DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73029--------------------------------------------------
Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: abipa
Date: May 23, 2025, 7:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a notice as mentioned in the subject for parking car in
front of a convenience store at about 1:40am. There seems to be
only a single board which says that it is a private parking
space but it was hardly visible being next to the board of the
convenience store and the fact that it being that time of the
night. There are no parking bays in the aforementioned place. No
boards signifying that it is a private parking space is seen at
the entry of the car park space though it hardly looks like a
valid car parking space. Could I challenge this fine?
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 73033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: b789
Date: May 23, 2025, 11:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What “fine”? I will give you £100 for every occurrence you can
show me of that word. It is just a speculative invoice from an
unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of
contract by the driver.
Easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity
is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known
keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal
the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or
assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 74275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: Abdullah
Date: June 2, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My appeal to PPS was rejected.
Could you please advise me on the next steps?
Thank you.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: b789
Date: June 2, 2025, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected. You now have 33 days from the appeal rejection date
to submit a POPLA appeal. Have search of the forum for other
POPLA appeals to get an understanding of the structure. You will
only be appealing as the Keeper.
Do a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals to get an idea
of the structure and how to present your arguments. You should
build a POPLA appeal around these points:
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a)
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It does not specify the
required period of parking and instead refers only to a single
timestamp. A single moment in time is not sufficient to meet the
statutory requirement for a period of parking. (Brennan v
Premier Parking Solutions [2023])
>
> 2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It fails to
include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the
unpaid parking charge.
>
> 3. The signage at the site was inadequate, especially
considering the alleged contravention occurred at 1:42am in
darkness. There is no evidence that signage was visible or
legible at that time. There is also no entrance signage, and the
area resembles a shop forecourt with no marked bays or other
indication that it is private land subject to parking terms.
>
> 4. No contract could have been formed because there is no
evidence that the vehicle remained on site for longer than the
minimum consideration period. The operator is put to strict
proof that the vehicle stayed longer than the reasonable time
required for the driver to locate, read, and understand the
signage and decide whether to stay or leave.
>
> 5. The operator is put to strict proof that they had a valid
and current contract with the landowner at the time of the
alleged contravention, authorising them to operate on the land
and issue and enforce parking charges in their own name.
--- End Quote ---
When you are ready, show us your planned POPLA submission and we
will advise on anything that needs editing or adding.
#Post#: 76519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: abipa
Date: June 14, 2025, 8:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and
am appealing against the Parking Charge Notice issued by PPS. I
respectfully request that POPLA consider the following grounds
for appeal and cancel the charge:
⸻
1. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to
comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
Specifically, it does not specify “the period of parking
to which the notice relates.” Instead, it refers only to a
single timestamp, which cannot constitute a
“period.” This omission fails to meet the statutory
requirement.
This point is supported by case law: Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions [2023], in which the court confirmed that a single
timestamp does not fulfill the requirement to state a
“period of parking.”
⸻
2. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The NtK also fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of
Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, which requires the notice to
“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 to pay the unpaid parking charges.” The
notice issued does not contain this mandatory wording and
therefore fails to establish the keeper’s liability under
PoFA.
⸻
3. Inadequate and Unclear Signage, Especially at Night
The alleged contravention occurred at 1:42am – a time when
visibility is low. The signage at the location was not
adequately lit or positioned to be clearly seen and understood
by a driver entering the site in darkness. There is no evidence
provided by the operator to show that signs were illuminated or
legible at that time.
Furthermore, the area appears to be a shop forecourt with no
marked bays or clear boundary signage to indicate private land.
There is also no entrance signage making the parking terms
apparent upon arrival. The BPA Code of Practice requires clear,
prominent, and well-lit signage, which is absent here.
⸻
4. No Evidence of a Breach of Contract – No Proof of
Overstay Beyond Consideration Period
No contract can be formed without the opportunity to consider
the terms. The BPA Code of Practice requires a reasonable
consideration period to allow drivers time to read and
understand the signage before entering into a contract. The
operator has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on
site beyond the minimum consideration period.
