DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 122111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: June 17, 2026, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok thanks, will send today.
#Post#: 124477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 13, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Received rejection as expected, is it worth fighting on grounds
of PoFA non compliance only? Also just wondered if there was any
valid argument re the PPSCoP in the fact that the warden wasn't
prevented from putting a ticket on the vehicle at the time he
took the photo's as evidence because the driver drove off or
tried to stop him, but the ticket was later issued by post. Is
there any argument in that the ticket was issued incorrectly or
is that a waste of time raising it?
Thanks.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/84Bcc32v/Screenshot-20260713-102412-Adobe-Acrobat.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/KzGwwZ74
HTML https://i.ibb.co/v7SLRMB/Screenshot-20260713-102419-Adobe-Acrobat.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/LL39HsP
#Post#: 124481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 13, 2026, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would fight this at POPLA purely on the grounds on non-POFA
compliance.
I can come up with something but as all POPLA appeals, the
outcome is not predictable.
We can however say that there is a 99% likelihood of this never
seeing the inside of a court room.
Give me 48 hours.
#Post#: 124486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 13, 2026, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, will do.
#Post#: 124819--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 15, 2026, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> I would fight this at POPLA purely on the grounds on non-POFA
compliance.
>
> I can come up with something but as all POPLA appeals, the
outcome is not predictable.
>
> We can however say that there is a 99% likelihood of this
never seeing the inside of a court room.
>
> Give me 48 hours.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apologies for chasing you up, but have you had a chance to come
up with anything yet as i have to pay the reduced rate by
tomorrow if i'm not going to POPLA.
Much appreciated, thanks.
#Post#: 124874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 16, 2026, 1:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry - yes - I can do that.
Been a very busy week!
#Post#: 124880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 16, 2026, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, really appreciate it.
#Post#: 124962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 17, 2026, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PPS POPLA Appeal.
You will need to insert your registration mark below.
It is admitted that I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle AB12
CDE and I make this appeal as Keeper.
The parking operator has provided no evidence as to the drivers
identity and I have chosen not to identify the driver in a
circumstance where the law does not require it.
The Parking Operator has stated that they are therefore pursuing
me as the Keeper using the provisions of Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (POFA).
As you will be aware, POFA allows a Parking Operator to invoke
what is known at 'Keeper Liability' in order to move liability
for the parking charge from the unknown driver onto the keeper.
However, in order to invoke Keeper Liability the operator is
required to send the keeper a PCN (Notice to Keeper) which must
meet every condition of POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) - each
condition contains one or more requirements.
Paragraph 9(2)(f) confirms that, "the creditor will (if all the
applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the
right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as
remains unpaid" - the paragraph therefore confirms that total
compliance is needed.
Paragraph 9(1) also states that, "A notice which is to be relied
on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b)
is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following
requirements are met" - once again the legislation confirms that
total compliance is needed.
PPS are claiming that their NtK meets all requirements of POFA
Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2).
I am challenging that contention on the grounds that it is
extremely obvious that the NtK omits a number of the
requirements / conditions of 9(2) and therefore there is
absolutely no way that the operator can claim that "all the
applicable conditions under this Schedule are met".
In particular, in order to be compliant, the NtK must contain a
series of paragraphs of wording which meet the requirements of
the Schedule - the contents of these paragraphs constitute what
is known as mandatory wording.
It is accepted that the parking operator may meet the
requirements of mandatory wording in one of two ways;
1. They may simply quote, word for word, the mandatory wording
exactly as it is set out in the statute
Or
2. They may formulate their own wording which replicates the
requirements of the mandatory wording.
However, it is legally accepted that if the drafter chooses to
formulate their own wording then the alternative wording must
meet a number of extremely tight rules;
In the first instance the alternative wording must, on a correct
construction, replicate EXACTLY the meaning of the mandatory
wording.
Secondly, the alternative wording must replicate EXACTLY the
presentation and format which the mandatory wording sets out.
Thirdly, it is legally accepted that the drafting party carries
all the risk (when they use an alternative wording) in an
instance where it can be demonstrated that the alternative
wording either omits or mis-states ANY detail which is present
in the statutory wording provided by the legislation.
It should be noted that legal professionals advise that the
drafting party should therefore avoid alterations to the
prescribed mandatory wording in all circumstances.
I will now demonstrate the non compliance within the PPS Notice
to Keeper.
I will then present these as specific appeal points at the end
of this document - the operator can then address these appeal
points in the manner which POPLA require, one by one.
POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies the following;
"The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required
to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of
parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
9(2)(b) therefore sets out two specific wording requirements.
I will admit that the operators notice does inform me that the
driver is required to pay the charges in respect of the
specified period of parking.
However, there is no wording (either verbatim or alternative)
which specifies that "the parking charges have not been paid in
full".
The condition of 9(2)(b) is not therefore met since the second
part of the AND logic set out in the condition is not satisfied.
POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies the following;
"The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for service for the
driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver".
9(2)(e) therefore sets out a number of requirements.
In this instance the legislation demands a sentence of mandatory
wording immediately followed by a two limbed invite to the
keeper with the two specific requirements of the invite
specified by sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
The two limbs of the invite must be separated by the word "or" -
in this instance the Boolean operator "or" is used as a
conjunctive adverb to separate the two independent limbs of the
invite.
