DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: September 18, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Wizards, what do you think about below draft POPLA appeal?
POPLA Verification Code: 6062555711
Vehicle Registration: KN71EYD
PCN Reference: 128753/610483
Issued by: Parkingeye
________________________________________
I. Introduction
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability
for the parking charge and appeal in full.
The vehicle in question was engaged in Amazon parcel deliveries
at Forest housing association. The stop was temporary and solely
for the purpose of unloading parcels to residents. This was not
“parking.” The charge is invalid and must be cancelled.
________________________________________
II. Grounds of Appeal
1. Delivery/Unloading is Not Parking
The courts have consistently recognised that delivery or
loading/unloading activities do not constitute “parking.”
•
County Court, HHJ Harris QC), it was held:
“The concept of parking… is that of leaving a car for some
duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it,
loading or unloading it… Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to
park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked
cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or
anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation
which included vehicles stopping for a few moments for these
purposes.”
This case is directly on point. The judge expressly included
delivery vans in his ruling.
•
commentary), this reasoning was reinforced, and the industry has
accepted Jopson as binding persuasive authority.
Therefore, a delivery van engaged in active unloading cannot
lawfully be treated as “parked.”
________________________________________
2. Breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of PoFA:
•
operator has instead cited “time in car park,” which may include
driving, stopping briefly, or unloading — none of which amount
to “parking.”
•
________________________________________
3. No Evidence of Contract or Landowner Authority
The operator is put to strict proof of:
•
to issue charges against delivery drivers;
•
the lawful performance of delivery functions without penalty.
Section 14 of the BPA Code of Practice requires clear landowner
contracts. Without this, the operator has no standing.
________________________________________
4. Unreasonable and Unconscionable Charge
The ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 decision does not apply
here. In Beavis, the charge was upheld because of a legitimate
commercial interest (ensuring space turnover in a retail car
park).
By contrast:
•
•
vans;
•
law.
________________________________________
5. Industry Codes of Practice and Public Policy
The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to act fairly and
reasonably. Penalising a van driver for delivering parcels — an
essential and time-bound activity — is neither fair nor
reasonable.
Moreover, Government policy (PoFA 2012, DLUHC Private Parking
Code of Practice 2022, albeit temporarily withdrawn pending
consultation) emphasises that parking controls must not penalise
unavoidable activities like loading and unloading.
________________________________________
III. Conclusion
The driver was engaged in a legitimate, time-limited delivery.
This is not “parking” in law. The charge is unsupported by
contract, unenforceable under PoFA, contrary to binding
persuasive case law (Jopson v Homeguard), and unreasonable under
consumer protection principles.
Accordingly, this appeal must be upheld and the charge
cancelled.
[Your Name]
Registered Keeper
#Post#: 90584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 19, 2025, 3:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nice and concise but what is this "Bulmer v Jopson (2017)" you
cite? I have never heard of it and it is unpublished.
Jopson v Homeguard is the go-to relevant, persuasive case law.
Remember, the POPLA assessor may be one of the dimmer ones and
you need to lead these assessors by the nose to the conclusion
you are trying to reach. Assume the assessor is intellectually
malnourished or, has a mental age of an infant school pupil. How
would you explain why the PCN has been issued unfairly or
unlawfully to that pupil. For example...
--- Quote ---
> This is a story about a busy little van called "Amazon" who
went to visit Forest Homes on a weekday morning. The van was
full of parcels with names and flat numbers on them, and the
driver was careful and kind and wanted to make sure everyone got
their things on time. He steered the van slowly through the
gate, found a safe place to stop near the entrance, and said, “I
will stop here for a short while so I can take the parcels
inside”. He did not turn off for a long rest, and he did not
wander away to do something else. He simply paused, opened the
back, lifted the boxes one by one, and began to carry them to
the flats.
>
> Up on a tall pole, a quiet camera watched the road. The camera
was very good at taking a picture when the van came in and
another picture when the van went out, and it wrote down the
clock times in neat little numbers. But the camera could not see
the driver carefully walking to the door, could not see the
parcels being lifted and signed for, and could not see that the
stop was a short and necessary part of the day. The camera only
knew “time in” and “time out”, and it did not understand what
happened in between.