I put the operator to strict proof of the duration the vehicle
was present, and of how long the signage reasonably takes to
read and assess under the conditions at the time (i.e., at
1:42am, in the dark).
⸻
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
The operator has not demonstrated that they have a valid,
unredacted, and current contract with the landowner, authorising
them to manage parking, issue charges, and take enforcement
action in their own name. This is a requirement of the BPA Code
of Practice (Section 7). I put the operator to strict proof of
their legal standing at the site during the time of the alleged
incident.
⸻
For the reasons outlined above, the Parking Charge Notice is
invalid and unenforceable. The operator has failed to meet
statutory requirements under PoFA, has not demonstrated a valid
contract with the landowner, and has not provided adequate
signage or evidence of a breach. I respectfully request that
POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge
Will this suffice?
#Post#: 76537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: b789
Date: June 15, 2025, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When referring to the CoP, only signage refers to the old BPA
CoP v9
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf.<br
/>Everything else should refer to the relevant section of the
BPA/IPC PPSCoP
HTML https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1.1_130225.pdf.
Also, you need to 'flesh out' the points a bit more. For
example, you state that the NtK fails various PoFA requirements.
You need to then explain that because of those failures,
liability cannot transfer from the unknown driver to the known
Keeper.
#Post#: 77008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: abipa
Date: June 18, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and
wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by Private
Parking Solutions (PPS). I respectfully ask POPLA to consider
the following legal and factual grounds for appeal:
⸻
1. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Paragraph
9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the PoFA 2012, which requires that the
notice must specify:
“the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The NtK issued by PPS refers only to a single timestamp rather
than a period, which does not satisfy the requirement to state
the duration of parking. The law clearly requires a period, not
a snapshot moment.
This interpretation is supported by Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions [2023], where the court found that a timestamp alone
does not meet the definition of a “period of parking.”
⚠ As a result of this statutory failure, PPS cannot rely
on Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to
me, the registered keeper. Where the operator does not comply
with PoFA in full, keeper liability cannot be established.
⸻
2. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012
PoFA 2012 requires the NtK to:
“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 to pay the unpaid parking charges.”
The NtK from PPS does not contain this mandatory wording, nor
any clear statement confirming that the operator lacks the
driver’s details. Without this, the requirements of Paragraph
9(2)(e)(i) are not met.
⚠ This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA,
and therefore PPS cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for the
charge. Liability under Schedule 4 arises only if the operator
meets all the conditions it lays out.
⸻
3. Inadequate Signage – Especially at Night (BPA CoP v9)
The alleged parking event occurred at 1:42 AM, during hours of
low visibility. The signage at the location was:
•
•
•
•
According to Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice v9, signage
must be:
“clear, prominent and placed at key locations on entry and
throughout the site,”
and “must be readable and visible at night if parking is
enforced at night.”
⚠ PPS has provided no evidence that the signage complied
with these requirements at the time of the alleged event.
Therefore, no valid contract could have been formed, and no
breach could have occurred.
⸻
4. No Evidence of a Breach – No Proof of Stay Beyond
Consideration Period (PPSCoP)
According to the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP),
operators must allow drivers a reasonable consideration period
to read signage and decide whether to stay.
PPS has failed to:
•
site
•
•
given at 1:42 AM
⚠ Without such evidence, no breach of contract can be said
to have occurred. The absence of marked bays or any visible
boundary further blurs the basis for enforcement.
⸻
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority (PPSCoP, Section 7)
PPS has not demonstrated that it has a valid, current, and
unredacted contract with the landowner that authorises:
•
•
•
The PPSCoP requires operators to hold written authorisation from
the landowner. I put the operator to strict proof of:
•
•
•
⚠ Without this, PPS has no legal standing to pursue this
charge.
⸻
•
PoFA 2012, meaning keeper liability cannot be established.