Important - the word "or" (when used in this context) is a word
with established legal meaning and therefore it cannot be
substituted for any alternative wording - meaning the word 'or'
must be present to satisfy the requirement of the invite.
In this instance, the operators NtK contains no wording
(verbatim or alternative) which states that "the creditor does
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver".
The legislation specifies that the notice "must state" this
sentence.
Furthermore, the NtK contains no two limbed 'invitation to the
keeper' in any guise - additionally, the word 'or' does not
appear and therefore the mandatory wording requirement can never
be met since the word 'or' cannot be replaced since it is a word
with defined legal meaning.
Additionally, the operators NtK specifies "If you were not the
driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using
the form attached) of the name of the driver and a current
address for service for the driver and pass this Notice on to
the driver"
The operator's statement does not meet the legal requirement of
9(2)(e)(ii) - the operator's alternative wording does not convey
the fact that the keeper is merely 'invited' to nominate another
driver - the word 'invite' is used in the legislation to provide
the keeper with the opportunity to pay or nominate but the
legislation does not make it an obligation to do one or the
other - the operator's wording that "if you were not the driver
you should notify us" conveys an obligation which is not present
in wording of the statute.
POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies the following;
"The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28
days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid) have the right to recover
from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid".
In this instance the operator does attempt to recreate the
verbatim wording but they omit a section of the required
wording.
An examination of the NtK shows that it does not specify that
the creditor will "if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met" - therefore the condition of 9(2)(f) is not
met since this information is never conveyed either verbatim or
in the alternative.
Specific appeal points;
Appeal Point One - That the notice does not meet the condition
of 9(2)(b) - the second requirement of 9(2)(b) is never set out
in the NtK - I therefore invite the operator to demonstrate
compliance by either quoting or highlighting, verbatim, the
wording on their NtK which specifies that "the parking charges
have not been paid in full".
Appeal Point Two - That the notice does not meet the condition
of 9(2)(e) - I therefore invite the operator to demonstrate
compliance by either quoting or highlighting, verbatim, the
sentence from their NtK which states that "the creditor does not
know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver".
Appeal Point Three - That the notice does not contain a two
limbed invitation to the keeper which 'invites the keeper' to
either pay the charges or nominate another driver - the word
'invite' must be used to provide opportunity but not to imply
obligation.
Appeal Point Four - That the notice does not warn the keeper
that the operator is required to meet "all the applicable
conditions under this Schedule".
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
#Post#: 125055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 18, 2026, 1:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Thanks again for your help and the time you put into this,
as i said before it is really appreciated. Will submit to POPLA
and update outcome.
#Post#: 125270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions NTK Regis Road
DIR By: JLA
Date: July 21, 2026, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have just seen the response to my appeal to POPLA from PPS. They
are clearly talking about a completely different case in their
response. They make no reference to my appeal regarding the non
compliance to PoFA of their NtK (neither did they in their
initial rejection to my appeal to them), they state appeal
points I never raised and are clearly not relevant to my case.
Should I just say they've got the wrong case & would that be a
winning point?
A few other points which i'm not sure if any would be relevant
at all:
They do not attach a copy of my original appeal, only their
rejection of it.
The image of the NtK they show is not an exact copy of the one i
received. Their copy does not have the QR code? next to my
name/address or the 7 digit reference above same.
The image they show of proof from their search of JustPark that
there is no evidence of any bookings for Regis Road for my
vehicle is incorrect. I know this is not a point of appeal, but
I have proof on my JustPark app that parking was paid for on the
day in question and other days both prior to and after the date
of the charge so i find it odd that it does not show up on their
search.
The wording of the JustPark sign they show giving dimensions of
sign differs from the actual on street signage wording.
I have attached links to my appeal to POPLA (I also submitted a
copy of the NtK to them) and the PPS response and their
evidence, I did not include the photo's they submitted of my
vehicle again.
My appeal:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/q35Pwh0S/Screenshot-20260720-120823-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/q35Pwh0S
HTML https://i.ibb.co/1fQhts24/Screenshot-20260720-120842-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/1fQhts24
HTML https://i.ibb.co/4RQV9Lhk/Screenshot-20260720-120847-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/4RQV9Lhk
Their response:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/qLBmfcxS/Screenshot-20260721-105713-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/qLBmfcxS
HTML https://i.ibb.co/cS7GRN1p/Screenshot-20260721-105721-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/cS7GRN1p
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wZSVv8R2/Screenshot-20260721-105728-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/wZSVv8R2
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mrrNs6C6/Screenshot-20260721-105737-Samsung-Browser.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/mrrNs6C6
HTML https://i.ibb.co/WqVRCFj/510823115-PC-260721-112855-1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/WqVRCFj
HTML https://i.ibb.co/5hhzFGRP/510823115-PC-260721-112855-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/5hhzFGRP
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zVjpjGLy/510823115-Just-Park-System-260721-112938.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/zVjpjGLy
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LdJ19J1p/242-Sign.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/LdJ19J1p
HTML https://i.ibb.co/YFhpZdbb/510823115-3.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/YFhpZdbb
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mFYwM8P4/242-Contract-260721-112757-1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/mFYwM8P4
HTML https://i.ibb.co/5gthGSSw/Screenshot-20260721-124130-Samsung-Notes.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/5gthGSSw
HTML https://i.ibb.co/vCyq5BN6/242-Site-Map.png
HTML https://ibb.co/vCyq5BN6
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page