>
> On the wall by the entrance there was a sign with many words
and many rules. The letters were small and the sentences were
long, and they were hard to read while doing a quick and careful
job. The driver did not stand and study the sign because people
were waiting for medicines and books and bits and bobs they
needed at home. He chose to work swiftly and safely, and he
carried on unloading so that the people in the flats would not
be kept waiting. A fair sign should help a driver do a short,
important task, not try to catch him out while he is doing good
work.
>
> Later, a letter came to the keeper of the van. The letter
said, “Pay this charge”, and showed the two pictures with the
two times, and it called the whole thing “time in car park”. But
the letter did not show a period of parking, because there was
no period of parking. There was only a short stop to unload. The
law that helps keepers, called the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, asks for a true period of parking if someone wants to make
the keeper pay, and a drive in and a drive out with a short
unload in between is not that. A camera’s clock does not turn a
careful unload into parking; it only shows that a vehicle was
somewhere for a while.
>
> There was also another story told before by a wise judge in a
case called Jopson v Homeguard. In that story, the judge
explained that “parking” means leaving a car for longer than the
little time needed to get in or out or to load and unload, and
that a quick stop for deliveries is different. He even spoke
about delivery vans, which must sometimes pause at doors to
carry things inside. The judge’s words fit this story very well,
because the van at Forest Homes was doing just that—stopping
briefly to unload parcels so that people could receive their
goods, and then moving on as soon as the job was done.
>
> The keeper also asked a simple question that is important in
places like this: “Who says the company may give out charges
here, and where is the paper that proves it?” If a company wants
to send letters and collect money, it should be able to show a
clear agreement with the landholder, written down properly and
not hidden or chopped up, saying it may act in its own name. If
there is no such paper, then there is no standing to demand
money from drivers who are just doing their work.
>
> Some people might remember a famous story called Beavis, about
a very busy shop car park where a charge was used to make sure
spaces turned over quickly for shoppers. But this story is not
that story. Forest Homes is not a retail park, and a delivery
van doing a short, necessary unload is not the same as a shopper
who overstays for a long time. There is no special reason here
to punish a quick stop that helps residents receive their
parcels, and so the lesson from Beavis does not fit these facts.
>
> So our story has a gentle ending. The Amazon van arrived, the
driver stopped for a short time, the parcels were carried to the
right doors, and the van went away. The camera saw arrival and
departure but did not see unloading. The sign was not clear or
kind for a quick and necessary task. The letter did not show a
period of parking as the law requires, and no proper proof has
been shown that the company may claim money in its own name. The
earlier judge’s story tells us that unloading is not parking,
and that is exactly what happened here. For these simple
reasons, the fair and sensible thing is to cancel the charge and
let the little van carry on helping people with their parcels.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 90603--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: September 19, 2025, 4:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] I love your description of POPLA
assessor, reminds me of when I used to run around the house in
my wet nappies.
I agree with your point about "Bulmer v Jopson (2017)", it's not
a 2017 case I read it somewhere and added it (looks more like a
typo), I will remove it from my final submission.
Do you think after removing above rest of the appeal looks good
or would you suggest some more changes?
#Post#: 90619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: b789
Date: September 19, 2025, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a slightly tidier body for the appeal:
--- Quote ---
> I. Introduction
>
> I am the registered keeper. I deny liability and appeal in
full. The vehicle was engaged in Amazon parcel deliveries at
Forest Housing Association. The stop was brief and solely for
unloading parcels to residents. That activity is not “parking”,
and no enforceable charge arises.
>
> II. Grounds of Appeal
>
> 1. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
> In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford
County Court, HHJ Harris QC, appeal), the court explained that
“parking” means leaving a vehicle for a duration beyond that
needed for getting in or out, loading or unloading. The judge
stated that merely stopping is not parking, and expressly
contemplated delivery vehicles carrying out short, necessary
unloading. On the facts here, the vehicle paused only to unload
parcels and then departed. ANPR images showing entry and exit do
not evidence any period of “parking” within the meaning adopted
in Jopson. Accordingly, no parking contract arose.
