DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83621--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: July 31, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do what they put in their appeal rejection. It
is the fact that the PCN itself, the NtD, is not PoFA compliant.
It is like pregnancy... you can't be a bit or mostly pregnant.
You either are or you aren't. Likewise with PCN's... they either
are PoFA compliant or they aren't. It's a binary matter.
What they put in their appeal response does not have any bearing
on the law, even if they wish it did.
#Post#: 83643--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 31, 2025, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA has nothing to do with any specified requirements of PoFA
as regards keeper liability:
7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for
the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) 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;
......
(d)inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment
and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or
complaints that are available;
The 'arrangement for the resolution of disputes' is an integral
part of the CoP and includes POPLA in this instance. However,
there is NO provision within the Code for 'appeals' by a keeper
against a NTD to lead directly to a POPLA code because the
keeper cannot be pursued other than via a NTK and a subsequent
unsuccessful 'appeal'. A keeper cannot be pursued under the Code
without a NTK having been issued, see Annex C:
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
Therefore, under the Code the only basis on which a POPLA code
may be issued without a NTK is if following a NTD the
'appellant' identifies themselves as the driver - hence my
question which has been answered, not by their response but by
your 'appeals'. However, their response supports your position
and prevents them from issuing POPLA codes.
So, when you appeal to POPLA pl just deal with the issue of the
parking charge by stating clearly that you have no first-hand
knowledge as to whether the driver contravened displayed
conditions at the site and the assessor's decision should not
dwell on this point. Your appeal is that the creditor cannot
pursue the keeper for any charge, whether owing by the driver or
not, because the mandatory conditions of Schedule 4 have not
been met, that is to say a Notice to Keeper has not been issued.
Although the creditor's responses to your 'appeals' make clear
that they are not pursuing you as the driver but as the keeper,
you would none the less pre-empt any attempt by them to change
horses midstream for the sake of expediency (and money, of
course) by reiterating that they may not infer that you were the
driver(in addition to being the keeper) because there is no
lawful basis for such an assumption, irrespective of statements
to the contrary in the Code.
#Post#: 83647--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after Sippi transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: July 31, 2025, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, got my hands on the lease.
Couldn't find anything specific about parking, but it does
contain this:
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LXRYpsfr/common-parts.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Fq4M1qL1/schedule-2.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------
So the lease gives me the right to use common parts, and makes
no mention of parking permits.
#Post#: 83675--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: August 1, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure that there's NO mention of parking anywhere in your
lease? Did you pay for the electronic permit? There is no
requirement for a permit in your lease and if you have paid for
it, you should demand your money back. If they want to issue
permits for free, so that they can whitelist your vehicle, then
that is OK and you are only doing so as a courtesy, not a
requirement.
Your lease is the governing document. If it makes no mention of
parking rights, enforcement, or delegation to third parties like
P4 or any other third party company, then no such authority
exists.
The definition of “Common Parts” in your lease includes access
ways and forecourts, but does not confer any right to regulate
or restrict parking, nor does it mention enforcement mechanisms
or third-party control. P4’s involvement is ultra vires—beyond
the powers granted by the lease. Their actions are not legally
supported unless the lease was formally amended or a
supplemental deed was executed. Can you confirm this has not
occurred.
Under English property law, particularly the principle of
derogation from grant, a landlord or their agent cannot take
away rights that have been granted by the lease. If leaseholders
have historically parked in common areas without restriction,
and the lease does not prohibit it, then imposing penalties or
enforcement constitutes a material interference with quiet
enjoyment and use.
The case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd confirms that landlords cannot
extinguish parking rights arbitrarily—they may regulate, but not
revoke without legal basis. TheLandlord and Tenant Act 1985
requires landlords to act reasonably and transparently in
managing common parts and service charges.
Introducing a third-party enforcement firm without consultation
or lease authority breaches the duty to manage the property in
accordance with the lease and statutory obligations. P4 is
unregulated and acting vexatiously, therefore this also breaches
consumer protection laws and data protection regulations if
they’re issuing notices or collecting personal data without
lawful basis.
So, P4 Parking is a contractor, not a party to the lease. Their
authority is strictly limited to what the landlord or management
company delegates—and that delegation cannot override
leaseholder rights.
If the leaseholder has a right to park (whether exclusive,
general, or implied through historic use), P4 must cancel any
PCN issued to a vehicle that is confirmed to belong to or be
authorised by a leaseholder. Enforcement against third-party
vehicles (unauthorised visitors, trespassers, etc.) may be
within P4’s remit, but once notified that a vehicle is linked to
a leaseholder, continued enforcement becomes unlawful.
