DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99830--------------------------------------------------
"Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 3:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, I am new to this group.
I received a PCN for “Obstructive Parking” on Regis Road NW5. My
car was pictured as being stationary for just over five minutes
in an area that was not marked by double yellow lines and was
not a parking bay. From a non-technical point of view, the car
was clearly not causing an obstruction — and if it had been, I
was in the vehicle and could have moved if necessary.
The road is confusing because it is apparently a private road
that is designated as a car park. The road has a local borough
council street name at its entrance, is served by council
traffic lights, and provides access to the local council
recycling centre, the car pound, the Royal Mail sorting office,
as well as a number of businesses. There are several signs on
the road, which I didn’t read as I did not intend to park. The
main sign near the entrance does say “Private Land”, but this
sign is not obvious and is often obscured by vehicles leaving
and waiting at the traffic lights.
I have appealed first to Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
and then to POPLA. Both appeals were rejected.
I have now received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones.
This is my reply:
Dear Sirs,
Your ref: [insert reference number]
Proposed legal proceedings
Claimant: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
I refer to your letter of claim.
Please note that my address for service, for the time being, is
as follows. Any previous address must be removed from your
records:
[My address]
The alleged debt is fully disputed. No payment will be made, and
any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. I request
that you refer this matter back to your client. Based on the
circumstances, any attempt to pursue a claim in respect of
“obstructive parking” would have no merit and would not succeed.
If your client nevertheless chooses to issue proceedings, I will
respond accordingly and seek recovery of any costs that the
court may permit.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
I have posted on the MSE board about this as well.
Help, advice, and details of what might come next would be
appreciated.
#Post#: 99831--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 26, 2025, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to FTLA.
To help us provide the best advice, please read the following
thread carefully and
provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able
to:
[url=
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-chargesforum-guide/]READ<br
/>THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guid
#Post#: 99846--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the letters. I will provide images shortly.
PCN
HTML https://ibb.co/VYcdpkJq
PPS (London) appeal
HTML https://ibb.co/hxbqwKPp
PPS (London) appeal rejection
HTML https://ibb.co/N6xntCy4
Popla appeal
HTML https://ibb.co/nsYKszPr
Popla appeal rejection
HTML https://ibb.co/8n7FNYnP
&
HTML https://ibb.co/jPhKH9b1
#Post#: 99847--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: Dave65
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have photos of the signage?
#Post#: 99848--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I will provide images shortly.
#Post#: 99851--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has the driver been identified at this point?
The original NtK appears to be non PoFA compliant.
#Post#: 99860--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here are the images supplied by PPS (London) Ltd. Pictures taken
by a man in a car, not CCTV.
HTML https://ibb.co/hFRhRrtF
Entrance sign
HTML https://ibb.co/gLsXmFB5
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/wZcPYj8C
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/FkxTvnsZ
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/N2PCrGCy
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/KzXq0fFT
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/WNYwtfQg
Car parked
HTML https://ibb.co/cSZ0pDCy
Sign (nearest to car)
HTML https://ibb.co/9mN4CmNw
Entrance sign (not sure where this is
located)
HTML https://ibb.co/WNgC8jPz
Sign with dimensions
HTML https://ibb.co/nMQWrwn2
Sign with dimensions
HTML https://ibb.co/HfFyyY9y
Sign location
HTML https://ibb.co/FqdWBpGF
Site Plan
And here are some images I have taken. You will notice the car
blocks the view of the sign at the entrance. And there are also
council street names at the entrance, which in my opinion,
causes confusion.
HTML https://ibb.co/fVh73WsR
Random car blocking main entrance sign
HTML https://ibb.co/XxnqTFqt
Where my car was stopped
HTML https://ibb.co/GfqBX057
Where my car was stopped
HTML https://ibb.co/mVkWCycf
Where my car was stopped and postion of
sign
HTML https://ibb.co/HQMh4MV
Council sign on main road indicating
directions but not private road
HTML https://ibb.co/395Y4Mff
Road name sign on Regis Road
HTML https://ibb.co/pvjtRrPy
Entrance sign
HTML https://ibb.co/qLq5KLvm
Road name sign on Regis Road
HTML https://ibb.co/mC0kPZdS
Entrance to Regis Road showing sign
obscured
#Post#: 99864--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would you be able to label these so that we don't have to open
24 links if we're looking for a particular one?
#Post#: 99867--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: KTMan
Date: November 26, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> Has the driver been identified at this point?
>
> The original NtK appears to be non PoFA compliant.
>
--- End Quote ---
At this point I have been identified as the driver.
Is the original NtK not PoFA compliant
#Post#: 99894--------------------------------------------------
Re: "Obstructive Parking" in Regis Road NW5
DIR By: b789
Date: November 26, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: KTMan link ---
>
> [quote author=InterCity125 link=topic=8922.msg99851#msg99851
date=1764155799]
> Is the original NtK not PoFA compliant
>
--- End Quote ---
Absolutely not. It does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) as there is
no "period of parking" noted. A single point in time is not a
"period".
Having FUBAR'd that winning point, you are also SNAFU'd because
they have evidence that the driver remained parked for longer
than the minimum 5 minute consideration period, and so a
contract was formed.
You could try and argue:
--- Quote ---
> The operator’s own images cover a total duration of only
around six minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice, a minimum consideration period of at
least five minutes must be allowed for drivers to locate a bay,
read the terms and decide whether to stay. The short interval
shown is wholly consistent with that mandatory consideration
period and does not establish that the driver parked beyond it
or entered into any chargeable parking contract.
--- End Quote ---
You never know.
PPS use the utterly incompetent wannabes at Gladstones to issue
their claims. Gladstones never comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) which
means there is a high likelihood that any claim issued by them
will be struck out before it ever reaches a hearing anyway.
As an aside... those photos all appear to show the driver in the
vehicle with the footbrake applied as evidenced by the brake
lights being illuminated. With that in mind, whilst you can’t
honestly say there was no obstruction if the photos show the the
car across a garage entrance, but you can argue:
[indent]• This was not “parking” in the sense contemplated by
the sign (driver stayed in the vehicle, brake lights on, ready
to move at any moment).
• The garage was locked and clearly not in active use at the
time; the operator has produced no evidence that anyone wanted
to use it or was prevented from doing so.
• Because the driver was present and able to move immediately,
any potential obstruction was purely theoretical. Had access
been needed, the vehicle would have been moved within seconds. A
£100 charge for a brief, fully-controllable stop in front of a
locked garage is penal and disproportionate.[indent]
You could frame it along these lines:
--- Quote ---
> The operator’s photographs show the vehicle partly across a
small garage entrance, but they also show the driver present in
the driver’s seat at all times, with the brake lights
illuminated. The garage door is closed and locked and there is
no evidence that it was in use or that anybody wished to enter
or exit during the brief period in question. In these
circumstances, any “obstruction” was entirely theoretical. The
vehicle was not parked and abandoned; it was a short, attended
stop, and the driver could and would have moved immediately had
access been required. It is wholly disproportionate and
unreasonable to demand £100 for such a transient, attended stop
in front of a locked garage with no evidence of any actual
obstruction or loss.
--- End Quote ---
That keeps it realistic (acknowledges what the photos show) but
pushes back hard on “obstructive parking” as a £100 contractual
breach.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page