DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124323--------------------------------------------------
PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 10, 2026, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,
I received a PCN (picture attached) from PPS for parking on
their land without valid permit.
The reason why the driver parked there was because he did Amazon
deliveries in few buildings next to their land, but because the
road ahead was closed there was no other option available for
parking. The driver put a note on the windscreen Amazon.
The location on the PCN The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
is different from the location where the car was parked. The car
was parked on Seagull lane.
I appealed the PCN with PPS and request some information, of
course they reject the appeal and totally ignored my requests,
answering me with generic template. I will write down the
grounds of my appeal and will attach their Notice of Rejection.
Then, last night, I submitted appeal with POPLA (will write down
the grounds). Today I received email with update that PPS
uploaded their evidence of the appeal. Now I have 7 days to
submit my response.
The grounds of the appeal with PPS:
"I write to formally challenge the above Parking Charge Notice
and request that it be cancelled.
At the time of the alleged contravention, the vehicle was being
used for the purpose of undertaking Amazon parcel deliveries
within the development. Deliveries were being made to multiple
buildings in the immediate area (Alder House, Salus house and
The Oxygen) and the vehicle was present only for the period
reasonably required to complete those deliveries. The reason why
the driver parked at this location is because the road ahead was
in full construction works, so there is no other parking options
available for the purpose of the delivery. The vehicle displayed
Amazon delivery identification, which is visible within your own
photographic evidence. The vehicle was therefore being used in
connection with active delivery duties and not for general
parking purposes. I further note that your photographic evidence
appears to show the construction works and access restrictions
present within the area at the relevant time. These conditions
significantly reduced the availability of alternative stopping
locations and should be taken into account when considering the
circumstances of this case.
Also the car hasn't been parked at the address in the PCN - 4
Western Gateway. The address provided in the PCN doesn't match
the address of the picture.
In addition, all photographs made available through your online
portal appear to have been taken at 11:48, whereas the Parking
Charge Notice states an incident time of 11:58. The notice does
not disclose any observation period, time first seen, or
explanation as to how the alleged contravention time was
established. Accordingly, please provide: � The warden's
contemporaneous notes;
� Details of any observation period undertaken;
� The observation start and end times;
� Details of any observations made between 11:48 and
11:58;
� Confirmation of the evidential basis upon which the
alleged contravention time of 11:58 was determined.
I respectfully request that the charge be cancelled in light of
the genuine delivery activity being undertaken and the
surrounding circumstances evidenced within your own photographs.
I'm attaching proof of delivery activities.
Should you decline this appeal, please provide a full response
addressing each of the points raised above together with all
evidence upon which you intend to rely.
Yours faithfully,"
The ground with POPLA:
"I am the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle and appeal
against the Parking Charge Notice on the grounds set out below.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs
the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
1. The operator has failed to establish that the alleged
contravention occurred.
The Parking Charge Notice states that the alleged contravention
occurred at 11:58.
However, every photograph made available by the operator is
timestamped 11:48.
There is therefore a 10 minute discrepancy between the
photographic evidence and the alleged contravention time.
In my initial appeal, I specifically requested:
the Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous notes;
the observation period;
the time first seen;
the observation start and finish times;
details of any observations undertaken between 11:48 and 11:58;
and
an explanation of how the alleged contravention time of 11:58
was determined.
The operator has ignored my requests. Instead, it issued a
generic rejection which failed to address these questions
entirely.
2. The driver was not improperly parked. The location on PCN is
different from the location where the car was actually parked.
The operator has failed to prove that the vehicle was parked at
the location stated on the Parking Charge Notice.
The Parking Charge Notice identifies the location as:
The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway, London E16 1AZ.
However, the photographs supplied shows location Seagull lane.
Screenshots attached.
It is for the operator to prove that the alleged breach occurred
at the location specified.
I raised this issue during my initial appeal.Again, the operator
failed to answer this point and supplied no evidence confirming
the precise location of the vehicle.
3. The vehicle was engaged in active commercial deliveries and
was not parked in the ordinary sense.
At the material time the vehicle was undertaking Amazon parcel
deliveries to multiple buildings within the development,
including:
Alder House;
Salus House; and
The Oxygen.
Proof of these deliveries is enclosed.
The vehicle was present only for the period reasonably necessary
to complete these deliveries before departing. It was not left
for general parking purposes.
The vehicle also displayed Amazon delivery identification, which
is visible in the operator's own photographic evidence.
The operator therefore knew, or ought reasonably to have known,
that the vehicle was engaged in active delivery duties rather
than ordinary parking.
This distinction is recognised in Jopson v Homeguard Services
Ltd (Oxford County Court, Appeal, 2016), where His Honour Judge
Charles Harris QC held that temporary stopping for the purposes
of loading or unloading is fundamentally different from parking.
The judgment recognised that activities such as deliveries
require vehicles to stop temporarily and that such stopping does
not fall within the ordinary meaning of "parking".