If the management company refused to get the PCNs cancelled,
then I suggest you send the following to them:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Immediate Cancellation of PCNs and Cessation of
Unlawful Enforcement Against Leaseholder Vehicles
>
> Your refusal to intervene in the unlawful issuance of PCNs by
P4 Parking is a dereliction of duty and a breach of both
contractual and statutory obligations. Let me make this
unequivocally clear:
>
> There is no legal requirement for a leaseholder to display a
permit. The lease contains no clause mandating participation in
any permit scheme—physical or electronic. Any such scheme is
entirely extraneous to the lease and cannot override the
leaseholder’s rights.
>
> P4 Parking’s authority may be limited to managing unauthorised
vehicles. Once notified that a vehicle belongs to or is
authorised by a leaseholder, any PCN must be cancelled
immediately. Continued enforcement is unlawful and constitutes:
>
> [indent]• Derogation from grant, interfering with the
leaseholder’s right to quiet enjoyment.
> • A breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires
you to manage the property in accordance with the lease and act
reasonably.
> • A violation of the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), which prohibits misleading and
aggressive commercial practices. Issuing PCNs based on signage
or permit schemes that have no contractual basis is unlawful and
may expose both P4 and your company to enforcement
action.[/indent]
>
> The leaseholder has applied for an electronic permit as a
courtesy, not as a legal obligation. They reserve the right to
withdraw from this scheme at any time without penalty or
interference. Any attempt to enforce penalties based on
non-display or non-participation in a voluntary scheme is
legally void.
>
> You are responsible for the conduct of your agents. If you
have failed to amend the lease or consult leaseholders before
introducing enforcement, you will be held accountable for any
resulting legal or financial consequences.
>
> I demand:
>
> [indent]• Immediate written confirmation that P4 Parking has
been instructed to cancel all PCNs issued to
leaseholder-authorised vehicles.
> • A copy of any agreement purporting to authorise P4’s
involvement.
> • A full explanation of why leaseholder rights were ignored
and why no lease amendment or consultation was
undertaken.[/indent]
>
> If this matter is not resolved within 7 days, I will escalate
to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and pursue
recovery of all costs incurred due to your negligence. You are
expected to act with urgency, competence, and legal compliance.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83683--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: August 1, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789!
The paper permits required a fee to be paid (I've never owned
one), but the new digital permits were offered for free.
The only mention of parking in the lease is:
--- Quote ---
> Not to obstruct or damage any part of the Building or access
to or from the Building
> or roads and to keep the roads, the accesses and car parking
spaces clear of
> unroadworthy or untaxed vehicles and other obstructions.
--- End Quote ---
So that implies permission to use the car parking spaces with no
requirement for permits.
#Post#: 83694--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: August 1, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
b789, how does the situation change regarding the lease
agreement considering that it is my father that owns the lease,
I live with him, and I am the registered keeper of the car. My
father is named on the car insurance and the digital permit for
the car is in his name.
Do I need to somehow argue that the rights provided by the lease
extend to me? How would that be done without talking about who
the driver was? Would I need to include some kind of written
statement from my father saying that he uses the vehicle or
gives it permission to be parked there, or is his inclusion on
the insurance / digital parking permit in his name sufficient?
#Post#: 83725--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: August 1, 2025, 10:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The lease does not mention any requirement for permits—physical
or electronic—for use of the car parking spaces. That is not
merely an implication; it is a legal fact. Under property law:
[indent]• What is not expressly required in the lease cannot be
imposed unilaterally.
• Any attempt to enforce a permit scheme without leaseholder
consent or lease amendment is void and unenforceable.[/indent]
The leaseholder’s right to use the car parking spaces is
governed solely by the lease terms. The only obligation is to
keep the spaces clear of obstructions and unroadworthy vehicles.
As confirmed by legal commentary on leaseholder parking rights:
[indent]"Car parking rights granted in a lease may include
exclusive possession or a general right to park. If the lease
does not specify a permit requirement, none can be imposed
without formal amendment or agreement".[/indent]
So rather than saying the clause "implies" permission, the
stronger and more accurate position is:
[indent]The lease grants use of the car parking spaces and
contains no clause requiring permits. Therefore, any permit
scheme is legally irrelevant to leaseholders and unenforceable
against them.[/indent]
#Post#: 84791--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: August 8, 2025, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I just received an NtK in the post, but this relates to a
_third_ PCN (from the 2nd, a day between the other two on 1st
and 3rd), one for which there was never even a notice on the
windscreen. I guess the charitable explanation would be a strong
gust of wind or a mischievous magpie..
I think I'm outside of the informal appeal window? The appeals
portal doesn't let me appeal. It seems insane that they can send
the NtK after the appeals window has closed, as if a ticket on a
windscreen is a reliable way to inform someone of a parking
charge..
Is there anything that can be done with this one?
Oh wait my bad, the 28 day appeals window should open again from
the date of the NtK right? Am I going to have to waste a stamp
on these cowboys?
