I respond to the operator’s evidence as follows:
1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That paragraph requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The NtK issued by PPS only includes a single timestamp and a few still images. This does not constitute a “period of parking.” This is not a technicality—it is a statutory requirement. The operator has failed to evidence any actual period of parking, and therefore cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable.
This position is supported by persuasive appellate authority in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court held that a timestamp alone is insufficient to establish a period of parking. The court made clear that a “period” must include a start and end time that evidences a duration long enough to demonstrate a breach of terms. PPS has not done so.
2. The operator has not evidenced that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and decide whether to stay. The BPA Code of Practice and the Private Parking Code of Practice both recognise that a consideration period must be allowed. The vehicle was stopped for approximately 90 seconds. This is not sufficient to establish that a contract was formed, let alone breached.
3. The operator’s signage is prohibitory in nature. It states “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time.” This is not an invitation to park on certain terms—it is a prohibition. A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement. This is a well-established principle in contract law. Even a first-year law student would recognise that a contract cannot be formed where the signage forbids the very act that is alleged to constitute acceptance.
4. The operator has not rebutted my point that they have failed to provide evidence of a valid contract with the landowner that allows them to issue PCNs in their own name. They were put to strict proof of this and have not provided it.
The operator’s reference to ParkingEye v Beavis is misplaced. That case concerned a car park with clear signage offering parking on defined terms, including a free period and a charge for overstaying. This case involves a brief stop in an industrial estate with prohibitory signage and no offer of parking. The facts are entirely distinguishable.
5. The operator has also mischaracterised the site as a “car park.” It is not. It is an industrial estate with no general parking provision. This undermines the credibility of their evidence and their understanding of the site.
In summary, the operator has failed to demonstrate that a contract was formed, that the NtK complies with PoFA, or that they have the authority to issue charges. The appeal should be allowed.
1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to specify the required period of parking. Only a single timestamp is given, which is insufficient under paragraph 9(2)(a). This is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where the court held that a timestamp alone does not establish a period of parking. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.
2. There is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and decide whether to stay. Brennan confirms that a brief stop cannot be assumed to be acceptance of a contract, especially where the only evidence is a still image. The operator is put to strict proof that a contract was formed and breached.
3. The signs at the site are all prohibitory in nature, stating that no parking, waiting, loading or unloading is permitted at any time. Such signage does not offer any contractual terms to park and therefore cannot form a contract. Prohibitory signs serve only as warnings and cannot give rise to an offer capable of acceptance.
4. The signage was not visible or safely readable without first stopping. The operator has not shown that any sign was visible from a moving vehicle prior to stopping, or that the signs were readable in the short time available. The appellant was entitled to a consideration period under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice before deciding whether to stay.
5. The operator is put to strict proof of a valid and contemporaneous contract or chain of authority flowing from the landowner, granting them the right to manage the site and issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name.
6. The operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing a charge in response to a brief stop where no obstruction occurred and no facility was used.
7. The operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park. This is misleading. The site is an industrial estate road with no marked bays or general parking provision. The operator’s mischaracterisation raises doubts about their understanding of the site and undermines the credibility of the claim.
I wonder if I should expect PPS to reject my appeal?100% - there's no money to made in accepting appeals.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN