.

It appears that UKPC are likely to be on the receiving end of at least one of these methods of enforcement in short order, and John Wilkie is certainly looking forward to meeting both Rupert Williams of UKPC and Simon Renshaw-Smith of VCS at the debtor hearings.Of course, if the debtors officers fail to attend, they can be imprisoned for contempt of court.

Do you have a Parking court case? Private Parking Appeals are the unquestioned experts in handling these matters for you, and have a success rate which is second to none.

Don’t hesitate, contact us today.

Court Claim Success

Private Parking Appeals has been involved in court cases against Parking Companies since our first inception in 2014. Indeed, even before we incorporated, our directors were regularly seen in court assisting with parking claims. Alex Shipp, David Carrod and John Wilkie have become well known names in the industry, as well as in the courts with a number of cases having been reported previously by the Parking Prankster.

Many forums claim online that parking cases can be easily won, and one particular forum has a member who claims a 99% success record in court with claims where its members have assisted.  This is untrue, and provably so. Indeed, David Carrod, who keeps meticulous records of such things, has publicly stated that the average win rate in parking cases supported by forums or third party appeals companies such as ourselves is about 82%.

It’s therefore interesting to look at the last year from Private Parking Appeals point of view.

To be clear, Private Parking Appeals is NOT a regulated law firm, and we cannot conduct proceedings, we can only advise and assist. We also cannot represent you in court, though we do have a number of staff who are competent Advocates, including John Wilkie and Julia Morgan. Wherever possible, we will offer the services of a Lay Representative if one is available.

In the last year, we have had a number of claims where either John or Julia has attended court with our clients, and these are listed below. In all cases, our client(s) have consented to our use of their name in this blog.

MIL Collections v George -Truro County Court. £750 costs order due to MIL’s unreasonable behaviour – transcripts are available of both the Judgment and the cross-examination of Christopher Barrett by John Wilkie.

UKPME v Hunter – Manchester County Court – Mr Hunter was not driver or keeper of the vehicle, and so the claim was dismissed, with Unreasonable Conduct costs against UKPME. UKPME has failed to pay in excess of £1000 of court orders as a result of this and other claims against Mr Hunter, and are no longer a member of an Accredited Trade Association despite claiming to still be IPC members. Despite several threats to do so, UKPME has never appealed or sought to set aside any of the judgments against it.

PCM v Pine – Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

UKCPM v Birbeck (1) – Swindon County Court – Mr Birbeck was not driver or keeper of the vehicle, and so the claim was dismissed, with Unreasonable Conduct costs against UKCPM.

Euro Parking Services v Maddox – Stoke County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Link Parking v Pattendon – Bodmin County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Parking and Property Management v Watkins – The claim was discontinued following an abortive first hearing at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.

SIP v Robinson – Manchester County Court – Agreed settlement of less than 60% of the claim value at the courtroom door.

UKCPM v Gornell – Reading County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Link Parking v Hopgood – Truro County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Civil Enforcement v Elia – Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed. with unreasonable conduct costs.

Vehicle Control Services v Nur – Sheffield County Court. VCS did not attend this hearing at their local court. Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

MIL v JP Consultants – Truro County Court – MIL Collections had no standing to collect the debt, and Keeper Liability had not been complied with. This matter took three hearings, and as such the Defendant was awarded substantial costs.

Civil Enforcement v Morrisey – Bristol County Court – Claim set aside and dismissed, with £295 costs.

PCM (UK) v Gluck (1) – Edmonton County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed.

Total Parking v Work – Worcester County Court – Settled for £40.

Civil Enforcement v Birbeck – Swindon County Court – Discontinued

Civil Enforcement v Clare -Liverpool County Court. CEL did not attend this hearing at their local court. Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed, with unreasonable conduct costs

Horizon v Statham – High Wycombe County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out.

Civil Enforcement v Higgs – Bedford County Court – Discontinued on the day.

ParkingEye v Bentley – Discontinued

UKPC v Gafita – Discontinued

ParkingEye v Mullins – Discontinued

Civil Enforcement v Darvill – Bournemouth County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed with unreasonable conduct costs.

UKPC v Akhtar – Burnley County Court –  Default judgment set aside and listed for trial.

UKPC v Cohen – Discontinued

ParkingEye v McGoldrick – North Shields County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, in “free parking” for 1 hour period, PE failed to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking. This case defined the “pre parking” grace period as at least 5 minutes.

PCM v Battye – Watford County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out.

UKPC v Brooking – Reading County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, the signage did not offer a genuine contract to park. Claim dismissed with costs.

Horizon v Gluck – Edmonton County Court – Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown. Moreover, the signage was contradictory. Claim dismissed.

PCM (UK) v Gluck (2) – Edmonton County Court – The Claimant did not attend or give notice, so the Claim was struck out, with unreasonable conduct costs.

UKCPM v Birbeck (2) – Swindon County Court – The Claimant did not attend, but had given notice, so the claim went ahead. Ultimately, Keeper Liability had not been complied with, and the identity of the driver was unknown, so the claim was dismissed with unreasonable conduct costs.

Britannia Parking v McPherson – Chelmsford County Court – The signage was not sufficiently clear that a parking ticket was needed for a “free” parking period, as the signage required a ticket to be purchased, so the Claim was dismissed.

Vehicle Control Services v Mills – Coventry County Court –  Ms Mills, a monthly permit holder, tried to renew her pemit, but the VCS staff member claimed to be unable to renew this, He directed her to park on the restricted area, then, the court found, issued her a ticket, having entrapped her into parking at that location. VCS admitted that this person was their staff member, but did not produce any witness statement from him, replying as usual on a statement from a paralegal. VCS sought over £400 in costs. The claim was dismissed.

It’s interesting to note that in 14 of the 34 cases above, the claim turned on the stringent requirements of Keeper Liability. It is clear that the Parking Companies, their solicitors and the advocates they send to court do nto understand how to comply with Keeper Liability, and this continued to be their downfall. This includes, ParkingEye, Civil Enforcement, and all but one IPC Company. It is of note that a BPA member has recently approached us to ask advice on Keeper Liability compliance – make of that what you will.

Additonally, on a number of occasions the courts have agreed that bring a claim using Keeper Liability when the requirements of law have not been complied with is unreasonable, and have awarded costs against the Claimant as a result.

If you have a court claim from ANY parking company, we are the experts in beating parking firms, and we do have a 99% record of wins against all IPC companies represented by Gladstone Solciitors, Civil Enforcment Ltd, UKCPM, MIL Collections, PCM (UK), Link Parking, UKPC, NCP and Britannia. We guide you throught the whole court process, right to the courtroom door, and if we can, we will find you an appropriate advocate for the day.

BBC Radio 4 Moneybox

Some of our customers will be aware that John Wilkie, our Head of Legal, was recently invited onto the BBC Radio 4 Moneybox programme to discuss paring tickets.

The podcast linked to this can be found here.

Always remember that a parking ticket is most easily beaten at the first or second stage of the appeal porcess, as soon after you receive this as possible. Once you get to later stages, including court proceedings, your chance of winning reduces from over 99% at first appeal to around 85% at a court hearing.

John Wilkie will also be appearing on a number of local radio programmes across the UK in the coming months, ensuring that as many people as possible are aware of the issues with Private Parking, and during the approach of the very welcome Single Code of Practice being intriduced as a result of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, where we are one of the organisations being consulted, together with our BPA and BMPA colleagues.