DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106300--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: January 17, 2026, 12:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hiya,
They rejected the appeal and provided a popla code:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/CL55xHjL/appeal-letter-redacted.png
#Post#: 107803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: January 28, 2026, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hiya,
I also noticed that the letter with the POPLA code has a wrong
date. Should I file the appeal on popla?
I believe it's been 14 days so far.
#Post#: 107809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 29, 2026, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you draft something up we can comment. Can you tell us what
the time stamps are on the two photos of the car on the notice?
Points to include in a draft are:
- No contract formed with the driver (forbidding signage, makes
no offer to park to those who are not permit holders)
- Lack of PoFA compliance - no period of parking stated on the
notice
- No proof the vehicle was parked - PPS have not demonstrated
that the vehicle remained on site for longer than the minimum
consideration period stipulated in the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (subject to you confirming the time
stamps on the photos)
- Landowner authority - put them to proof that they have a valid
contract with the landowner to enforce parking at the site
#Post#: 107973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: January 30, 2026, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal: 5660136838
>
> Vehicle Registration: [Your VRM] PCN Reference: 410894902
Operator: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
>
> Dear POPLA Assessor,
>
> I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
this parking charge on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
>
> The Operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of
PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the
Registered Keeper:
>
>
[] No Period of Parking: Paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4
requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to specify the period of
parking.
> [] The NtK provided by PPS merely states a single point in
time (8:26 PM).
> [] A single timestamp does not constitute a "period" under
the Act. [] Non-compliant Wording: The NtK does not use the
mandatory wording required by PoFA 2012 to warn the keeper of
their liability.
>
> As the Operator cannot identify the driver and has failed to
comply with PoFA, there is no legal basis to hold me, the
Keeper, liable.
>
> 2. Prohibitive Signage – No Contractual Offer Made
>
> The signage at 112 High Street, Hounslow is "prohibitive" in
nature. It states:
>
> [quote]"PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM
STAY WITH VALID PERMIT FOR KUJAWIAK CUSTOMERS ONLY. A VALID
PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM SHOP AND DISPLAYED PRIOR TO
SHOPPING"
--- End Quote ---
According to established case law (e.g., PCM-UK v Bull et al),
if a sign specifies that parking is only for a restricted class
of people (permit holders/customers), it does not make a
contractual offer to those outside that class. It is a statement
of prohibition. A person who is excluded from parking cannot
enter into a contract to park. Therefore, no contract was
formed, and no "Parking Charge" can arise from a contract that
doesn't exist.
3. Procedural Errors and Administrative Incompetence
The Operator’s rejection letter is dated 05/03/2024, yet it was
sent to me via email on 13/01/2026. This extreme discrepancy
highlights a complete lack of professional diligence and raises
serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the
Operator's internal record-keeping and evidence.
4. Lack of Standing/Landowner Authority
I challenge the Operator to provide a contemporaneous,
unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the
landowner. I do not believe the Operator has the necessary legal
standing or authorization to issue PCNs or initiate legal
proceedings in their own name at this specific location.
Conclusion The Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, the
signage is prohibitive, and their administrative handling of
this case has been demonstrably flawed. I request that this
appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name / Registered Keeper] [/quote]
Does this look okay?
#Post#: 107984--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may wish to expand on the 'non-compliant wording' point
rather than leaving the assessor to guess which element is
incorrect or missing.
It is better to 'lead the assessor by the nose' to the relevant
point - assessors are generally very lazy people when it comes
to compliance with PoFA.
#Post#: 107986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Can you tell us what the time stamps are on the two photos of
the car on the notice?
>
--- End Quote ---
Your appeal could be strengthened further depending on your
answer to this question.
#Post#: 107994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First photo = 20.21 and 5 seconds
Second photo = 20.21 and 6 seconds
So the two photos cover 1 second.
#Post#: 107999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 30, 2026, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd add in a point covering this - the photographic evidence
covers a period of just 1 second - they have therefore failed to
demonstrate that the vehicle remained on site for longer than
the relevant consideration period of 5 minutes.
#Post#: 108034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: January 30, 2026, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Appeal: 5660136838
>
> Vehicle Registration: [Your VRM] PCN Reference: 99999999
Operator: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
>
> Dear POPLA Assessor,
>
> I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing
this parking charge on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
>
> The Operator has failed to meet the strict "black letter" law
requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver
to the Registered Keeper. Specifically:
>
>
>
- No Period of Parking (Para 9(2)(a)): The Notice to Keeper
(NtK) must specify the period of parking. The NtK provided by
PPS merely states a single point in time (8:26 PM). A single
timestamp is a "snapshot" and does not constitute a "period" of
time as required by the Act.
>
- Failure to provide mandatory Warning (Para 9(2)(f)): The NtK
fails to correctly warn the keeper that if the charge is not
paid after 28 days, the creditor has the right to recover from
the keeper. The Operator's rejection letter admits to using a
"29 day" timeframe, which is an incorrect application of the
statutory period.
>
- Failure to state the 'Relevant Period': The NtK does not
clearly define the 28-day period beginning the day after the
notice is given, as strictly required by PoFA.
>
>
> 2. Failure to Observe a Consideration Period (BPA Code of
Practice)
>
> The Operator’s photographic evidence covers a period of just 1
second. Under the BPA Code of Practice, a motorist must be
allowed a "consideration period" (minimum 5 minutes) to read the
signs and decide whether to stay or leave. By providing only a
1-second interval of evidence, the Operator has failed to
demonstrate that the vehicle remained on site for longer than
the mandatory consideration period. Therefore, no contract could
have been formed.