The vehicle was present only for the period reasonably necessary
to complete those deliveries.
The rejection letter entirely ignores this fact.
4. Extreme circumstances prevented the driver from parking
correctly.
Construction works affected the availability of alternative
stopping locations.
At the relevant time, extensive construction works were taking
place immediately beyond the location where the vehicle stopped.
These works are clearly visible in the operator's own
photographs.
The construction significantly restricted access and removed the
availability of alternative locations where delivery drivers
could safely stop while undertaking deliveries within the
development.
This was specifically explained in my original appeal.
The operator has failed to address this point
5. Failure to properly consider the appeal
My original appeal raised several specific factual and
evidential issues, namely:
the discrepancy between the photographic timestamps and the
alleged contravention time;
the apparent mismatch between the location stated on the Parking
Charge Notice and the location shown in the photographs;
the fact that the vehicle was undertaking Amazon deliveries;
the surrounding construction works restricting alternative
stopping locations; and
a request for the Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous
notes and observation records.
The operator's rejection failed to address any of these points.
6. BPA Code of Practice
As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved
Operator Scheme, the operator is required to comply with the BPA
Code of Practice.
The Code requires operators to act fairly, consider
representations properly and maintain appropriate evidence when
enforcing parking charges.
In this case, the operator has failed to explain the discrepancy
between the evidence and the alleged contravention time, failed
to provide the requested observation records, and failed to
engage with the substantive issues raised in my appeal.
I respectfully submit that this falls short of the standards
expected under the BPA Code of Practice.
7. Poor handling of personal data
The photographic evidence supplied by the operator contains the
registration numbers of unrelated vehicles that have not been
redacted or obscured.
Vehicle registration numbers constitute personal data where they
relate to identifiable individuals.
As a data controller, the operator is required to process
personal data in accordance with the UK General Data Protection
Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018, including the
principles of lawful processing and data minimisation.
Whilst I acknowledge that POPLA is not responsible for
determining data protection complaints, the operator's failure
to redact unrelated personal data demonstrates poor handling of
evidence and raises concerns regarding the overall care taken in
preparing its case.
Evidence enclosed:
Copy of the Parking Charge Notice.
Copy of my original appeal to the operator.
Copy of the operator's rejection letter.
Amazon proof of delivery records.
Screenshots showing delivery locations and timestamps.
Copies of the operator's photographs showing the Amazon delivery
identification, construction works and timestamp discrepancy.
Any additional photographs or maps demonstrating the actual
location of the vehicle and the surrounding roadworks."
#Post#: 124324--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 10, 2026, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That's the PCN
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/bujArme
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/bujArme
#Post#: 124325--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 10, 2026, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the rejection
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/a8bRBro
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/a8bRBro
#Post#: 124327--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 10, 2026, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Their response in POPLA:
Operator Name
Private Parking Solution (London) - EW
Operator Case Summary
Dear POPLA Assessor, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
respectfully submits that the Parking Charge was issued
correctly and in full accordance with the contractual Terms and
Conditions displayed throughout the site. The operator has
provided the Parking Charge Notice, photographic evidence of the
vehicle, photographs of the signage, a site map identifying the
controlled parking area and signage locations, evidence of
landowner authority and a copy of the appeal rejection letter.
The evidence demonstrates that the Parking Charge Notice was
issued correctly after the driver failed to comply with the
clearly displayed Terms and Conditions of parking. The site is
private land operating as a permit holders only parking area.
The signage is prominently displayed throughout the site and
clearly states that a valid Private Parking Solutions permit
must be clearly displayed on the front windscreen at all times.
The signs further advise motorists that failure to comply with
the Terms and Conditions will result in the issue of a Parking
Charge Notice of £100. The wording on the signage is clear,
unambiguous and capable of forming a contractual agreement
between the motorist and the operator. The appellant accepts
that the vehicle was parked on the site but submits that it was
being used for Amazon parcel deliveries within the surrounding
residential development. The operator does not dispute that the
appellant may have been carrying out deliveries. However,
undertaking deliveries does not provide any exemption from
complying with the contractual Terms and Conditions displayed on
privately managed land. The parking restrictions apply equally
to all motorists regardless of the purpose of their visit. There
is no contractual exemption permitting Amazon delivery drivers
or any other commercial vehicle to park without displaying a
valid Private Parking Solutions parking permit. The appellant
further states that roadworks prevented parking elsewhere and
therefore there were no alternative parking options available.
