URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 82790--------------------------------------------------
       PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area - Esso/Sainsbury's
       South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: asm99
       Date: July 26, 2025, 5:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you in advance.
       At 08:27 on 16/07/2025, the vehicle was driven onto the
       Esso/Sainsbury's petrol station forecourt on South Ealing Road
       W5. The driver recalls a sign on entry stating the existence of
       parking restriction enforcement, but there was no mention on the
       entry sign that parking at the pump is prohibited unless fuel is
       purchased. The vehicle was stopped at pump number 1 for
       approximately 3-5 minutes while the driver purchased a bottle of
       water from Sainsbury's.
       The date of the PCN is 18/07/2025 but it was not received in the
       post until 26/07/2025. This leaves 6 days from the date of
       receiving the notice to the end of the 14 day discounted fine.
       The evidence provided can only be accessed online, and when
       viewed, there is a photograph of a different, unrelated vehicle
       parked somewhere else on the forecourt, as well as photographs
       of the vehicle to which the PCN was issued. There are
       photographs of signage displaying the prohibited parking at the
       pump, however, the sign is not clearly affixed to pump number 1
       (see street view image, it appears that sign is affixed to the
       pump nearest to the exit), and the other sign which is visible
       in the photograph of the vehicle is turned facing the
       Sainsbury's so it is not visible to the driver of the vehicle
       prior to parking. The zoomed image from the PCN evidence shows
       the entry signage, but does not clearly state that parking at
       the pump is prohibited.
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/5xO4tMF.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/f8pn36C.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/7qQ1tgp.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/9jAmorN.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/xUDU3Gq.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/05qNd5t.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/qGSHarX.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/2BLQeDz.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/Jk4bCRs.jpeg
  HTML https://i.imgur.com/zff4w2M.jpeg
       Google Streetview
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/r7jZBoiQkQUXesNm9
       #Post#: 82795--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: jfollows
       Date: July 26, 2025, 6:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The notice from PPS does not properly specify a “period of
       parking”
       (
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4):
       --- Quote ---
       > 9(1)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.
       >
       > (2)The notice must—
       >
       > (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
       parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
       >
       > (b)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;
       >
       > (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
       end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement
       to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement
       was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
       that made them payable;
       >
       > (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are
       unpaid, as at a time which is—
       >
       > (i)specified in the notice; and
       >
       > (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which
       the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed
       to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
       sub-paragraph (4));
       >
       > (e)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;
       >
       > (f)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;
       > (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
       payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
       complaints that are available;
       >
       > (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment
       or notification to the creditor may be made;
       >
       > (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is
       sent by post) or given (in any other case).
       >
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Why are there pictures at 17:13:32 on 15 July & 08:27:30 on 16
       July? Are they claiming in some way that this covers the period
       of parking?
       In any case, saying “The period of parking to which this notice
       relates is the period that immediately preceded the incident
       Date and Time” is not good enough, not least because it
       precludes a short period of time during which a contract could
       not have been established.
       #Post#: 82797--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: asm99
       Date: July 26, 2025, 6:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: jfollows link ---
       >
       > The notice from PPS does not properly specify a “period of
       parking”
       (
  HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4):
       > [quote]9(1)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.
       >
       > (2)The notice must—
       >
       > (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was
       parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
       >
       > (b)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;
       >
       > (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
       end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement
       to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement
       was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
       that made them payable;
       >
       > (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are
       unpaid, as at a time which is—
       >
       > (i)specified in the notice; and
       >
       > (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which
       the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed
       to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
       sub-paragraph (4));
       >
       > (e)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;
       >
       > (f)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;
       > (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt
       payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
       complaints that are available;
       >
       > (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment
       or notification to the creditor may be made;
       >
       > (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is
       sent by post) or given (in any other case).
       >
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Why are there pictures at 17:13:32 on 15 July & 08:27:30 on 16
       July? Are they claiming in some way that this covers the period
       of parking?
       In any case, saying “The period of parking to which this notice
       relates is the period that immediately preceded the incident
       Date and Time” is not good enough, not least because it
       precludes a short period of time during which a contract could
       not have been established.
       [/quote]
       They've included a photo of an unrelated vehicle parked on 15
       July as part of the evidence for this vehicle's PCN. Is the
       inclusion of this unrelated vehicle in the PCN evidence
       sufficient grounds for the PCN to be cancelled?
       #Post#: 82906--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 27, 2025, 4:41 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It won't be cancelled because you are dealing with a firm of
       corrupt, bottom-dwelling money-grabbers. However, you can appeal
       and when that is rejected, you will be able to try and persuade
       a POPLA assessor that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has no
       validity.
       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. Horizon 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.
       >
       > The NtK includes timestamped images of a different vehicle,
       dated the day before the alleged contravention. This appears to
       be an attempt to infer the location of the alleged breach
       involving the keeper’s vehicle. Such inference is speculative,
       unsupported by evidence, and procedurally defective.
       >
       > Moreover, the inclusion of another vehicle’s identifiable data
       constitutes a breach of UK GDPR, as it is irrelevant to the case
       and processed without lawful basis. This further undermines the
       credibility of the NtK and the legitimacy of the charge.
