I'd suggest something more along these lines but you can edit the reference to the TfL rules is there is something more specific that applies to point #4:
1. Land Likely Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA – No Keeper Liability
The Notice to Keeper was issued by post, and the operator seeks to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to pursue the Keeper. However, the location — Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL — raises serious doubt as to whether the land qualifies as “relevant land.”
There are multiple indicators that the area is under statutory control, and therefore excluded under Paragraph 3 of PoFA:
• Double red lines are present, which usually fall under Transport for London regulation.
• location is part of the Royal Docks area, potentially falling under the Port of London Authority (PLA) jurisdiction.
• The surrounding roads may be adopted highway or under Newham Council traffic regulation orders.
If the area is part of the public highway or under control of a statutory traffic authority (e.g. TfL, the local authority, or PLA), it is not relevant land under PoFA. The operator has provided no evidence to show otherwise. Therefore, they cannot pursue the Keeper, and the PCN must be cancelled unless the operator can definitively prove that PoFA applies.
2. The Notice to Keeper is not PoFA 2012 compliant
A single timestamped observation of a stationary vehicle lasting less than the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes is not a "period of parking." Even if multiple photos show the same timestamp or a short sequence, that still does not constitute a proper "period". The courts have made it clear that in order to be able to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, there must be evidence of actual parking activity over a meaningful interval. This was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge ruled that a single timestamp or momentary observation is not sufficient.
3. Contradictory Road Markings – Red Route vs. Drop-Off Bay
The ground markings are self-contradictory:
• A solid double red line runs along the kerb, which signifies no stopping at any time.
• Directly alongside that is a white dashed bay marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”.
This is nonsensical. The motorist is both told they cannot stop at all and must stop (to drop off). These two messages cannot co-exist lawfully or logically.
Such inconsistency creates legal ambiguity and is a breach of consumer protection law — specifically, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sch. 2, para 10 — which prohibits enforcement based on unclear or ambiguous terms. No driver can be expected to comply with contradictory markings, and no fair contract can arise in such a situation.
4. Signage is 100% Prohibitory – No Contract Can Be Formed
The only visible sign states:
NO PARKING AT ANY TIME... no stopping... no waiting... no loading/unloading...”
This is a prohibitory sign. It offers no contractual alternative, no invitation to park, and no consideration. It is not capable of forming a contract.
In private parking enforcement, the signage must communicate clear terms and offer a driver the opportunity to accept them. Here, the sign communicates only forbiddance, not offer. That makes any claim of contractual liability untenable.
5. Driver Was a TfL-Licensed PHV Lawfully Dropping Off in a Designated Bay
The vehicle was a TfL-licensed Private Hire Vehicle (PHV), displaying a valid TfL licence disc. The driver is also registered with TfL and was actively working at the time.
They dropped off a passenger and received another fare nearby at 13:04. This short stop was lawful and standard for PHV operation.
The bay is explicitly marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”. There is nothing on the sign or road to prohibit PHVs from stopping. In practice, across London, PHVs use taxi drop-off points routinely, unless expressly restricted.
TfL’s official guidance confirms this:
“Private hire vehicles can pick up and drop off passengers anywhere that this is permitted... but must not wait for passengers.”
(https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information)
The driver complied with this. They did not park or wait — they dropped off a fare in a marked drop-off bay and left. This was a lawful action, and enforcement in this context is without justification.
6. Jopson v Homeguard – Set-Down is Not Parking
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) [B9QZ4H3R], it was held that:
“Stopping briefly to allow a passenger to board or alight is not ‘parking’.”
This case is directly on point. The driver remained in the vehicle with the engine running. There was no parking, no abandonment of the vehicle, no waiting. The action was lawful, necessary, and reasonable. No contravention occurred.
7. Minimum Consideration Period Not Breached
Photographic evidence shows that:
• First photo was taken at 13:04:16
• Final photo at 13:06:51
• Total time observed: 2 minutes 35 seconds
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Feb 2025) states:
“A minimum 5-minute consideration period must be given to allow a driver to read the terms and conditions on signage before entering into a contract.”
Even if a contract could have been formed (it couldn't — see points 2 & 3), the operator has not shown that the driver remained on site for longer than the minimum 5 minutes required to be able to form a contract by condut. The burden of proof lies with them.
8. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified
Since this land is not relevant under PoFA, the Keeper cannot be held liable.
Furthermore, the driver has not been identified, and there is no legal presumption that the Keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan stated:
“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving...”
The operator has provided no evidence of who was driving. They cannot hold the Keeper liable and cannot prove driver liability either.
Conclusion
• The land is almost certainly under statutory control — PoFA does not apply.
• The NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA.
• Road markings contradict each other — enforcement is impossible.
• Signage is entirely prohibitory — no contract can arise.
• The driver was a TfL-licensed PHV dropping off and picking up in a marked bay — a lawful action.
• The brief stop is not “parking” (Jopson).
• The 5-minute consideration period was not exceeded so no evidence of contract formation.
• No driver has been identified — Keeper liability fails.
This PCN is invalid on multiple grounds. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel it.