>
> 3. Prohibitive Signage – No Contractual Offer Made
>
> The signage at 112 High Street, Hounslow is "prohibitive" in
nature. It states:
> [quote]"PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM
STAY WITH VALID PERMIT FOR KUJAWIAK CUSTOMERS ONLY."
--- End Quote ---
According to established case law (e.g., PCM-UK v Bull et al),
if a sign specifies that parking is only for a restricted class
of people (permit holders), it does not make a contractual offer
to those outside that class. It is a statement of prohibition. A
person who is excluded cannot enter into a contract to park;
thus, no contractual "Parking Charge" can arise.
4. Procedural Errors and Administrative Incompetence
The Operator’s rejection letter is dated 05/03/2024, yet it was
sent to me via email on 13/01/2026. This extreme discrepancy
(nearly two years) highlights a complete lack of professional
diligence and raises serious questions about the accuracy and
reliability of the Operator's internal record-keeping and
evidence.
5. Lack of Standing/Landowner Authority
I challenge the Operator to provide a contemporaneous,
unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the
landowner. I do not believe the Operator has the necessary legal
standing or authorization to issue PCNs or initiate legal
proceedings in their own name at this specific location.
Conclusion The Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, has
failed to prove the car stayed beyond a consideration period,
and the signage is prohibitive. I request that this appeal be
allowed and the PCN cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name / Registered Keeper] [/quote]
Does this look better than the first draft?
#Post#: 111044--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: February 24, 2026, 3:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hiya,
After filing POPLA appeal, I received the following today on the
POPLA portal from the operator:
--- Quote ---
>
> rivate Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (the Operator) submits
this statement in response to the appeal made to POPLA by the
registered keeper of the above vehicle. The Parking Charge (PC)
was issued after the vehicle was observed parked on private land
without clearly displaying a valid parking permit, in breach of
the site’s clearly displayed terms and conditions. The Operator
respectfully submits that the appeal should be refused for the
reasons set out below. The appellant asserts that the Notice to
Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. The Operator confirms that the appellant
was identified as the registered keeper via a DVLA data request
and that a compliant Notice to Keeper was issued within the
required statutory timeframe. The notice clearly specified the
contravention date, location, vehicle registration, and the
circumstances in which the charge arose. The appellant refers to
a “29-day” reference within the notice. This wording relates to
the period after which the Operator may take steps to recover
the unpaid charge and does not replace or alter the statutory
28-day period prescribed under PoFA. The notice substantially
complies with the requirements of Schedule 4. The appellant
further contends that a “period of parking” was not stated.
However, the Operator’s photographic evidence contains date- and
time-stamped images showing the vehicle parked for approximately
six minutes without clearly displaying a valid permit. This
satisfies the requirement to specify the period of parking.
Accordingly, liability has been correctly established in
accordance with PoFA 2012. The appellant claims that the vehicle
was present for only one second and that no consideration period
was provided. This is incorrect. The photographic evidence
demonstrates that the vehicle was observed parked for
approximately six minutes. The signage at the location clearly
states: “Kujawiak Customers Only” and “A valid permit must be
obtained from the shop and displayed prior to shopping.” The
terms further make clear that failure to comply will result in
the issue of a Parking Charge Notice. The BPA Code of Practice
provides for a reasonable consideration period to allow
motorists to read the signage and decide whether to accept the
terms. In this case, six minutes is sufficient time to read the
signage, enter the shop, obtain a valid permit, and display it
prior to commencing shopping, or alternatively leave the site if
unwilling to comply. The vehicle remained on site without
clearly displaying a valid permit. Therefore, the consideration
period requirements were not breached. The appellant argues that
the signage is prohibitive and incapable of forming a contract.
This is incorrect. The signage clearly identifies the land as
private property and sets out the conditions under which parking
is permitted, namely that parking is strictly for Kujawiak
customers and that a valid permit must be obtained from the shop
and displayed prior to shopping. The signage therefore
constitutes a contractual offer subject to clearly stated
conditions. Parking is permitted only upon compliance with those
conditions. A motorist who chooses to park without obtaining and
displaying a valid permit accepts the contractual consequences
as set out on the signage. The signage is prominently displayed,
clearly legible, and photographic evidence has been provided.
The appellant refers to a rejection letter dated March 2024 but
issued in January 2026. The Operator acknowledges that a minor
clerical error occurred in the dating of correspondence. This
administrative mistake does not invalidate the PCN, affect the
substantive merits of the case, or prejudice the appellant’s
appeal rights. All appeal rights, including referral to POPLA,
were preserved and communicated appropriately. A minor dating
error does not negate a valid contractual charge arising from a
breach of clearly displayed parking terms. The Operator has a
valid and current agreement with the landowner authorising it to
install signage, monitor compliance, issue Parking Charges, and
recover unpaid charges at this location. The Operator confirms
that it has full authority to manage and enforce parking at this
site. Accordingly, the Operator respectfully requests that POPLA
refuse this appeal and uphold the Parking Charge.
>
--- End Quote ---
The submitted evidence documents from the Operator are exactly
what I've shared here:
HTML https://postimg.cc/gallery/9VVRcpL
There is one additional photo called site map:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/CKGNB8hq/410894902-Site-Map.jpg
Could you please advice what should I do next?
I've got 7 days starting from 24 Feb, 2026 to respond on the
POPLA portal.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page