•
especially given the time and lighting conditions.
•
contract was ever formed.
•
Private Parking Code of Practice.
Given the weight of these legal and procedural failings, I
respectfully request POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the
Parking Charge Notice.
Is this better?
#Post#: 77020--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: b789
Date: June 18, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A bit better. However there are weaknesses in it. Point #2 is
waffle without proper reference. The wording used is not
"mandatory" per se. What is required is that the meaning of the
Act must be shown.
The whole point of mentioning paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), is that
there is no actual "invitation" or any synonym of the word in
their NtK that actually invited the Keeper to just pay the
charge. The NtK does not have to actually say "you (or the
Keeper) is now invited to pay the charge". If only has to convey
that invitation. It does not. It could say something like "you
can now pay the charge or provide us with the drivers
details...". That would amount to an invitation. It could just
say "you are now invited to pay the charge or...".
In this case, it simply says "We, the Creditor, now require this
amount to be paid using one of the payment methods described
overleaf. 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." Where is there any
invitation for the Keeper (or "you") to pay the charge? Just
because it says they "...now require the amount to be paid...",
is not an invitation to the Keeper to pay it. There can be no
invitation by inference, just because the NtK is addressed to
the Keeper.
PoFA paragraph 9(2) is prefaced with the word "MUST", which
means it is a requirement, not an option for the following sub
paragraphs to be complied with. 9(2)(e) requires the notice to
"...and invite the keeper-". Sub section (i) then says "to pay
the unpaid parking charges" OR subsection (ii) which attest "to
notify the creditor of the name of the driver...". However,
there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to comply with
subsection (ii).
Point #4 is weak. Besides PoFA, another strong point is that
there is no evidence of any contract by conduct could have been
formed with the driver. Why have you not referenced the relevant
section of the PPSCoP? Section 5.1 explains what a consideration
period is. The very start of section 5.1 states: "Where a
parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone
they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration,
subject to the requirements set out at Annex B." Where is the
evidence that a consideration period was allowed? Where have
they referenced PoFA 9(2)(a) which MUST state: "...the period of
parking to which the notice relates"?
You should then reference Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions
(2023) [H6DP632H]. State that the judge in that persuasive
appellate case ruled that without a "period of parking", of some
short duration, then the notice is not compliant with PoFA.
That leads on to the fact that without evidence of a period of
parking, there is also no evidence of any contract having been
formed by conduct because the PPSCoP section 5.1 refers to Annex
B, Table B1, which shows that for this car park, there must be a
minimum consideration period of 5 minutes. Where is the
operators evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than
the minimum consideration period?
Point #5 is not right. Of course they haven't provided evidence
of landowner authority. You are putting them to strict proof
that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner.
Have a read of section 14 of the PPSCoP and put them to strict
proof of a valid contract that complies with all the points that
the PPSCoP states they must evidence. Unless a Letter of
Authority, instead of a contract evidences all those points, it
is not sufficient.
So, it needs fleshing out and there are plenty of other POPLA
appeals on the forum you could search for that have the kind of
detail you need for your own appeal.
#Post#: 77033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: abipa
Date: June 18, 2025, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Point #5 is not right. Of course they haven't provided evidence
of landowner authority. You are putting them to strict proof
that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner.
I am sorry, I did not clearly understand, should I or should I
not mention asking for the proof of valid contract from the
landlord?
#Post#: 77036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parking fine notice (by PPS) at 142-154 Victoria Road, North
Acton Road, W3 6UL
DIR By: b789
Date: June 18, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are putting the operator to strict proof that they have a
valid contract flowing from the landowner. You do not state in
the appeal "No Evidence of Landowner Authority" because of
course there is no evidence of such... yet. It is only after you
submit the appeal that the are then required to evidence their
landowner authority.
It's semantics, but you are dealing with a POPLA assessor who
may only be the tea-boy. Explain everything as though you are
talking to someone with the intellectual capacity of a
chimpanzee.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page