>
> 2. No keeper liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(Schedule 4) not complied with
> Keeper liability is created only if the operator strictly
complies with every applicable requirement of Schedule 4. The
Notice to Keeper fails paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not
state a “period of parking”. “Time in car park” derived from
ANPR includes driving and brief stopping/unloading, which is not
a period of parking. The operator is put to strict proof of full
compliance with all other mandatory elements of paragraph 9,
including 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f), 9(2)(h), 9(2)(i) and 9(5). Any
defect defeats keeper liability. As the keeper, I cannot be held
liable.
>
> 3. No standing – landowner authority (strict proof)
> The operator is put to strict proof of a valid,
contemporaneous, unredacted, site-specific contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises ParkingEye to manage
parking, issue PCNs, and pursue them in its own name. The
Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, 17 Feb 2025)
section 14.1(a-j) (Relationship with Landowner) sets mandatory
minimums: written confirmation identifying the landowner; the
precise site/plan and boundaries (and any applicable byelaws);
the duration and scope of authority; the detailed parking terms
and conditions including any permissions/exemptions; the method
of issuing/enforcing PCNs; responsibility for
planning/advertising consents; and the operator’s obligations
and appeals procedure under the Code. These are preconditions to
issuing PCNs. The operator must produce a dated and signed
agreement by authorised signatories. Redactions must not obscure
the above; generic attestations or agent letters are
insufficient unless they evidence compliance with PPSCoP
§14.1(a-j).
>
> 4. No contract formed – signage incapable of creating a fair
and transparent agreement for delivery circumstances
> The operator must prove that signage was sufficiently
prominent, legible, and positioned so that a delivery driver
could read and understand the terms before any alleged contract
was formed. At a residential estate where delivery vehicles must
briefly stop near entrances, any term purporting to prohibit or
penalise short unloading is unreasonable in context and
incapable of fair acceptance at the material time. ANPR
timestamps do not prove that terms were seen or accepted. Under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sections 62–68), terms must be
fair and transparent; a term penalising a brief, essential
delivery stop is not fair or transparent and should not be
enforced.
>
> 5. Beavis is distinguishable on facts and purpose
> ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned shopper parking
at a retail site with a strong legitimate interest in space
turnover. This is a residential housing association location and
the vehicle performed a short, essential unloading task. There
is no comparable commercial justification to penalise a brief
delivery stop. Any charge here operates as a penalty rather than
a proportionate deterrent linked to a legitimate interest, and
is therefore unenforceable on these facts.
>
> 6. Private Parking Single Code of Practice – consideration and
grace; fair treatment
> Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 February
2025), operators must act fairly and reasonably and must not
penalise unavoidable, brief activities such as
loading/unloading. The Code distinguishes (i) a consideration
period on arrival to read and decide whether to stay (section
5.1) and (ii) a minimum 10-minute grace period after a parking
session ends (section 5.2). ANPR “in/out” does not evidence a
true period of parking or compliance with these safeguards.
Penalising a delivery driver for a short, necessary unload
conflicts with these standards.
>
> III. Conclusion
>
> The evidence shows only entry and exit, not a period of
parking. On Jopson v Homeguard, the brief stop for unloading was
not “parking”, so no contract arose. The NtK fails PoFA Schedule
4 because it does not state a period of parking and the operator
has not shown strict compliance with all other requirements;
keeper liability therefore fails. The operator has not proved
landowner authority, the signage could not form a fair and
transparent contract for a short delivery stop, and Beavis is
not applicable to these facts. For these reasons, the appeal
must be allowed and the charge cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 90683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: September 19, 2025, 12:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] Thanks for the final amends much
appreciated.
I've gone ahead and appealed to POPLA today, will update when
they upload their evidence.
Thanks.
#Post#: 93360--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: October 8, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Wizards,
I have got an email from POPLA that Parking eye has provided
their evidence in response to our appeal and we have 7 days to
provide any comments on the evidence they have provided.
Here is the link of the word file provided by Parking eye to
POPLA:
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/18pm8KF_J9oo3MbjLxNyqWETT_AFF4FNm/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108665786253586483300&rtpof=true&sd=true
Can you please advise the next step?
Thanks.
#Post#: 93894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: October 13, 2025, 8:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] would you be able to suggest next step
in light of evidence they provided?
#Post#: 93895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: October 13, 2025, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Out of their 39 pages of stuff,
- what points that you made are not addressed, so they are
implicitly agreed?
- what points that are made do you disagree with, and why?