       >
       > Horizon have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
       both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
       --- End Quote ---
       Comeback when they reject the appeal.
       #Post#: 82942--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: asm99
       Date: July 27, 2025, 7:16 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This is what I've got so far for the appeal; I appreciate the
       feedback @b789 and @jfollows
       I am writing as the registered keeper of the above vehicle in
       relation to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at 36–39
       South Ealing Road, W5 4QT on 16 July 2025. I formally dispute
       your claim for the following reasons.
       1. Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
       (Schedule 4)
       Your Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet the mandatory
       conditions set out in Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the
       Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which are necessary to
       establish keeper liability.
       - Failure to Specify a Period of Parking: Paragraph 9(2)(a)
       requires that the notice must “specify the period of parking to
       which the notice relates.” Your NTK does not do this. Instead,
       it refers only to “the period that immediately preceded the
       Incident Date and Time,” which is not sufficient. This does not
       represent a period because it is a moment in time. You have
       provided no evidence of how long the vehicle was present, and
       therefore, the NTK fails to comply with statutory requirements.
       - Defective Warning under Paragraph 9(2)(f): The NTK also fails
       to contain the statutory warning informing the keeper that, if
       the parking charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know
       the name and address of the driver, the operator has the right
       to recover the charge from the keeper after 28 days. Your notice
       uses unclear and paraphrased wording that does not satisfy the
       statutory requirement.
       For these reasons alone, keeper liability cannot be established,
       and your demand for payment is invalid.
       2. Unclear, Inadequate, and Misleading Signage
       There is no signage at the entrance to the forecourt that
       informs drivers that parking at the fuel pumps is prohibited
       unless fuel is purchased. Signage on-site is inconsistent and,
       as shown in photograph 4/7 of the evidence, the sign prohibiting
       parking at the pump is turned away from drivers approaching the
       pumps and instead faces the shop. The only image of a sign
       uploaded in evidence (photographs 6 and 7) is undated and does
       not show a clear relation to the pump where the vehicle stopped.
       The terms and conditions alleged to have been breached were
       therefore:
       - Not clearly communicated at the entrance,
       - Not adequately visible to the driver, and
       - Not capable of forming a valid contract.
       This is contrary to the British Parking Association’s Code of
       Practice, which requires all terms to be clearly displayed and
       legible to drivers.
       3. Irrelevant and Potentially Unlawful Photographic Evidence
       The photographic evidence uploaded by your company includes a
       photo of an entirely unrelated vehicle with a clearly visible
       and unredacted registration plate, taken the day before the
       alleged contravention as per the photograph timestamp, and
       parked elsewhere on the forecourt. This is wholly irrelevant to
       this case and may constitute a breach of the UK General Data
       Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), as the image includes
       personally identifiable data of a third party that should not
       have been disclosed. I reserve the right to report this data
       handling failure to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
       4. The Driver Was Visiting the On-Site Shop
       The driver stopped at the forecourt and went into the
       Sainsbury's on the forecourt. The vehicle was parked briefly at
       the pump, and no signs upon entry stated that this was
       prohibited unless fuel was purchased. The shop is part of the
       same commercial site, and there was no indication that this
       would be treated as unauthorised parking. It is unreasonable to
       penalise customers for visiting the premises, particularly where
       no clear signage to the contrary exists. Additionally, no
       evidence has been provided to prove that the driver parked at
       the pump without the intention of purchasing fuel, or that fuel
       was not purchased during this visit.
       5. Disproportionate and Unfair Charge
       Even if a contract were formed, the term relied upon by the
       operator is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It
       is neither fair, transparent, nor proportionate. The signage
       upon entry does not make clear that stopping at a pump without
       purchasing fuel is a contravention, and the penalty imposed is
       excessive in relation to any legitimate interest. As such, the
       term fails Sections 62 and 68 of the Act and cannot be binding
       on the consumer.
       This charge must be cancelled immediately. Should you reject
       this appeal, I request that you issue a POPLA verification code
       so that I may escalate the matter to independent adjudication.
       I reserve the right to submit a formal complaint to the
       Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to the publication
       of photographic evidence relating to an unrelated vehicle.
       #Post#: 82957--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: b789
       Date: July 27, 2025, 9:13 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You can write War & Peace. It will not make a difference to the
       initial appeal. They will reject anything. It is through the
       secondary appeals process that you will go into detail. That is
       why I wrote: [i]"No need to embellish or remove anything from
       it"[/I] for the suggested appeal.
       Anything more is a waste of time and effort.
       #Post#: 85554--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: asm99
       Date: August 13, 2025, 12:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I'm pleased to say the initial appeal was accepted and the
       ticket cancelled!
       The appeal was worded exactly as I wrote above (war & peace).
       I guess it's my lucky day.
       #Post#: 85555--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PPS Parking PCN - Parking in No Parking Area -
       Esso/Sainsbury's South Ealing Road W5
   DIR By: b789
       Date: August 13, 2025, 12:08 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I suggest you go purchase a lottery ticket. Being successful at
       initial appeal is as rare as hens teeth. I suspect that they
       realise they screwed up by using an image of an unrelated
       vehicle has got them scurrying around hoping you don't escalate
       it further.
       If you want your revenge, submit a complaint to both the DVLA
       and the ICO.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1