It's good but you need to lead the POPLA assessor by the nose to the reasons why the PCN has been issued incorrectly or in breach of any rules or laws. Make set of sub-titles and then flesh out each point.
For example, I have seen that the the contract PPS are relying on clearly states:
"Leaseholders: Please provide a document or contract where states your authority over the site to be managed by us."
As they have signed as the 'leaseholder', you must put PPS to strict poof that they client can show the document that gives them authority to authorise PPS to operate at the location. That copy of the agreement on its own does not evidence authority flowing from the landowner to the leaseholder to sign contracts in its own name.
Do you have a copy of the TfL rules that you say allow private hire drivers to stop on red lines to pick-up or set-down passengers?
Don't worry about them saying that the Keeper can be liable. They will try and bluff their way into wearing you down into paying up.
I'd be more specific and factual and don't mention the pick up:
1. Land Likely Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA – No Keeper Liability
The Notice to Keeper was issued by post, and the operator seeks to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to pursue the Keeper. However, the location — Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL — raises serious doubt as to whether the land qualifies as “relevant land.”
There are multiple indicators that the area is under statutory control, and therefore excluded under Paragraph 3 of PoFA:
• Double red lines are present, which usually fall under Transport for London regulation.
• The location is part of the Royal Docks area, potentially falling under the Port of London Authority (PLA) jurisdiction.
• The surrounding roads may be adopted highway or under Newham Council traffic regulation orders.
If the area is part of the public highway or under control of a statutory traffic authority (e.g. TfL, the local authority, or PLA), it is not relevant land under PoFA. The operator has provided no evidence to show otherwise. Therefore, they cannot pursue the Keeper, and the PCN must be cancelled unless the operator can definitively prove that PoFA applies.
2. Contradictory Road Markings – Red Route vs. Drop-Off Bay
The ground markings are self-contradictory:
• A solid double red line runs along the kerb, which signifies no stopping at any time.
• Directly alongside that is a white dashed bay marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”.
This is nonsensical. The motorist is both told they cannot stop at all and must stop (to drop off). These two messages cannot co-exist lawfully or logically.
Such inconsistency creates legal ambiguity and is a breach of consumer protection law — specifically, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sch. 2, para 10 — which prohibits enforcement based on unclear or ambiguous terms.
No driver can be expected to comply with contradictory markings, and no fair contract can arise in such a situation.
3. Signage is 100% Prohibitory – No Contract Can Be Formed
The only visible sign states:
“NO PARKING AT ANY TIME... no stopping... no waiting... no loading/unloading...”
This is a prohibitory sign. It offers no contractual alternative, no invitation to park, and no consideration. It is not capable of forming a contract.
In private parking enforcement, the signage must communicate clear terms and offer a driver the opportunity to accept them. Here, the sign communicates only forbiddance, not offer. That makes any claim of contractual liability untenable.
4. Driver Was a TfL-Licensed PHV Lawfully Dropping Off in a Designated Bay
The vehicle was a TfL-licensed Private Hire Vehicle (PHV), displaying a valid TfL licence disc. The driver is also registered with TfL and was actively working at the time.
They dropped off a passenger at just after 1pm. This short stop was lawful and standard for PHV operation.
The bay is explicitly marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”. There is nothing on the sign or road to prohibit PHVs from stopping. In practice, across London, PHVs use taxi drop-off points routinely, unless expressly restricted.
TfL’s official guidance confirms this:
“Private hire vehicles can pick up and drop off passengers anywhere that this is permitted...”
(https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information)
The driver complied with this. They did not park or wait — they dropped off a fare in a marked drop-off bay and left. This was a lawful action, and enforcement in this context is without justification.
5. Jopson v Homeguard – Set-Down is Not Parking
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9QZ4H3R, it was held that:
“Stopping briefly to allow a passenger to board or alight is not ‘parking’.”
This case is directly on point. The driver remained in the vehicle with the engine running. There was no parking, no abandonment of the vehicle, no waiting. The action was lawful, necessary, and reasonable.
No contravention occurred.
6. Minimum Consideration Period Not Breached
Photographic evidence shows that:
• First photo was taken at 13:04:16
• Final photo at 13:06:51
• Total time observed: 2 minutes 35 seconds
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Feb 2025) states:
“A minimum 5-minute consideration period must be given to allow a driver to read the terms and conditions on signage before entering into a contract.”
Even if a contract could have been formed (it couldn't — see points 2 & 3), the operator has not shown that the driver remained on site for 5 minutes or more. The burden of proof lies with them.
7. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified
Since this land is not relevant under PoFA, the Keeper cannot be held liable.
Furthermore, the driver has not been identified, and there is no legal presumption that the Keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan stated:
“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving…”
The operator has provided no evidence of who was driving. They cannot hold the Keeper liable and cannot prove driver liability either.
Conclusion
The land is almost certainly under statutory control — PoFA does not apply.
Road markings contradict each other — enforcement is impossible.
Signage is entirely prohibitory — no contract can arise.
The driver was a TfL-licensed PHV dropping off in a marked bay — a lawful action.
The brief stop is not “parking” (Jopson).
The 5-minute consideration period was not exceeded.
No driver has been identified — Keeper liability fails.
This PCN is invalid on multiple grounds. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel it.