Whilst the operator acknowledges that roadworks may have been
taking place on the surrounding public highway, this does not
alter the contractual Terms and Conditions governing the
privately managed parking area. Private Parking Solutions has no
control over parking arrangements on the public highway and
roadworks do not authorise motorists to park on private land in
breach of the clearly displayed parking conditions. The
appellant relies upon the fact that an Amazon delivery notice
was displayed inside the windscreen. The operator's photographic
evidence clearly shows that whilst an Amazon identification
notice was present, there was no valid Private Parking Solutions
parking permit displayed on the windscreen as required by the
contractual signage. An Amazon delivery notice is not a parking
permit issued by the operator and does not authorise parking
within this permit-controlled site. The requirement is for a
valid Private Parking Solutions permit to be displayed, and this
requirement was not met. The Parking Charge was therefore issued
correctly for the reason stated, namely Not Clearly Displaying a
Valid Permit. The appellant also argues that the vehicle was not
parked at the address stated on the Parking Charge Notice and
suggests that the photographs correspond to a different
location. This assertion is incorrect. The vehicle was parked
within the private parking area managed by Private Parking
Solutions at The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway, London, E16 1AZ.
The site plan supplied by the operator clearly identifies the
parking area under management together with the locations of the
contractual signage. The operator's landowner agreement also
confirms that Private Parking Solutions is authorised to enforce
parking restrictions throughout this parking area. Although
nearby residential buildings may have postal addresses on
Seagull Lane, the parking bays themselves form part of the
managed private development covered by the operator's authority.
Accordingly, the location recorded on the Parking Charge Notice
is correct. The appellant also raises the issue that the
photographs available online are timestamped between
approximately 11:48 and 11:48:34, whereas the Parking Charge
Notice records the incident time as 11:58. The operator
respectfully submits that this does not invalidate the Parking
Charge Notice. The photographs simply record the Civil
Enforcement Officer's inspection of the vehicle. The incident
time recorded on the Parking Charge Notice is the official
contravention time entered into the operator's enforcement
system. There is no requirement under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the BPA Code of Practice that
every evidential photograph must display precisely the same
timestamp as the recorded incident time. The photographs clearly
demonstrate that the vehicle remained stationary within the
permit-controlled parking area and that no valid permit was
displayed during the inspection. The appellant requests the
Civil Enforcement Officer's contemporaneous notes together with
observation times. The operator respectfully submits that no
mandatory observation period applies to the contravention of
failing to clearly display a valid parking permit. The
contravention occurs immediately upon a vehicle being parked
without displaying the required permit. Unlike certain parking
restrictions where an observation period may be appropriate, the
absence of a valid permit is an immediately observable breach of
the contractual Terms and Conditions. The operator nevertheless
obtained multiple photographs from various angles before issuing
the Parking Charge Notice, demonstrating that the vehicle
remained parked and that no valid permit was displayed. The
appellant further suggests that the vehicle was only present for
the time reasonably required to complete deliveries. However,
the duration of parking does not alter the contractual
obligations accepted by the driver upon entering and parking
within the site. The contractual requirement is to display a
valid Private Parking Solutions permit at all times whilst
parked. Whether the vehicle remained for five minutes or fifty
minutes is therefore immaterial, as the breach occurred
immediately when the vehicle was parked without the required
permit. The operator has also provided evidence confirming that
it has full written authority from the managing agent to manage
parking, install signage, issue Parking Charge Notices and
pursue unpaid parking charges on this site. The landowner
authority specifically authorises enforcement against vehicles
parked without displaying a valid permit, thereby satisfying the
requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant's appeal
relies primarily upon mitigation relating to delivery activity,
surrounding roadworks and alleged discrepancies in location and
timestamps. Whilst the operator appreciates the circumstances
described, mitigation cannot override the contractual Terms and
Conditions accepted by the driver when choosing to park on
private land. POPLA has consistently held that it is not within
its remit to allow appeals solely on the basis of mitigating
circumstances where the contractual parking terms have been
breached. The operator has demonstrated that the signage was
sufficient to bring the parking terms to the attention of
motorists, that the vehicle was parked within the managed
parking area, that no valid Private Parking Solutions permit was
displayed and that the Parking Charge Notice was issued in
accordance with the contractual Terms and Conditions. The
appellant has not disputed that no valid permit was displayed
and has instead relied upon mitigation which does not negate the
contractual breach. In view of the above, Private Parking
Solutions (London) Ltd respectfully requests that POPLA
concludes that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly
and dismisses the appeal.
#Post#: 124328--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 10, 2026, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They uploaded their contract with the landowner and map where
they can operate. Map is different from what it is in the
contract.
In their response they also didn't address the breach of GDPR
with the other car registration if that matters.
Also the contract looks more like draft rather like final and
officially signed contract. It looks dodgy.
Should I upload here the contract and the map?
#Post#: 124332--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: July 10, 2026, 2:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK is not PoFA compliant so this is a case of sitting it
out and playing the game.
#Post#: 124360--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from PPS/The Grainstore, 4 Western Gateway London
DIR By: Velina
Date: July 11, 2026, 2:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> The NtK is not PoFA compliant so this is a case of sitting it
out and playing the game.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this mean that I shouldn't respond now, and wait?
I think POPLA will also reject my appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1