These seem to be the primary points in your arguments against
them. If you leave their statements unchallenged it will be used
against you.
#Post#: 93899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: Dave65
Date: October 13, 2025, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As advised challenge all their statements you can.
The signage makes no allowance for deliveries to residents, this
must be challenged and the appropriate court case stated.
The signage only refers to residents.
#Post#: 93918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Forest housing association - E11 2QT - Time in car park
DIR By: ahsan
Date: October 13, 2025, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the draft I'm planning to submit?
=================================================
I. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
The operator has failed to rebut the core issue: the vehicle was
engaged in parcel deliveries to residents, a brief unloading
activity, not parking.
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris
QC held that:
“Parking” is not the same as “stopping”; temporary stopping for
the purpose of delivery or loading/unloading is not parking.
The operator’s evidence shows only ANPR entry and exit times
(17:18 to 17:42) — but ANPR cannot show any period of stationary
parking. The vehicle was moving between buildings for
deliveries. There is no evidence of the vehicle being left
unattended or parked. POPLA must apply Jopson and conclude that
no contract to “park” was formed, and therefore no contravention
occurred.
II. Signage – no allowance for deliveries or visitors
The operator’s own evidence shows signage referring only to
“Residents Only”.
Nowhere does it state that delivery vehicles, tradespeople, or
short-term visitors are permitted or given instructions for
lawful unloading. This omission makes the signage ambiguous,
unreasonable, and incapable of forming a fair contract.
This falls foul of Consumer Rights Act 2015, ss.62–68 (terms
must be fair and transparent). A reasonable driver performing a
legitimate delivery to residents could not have consented to a
£100 penalty simply for briefly stopping.
Further, under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163,
contractual terms must be brought to the driver’s attention
before the contract is formed. No signage was visible or
readable from a moving delivery van at the point of entry,
especially when the driver’s purpose was to reach residents for
a delivery.
Because the signage did not give any reasonable notice or
mechanism for legitimate delivery stops, no fair contract was
formed.
III. Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – breach
of fairness and grace requirements
The operator claims compliance with the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice, yet the evidence contradicts this.
Section 5.1 requires a consideration period to allow drivers to
read signs and decide whether to stay.
Section 5.2 requires a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end
of parking.
However, the operator issued a charge for a total stay of only
23 minutes, which includes arrival, parcel delivery to multiple
flats, and departure. This was within a reasonable
grace/unloading period and clearly consistent with legitimate
short-stay activity.
Their claim of “0 hours 0 minutes allowed” shows a failure to
provide any consideration or grace period, breaching PPSCoP and
BPA standards of fairness.
IV. No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used
ParkingEye explicitly admits in their evidence pack:
“Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
Accordingly, the keeper cannot be held liable. Only the driver
could be pursued. As the appellant is the keeper and has not
identified the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal on this
ground alone.
V. No standing / defective landowner authority
The operator provides only a generic “Letter of Authority”, not
a contemporaneous, signed, site-specific contract meeting PPSCoP
§14.1(a–j).
The document is redacted and lacks:
The landowner’s identity and signature,
The precise boundaries of the site,
The terms of the operator’s authority to issue and enforce PCNs.
This fails the evidential standard required by POPLA and the
PPSCoP, and the operator is therefore put to strict proof of
their legal standing.
Without proper landowner authority, the operator has no locus
standi to enforce charges or pursue them in their own name.
VI. Beavis is distinguishable
The operator relies on ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, but
that case concerned a retail car park with a legitimate interest
in space turnover and a prominently signed 2-hour limit.
This case involves a residential estate where the driver was
performing a short delivery to residents — not occupying a space
for personal use or overstay.
There is no comparable “legitimate interest” in penalising
essential service vehicles performing brief unloading tasks. The
charge therefore operates as a penalty and is unenforceable on
the facts.
VII. Summary
No period of parking has been evidenced – only ANPR entry/exit
timestamps.
Jopson v Homeguard establishes that unloading is not parking.
Signage fails to communicate terms for deliveries and applies
only to residents.
No keeper liability – the operator admits PoFA does not apply.
No evidence of landowner authority in compliance with PPSCoP.
No legitimate interest comparable to Beavis; the charge is
punitive.
Failure to comply with PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions.
For all these reasons, the appeal must be upheld and the Parking
Charge cancelled.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page