Also what on earth are they doing bumping the charge up by £25
in the NtK? That's goes against PoFA right?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/R4Gpx4ZD/Whats-App-Image-2025-08-08-at-14-47-43.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/5xXWNxtR
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TZjd64x/Whats-App-Image-2025-08-08-at-14-47-43-1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/pgV5cfB
#Post#: 84814--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: b789
Date: August 8, 2025, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Only the “Creditor” can issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper
(NtK). This is a requirement under Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which states that the
notice must be given by or on behalf of the creditor.
In this case, the named Creditor is P4Parking (UK) Ltd, but the
NtK was issued by TNC Parking Services, which is a third-party
debt collector and not the Creditor. Although the notice
identifies the Creditor and includes the required content, it
was issued in the name of TNC, not P4Parking.
Because TNC is not the Creditor and has no statutory authority
under PoFA to issue the notice, the NtK is not valid for the
purposes of holding the keeper liable. Even if the timing and
content were otherwise correct, only the Creditor can issue a
valid PoFA notice. Keeper liability does not apply.
TNC is ONLY allowed to lawfully engage in debt recovery for
parking charges. They can potentially request keeper data as an
authorised agent of a BPA member for the narrow purpose of
recovering outstanding charges.
However, because they're not an operator, they are not entitled
to issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 8
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Only BPA-approved
operators, like P4Parking, can issue such notices.
Unity t/a TNC is limited to debt collection—they lack
enforcement powers. They are likely authorised under P4Parking’s
BPA AOS membership only to request keeper data for debt
purposes, not to issue NtKs or notices under PoFA.
Their use of the BPA roundel may be permissible, but only when
acting strictly within the scope of debt recovery. If they
present as an operator or issue legal notices like an NtK, that
exceeds the permitted role.
In short: TNC may access data for debt recovery, as an agent of
the operator, but cannot issue Notices to Keeper or enforce
parking charges under PoFA.
SO, to summarise your legal position:
[indent]• The Keeper (you) is not the leaseholder, but the
vehicle is associated with the leaseholder (your father), and he
holds parking rights under the lease.
• There is no express requirement in the lease for a permit or
for participation in any scheme operated by P4Parking.
• TNC is not the parking operator, nor are they legally
permitted to issue PoFA-compliant NtKs.
• No valid NtD was found on the vehicle, and PoFA Paragraph 9
applies if no NtD was served — but the notice received is based
on Paragraph 8, indicating that an NtD allegedly was served.
• Since no driver has been identified, and keeper liability
under PoFA is not established, no liability can be enforced
against the Keeper.[/indent]
You should appeal with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Notice to Keeper – PCN [insert reference number]
– Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I write as the Registered Keeper in response to your Notice to
Keeper dated [insert date].
>
> I deny any liability for this charge. This is not a valid
Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 (PoFA) for the following reasons:
>
> [indent]1. The notice was issued by TNC Parking Services, not
the Creditor. Only the Creditor named in the notice (P4Parking
UK Ltd) may issue a PoFA-compliant NtK. TNC, being a third-party
debt collector and not a party to the alleged contract, lacks
standing to pursue keeper liability.
>
> 2.You rely on Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, which only
applies where a valid Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the
vehicle. I put you to strict proof that such a notice was served
in compliance with PoFA requirements. Absent such proof, your
reliance on Paragraph 8 is misconceived, and the notice is not
valid for the purpose of establishing keeper liability.
>
> 3. I am a resident of the estate and my father is the
leaseholder. He holds a lease that makes no mention of any
permit requirement, enforcement scheme, or delegation of
authority to third parties such as P4Parking. There is no
obligation in the lease to display a permit, and no contractual
relationship exists between the parties and P4Parking.
>
> 4. I am a resident of the estate, and the leaseholder has
authorised the vehicle to be parked at the premises. The lease
contains no requirement to display a permit and confers no
authority for third-party enforcement. There is no contractual
relationship between the leaseholder or any authorised resident
and P4Parking, and no lawful basis for enforcing terms contrary
to the lease.
>
> 5. Your continued pursuit of this charge may constitute a
breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
You are not entitled to process my personal data in the absence
of lawful basis under either PoFA or a legitimate contractual
framework. Misuse of DVLA data and false claims of keeper
liability will be referred to the Information Commissioner’s
Office and DVLA.[/indent]
>
> Accordingly, you must now:
>
> [indent]• Cancel this charge in full,
> • Cease processing my data for this or any related matter,
> • Confirm that no further correspondence will be sent
regarding this charge.[/indent]
>
> Failure to do so may result in a formal complaint to the DVLA
and the ICO, as well as potential legal action for misuse of
personal data.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84825--------------------------------------------------
Re: p4parking - southern housing private residents' parking PCNs
after SIPPI transition confusion
DIR By: beansprout
Date: August 8, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Super grateful as always b789
Any thoughts on who I should be sending that reply to and via
what medium? Is it an informal appeal to p4parking expecting a
POPLA code? I'm guessing I'd have to send that by post.. or
could I just chuck it at sales@p4parking.co.uk do you think?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page