DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 111061--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 25, 2026, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - the operator states that, "The notice substantially
complies with the requirements of Schedule 4" - this is not
sufficient and constitutes an acknowledgement that the notice is
not fully compliant.
In order to rely on PoFA the notice MUST contain EVERYTHING
listed in Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)
I would also mention that the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)
are never met by the operators NtK.
#Post#: 111062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 25, 2026, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I challenge the Operator to provide a contemporaneous,
unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the
landowner.
--- End Quote ---
Have they provided any landowner contract? If so, show us
#Post#: 111070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: February 25, 2026, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thank you once again for helping me out.
This is the contract that they have submitted on the POPLA
evidence portal:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/dVgSHp4C/410894902-Contract.png
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/dVgSHp4C/410894902-Contract.png
#Post#: 111274--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: February 26, 2026, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hiya, any updates on what should I reply to the POPLA?
Regards
#Post#: 111310--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: February 27, 2026, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, any updates? Only 4 days remaining
#Post#: 111313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 27, 2026, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Essentially your reply should focus on pointing out any of your
points that they have failed to rebut. Equally, any deficiency
in their evidence.
If you draft something up we can provide comment
#Post#: 111326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 27, 2026, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Definitely start your commentary with the critical point
surround PoFA;
I am the vehicle keeper.
The operator has openly admitted that their compliance with PoFA
Schedule 4 is only 'substantial'.
The wording of the legislation is legally tight and requires
TOTAL compliance with all the requirements of Schedule 4
Paragraph 9(3) in order for the NtK to constitute a notice which
is to be relied upon in order to transfer liability from the
unknown driver to the known keeper.
The acknowledgement of only substantial compliance is
immediately fatal to the operators case and no further analysis
is required.
#Post#: 111445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: February 27, 2026, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does this draft look okay:
--- Quote ---
>
>
>
- Admission of Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 (The Fatal Flaw)
> I am the Registered Keeper. In their evidence statement, the
Operator admits their compliance with the Protection of Freedoms
Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4, is merely "substantial".
>
> [li]PoFA 2012 is "black letter law" and requires total, strict
compliance with all requirements of Paragraph 9 to transfer
liability from the driver to the keeper.
>
- The Operator explicitly admits to using a "29-day" warning.
This is a direct violation of the mandatory 28-day period
prescribed in Paragraph 9(2)(f).
>
- There is no provision in the Act for "substantial" compliance
or "clerical errors" regarding these statutory timeframes. As
liability cannot be transferred, the claim against me as Keeper
must be cancelled.
>
> [/li]
>
- Failure to Provide a Valid Consideration Period
> The Operator claims a 6-minute stay occurred. Even if this
duration were accepted, it falls squarely within a reasonable
Consideration Period under the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> [li]The Operator’s own evidence states a permit must be
obtained "from the shop".
>
- 6 minutes is the minimum time required for a motorist to stop,
exit the vehicle, walk to the complex signage, read the dense
terms, walk to the shop to inquire about a permit, and—upon
realizing the prohibitive nature of the terms—return to the
vehicle to leave.
>
- No parking contract can be formed during this mandatory period
of consideration.
[/li]
>
- Failure to Rebut "Prohibitive Signage"
> The Operator has failed to provide a valid legal rebuttal to
the "Prohibitive Signage" argument.
>
[li]The sign clearly states "Permit Holders Only". This is a
statement of exclusivity and a threat of trespass for those
without a permit; it is not a contractual offer to the general
public.
>
- Following PCM-UK v Bull et al, a parking charge cannot arise
from a contract that does not exist.
[/li]
>
- Procedural Unfairness and Delay
> The Operator dismisses the 22-month delay in issuing the
rejection (March 2024 to January 2026) as a "minor clerical
error".
>
[li]This is a fundamental breach of the BPA Code of Practice
regarding timely dispute resolution.
>
- Such an extreme delay is prejudicial to the appellant and
reflects a total failure of professional diligence in the
Operator’s record-keeping.
[/li]
>
> Conclusion: The Operator has admitted to PoFA non-compliance
and failed to prove the vehicle remained beyond a mandatory
consideration period. I respectfully request the appeal be
allowed.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 111453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: February 28, 2026, 2:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes - looks good.
#Post#: 112722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private Parking Solutions - no-permit - Hounslow High Street
DIR By: marxman
Date: March 10, 2026, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,
I'm quite anxious because I received notice from debt collector
firm called `TNC` for this very PCN:
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/nzLtBBd5/TNC-collections-PNC-PPS.png
Could you guys please advise what should I do?
I called them, and at first they said that I owe them money but
when I mentioned POPLA is still going on and there hasn't been
any result of that yet, I was told that the TNC will talk to PPS
and then come back to me.
This doesn't make sense.
How come PPS sell my PCN before any POPLA assessment to the debt
collectors?
Looking forward to hearing to you,
Kind regards.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page