Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: marxman on December 17, 2025, 10:20:46 am
-
Yes, you appeal, but don't expect anything from the initial appeal as a successful one is a is rare as hens teeth. You can go to town on the POPLA appeal later.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your initial appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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.
Come back after they have rejected the appeal and provided you with a POPLA code, which will be valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection.
-
The signage is not capable of forming a contract with a driver who does not hold and display a valid permit, because it makes no contractual offer of parking to such a driver.
The sign is framed in prohibitive terms: “CUSTOMERS ONLY” and “PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”, with an instruction that a “valid permit must be obtained from shop and displayed”. Those words do not offer parking on terms to the general public. They define a closed class of authorised users and exclude everyone else. A person who is excluded cannot accept an offer that is not made to them. In those circumstances there is no “agreement” capable of being formed by conduct, and no contractual charge can arise.
Although the sign also contains a clause stating that if a vehicle “remains” or “fails to comply” the motorist agrees to pay £100, that wording does not convert a prohibition into a contractual licence. Properly construed, the sign is “no unauthorised parking”. The legal consequence of an unauthorised vehicle being left on private land is, at most, trespass. Any remedy for trespass lies with a landowner (or a party with a proprietary interest), and it is not a contractual “parking charge” owed to a parking contractor.
Further, the allegation itself (“not clearly displaying a permit”) presupposes that the driver was entitled to park on the basis of a permit but failed to display it properly. That is a fundamentally different case from “unauthorised parking”. If the operator’s case is that the driver had no valid permit on display, then by the operator’s own signage the driver fell outside the class of authorised users (“permit holders only”), meaning no contract could have been formed in the first place. The allegation therefore supports the defence: it points away from any contractual relationship and towards a bare allegation of unauthorised presence, which cannot give rise to a contractual sum.
Accordingly, even leaving aside the absence of Keeper liability, the claim fails on formation. The sign is forbidding to non-permit holders, no contract was available to be accepted by them, and the asserted “parking charge” is not a recoverable contractual debt.
Thanks so much @b789, that's immensely helpful. Should I appeal? or just let it be? I believe I shouldn't do anything else unless I receive some new post.
-
The signage is not capable of forming a contract with a driver who does not hold and display a valid permit, because it makes no contractual offer of parking to such a driver.
The sign is framed in prohibitive terms: “CUSTOMERS ONLY” and “PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”, with an instruction that a “valid permit must be obtained from shop and displayed”. Those words do not offer parking on terms to the general public. They define a closed class of authorised users and exclude everyone else. A person who is excluded cannot accept an offer that is not made to them. In those circumstances there is no “agreement” capable of being formed by conduct, and no contractual charge can arise.
Although the sign also contains a clause stating that if a vehicle “remains” or “fails to comply” the motorist agrees to pay £100, that wording does not convert a prohibition into a contractual licence. Properly construed, the sign is “no unauthorised parking”. The legal consequence of an unauthorised vehicle being left on private land is, at most, trespass. Any remedy for trespass lies with a landowner (or a party with a proprietary interest), and it is not a contractual “parking charge” owed to a parking contractor.
Further, the allegation itself (“not clearly displaying a permit”) presupposes that the driver was entitled to park on the basis of a permit but failed to display it properly. That is a fundamentally different case from “unauthorised parking”. If the operator’s case is that the driver had no valid permit on display, then by the operator’s own signage the driver fell outside the class of authorised users (“permit holders only”), meaning no contract could have been formed in the first place. The allegation therefore supports the defence: it points away from any contractual relationship and towards a bare allegation of unauthorised presence, which cannot give rise to a contractual sum.
Accordingly, even leaving aside the absence of Keeper liability, the claim fails on formation. The sign is forbidding to non-permit holders, no contract was available to be accepted by them, and the asserted “parking charge” is not a recoverable contractual debt.
-
There can be no Keeper liability as long as the driver is not identified. Not that that will stop them pushing on up to the point where they have to pay a £27 trial fee in a county court claim which point they will discontinue.
However, to also strengthen any defence, it would be advisable to show us one of their contractual signs with the terms and conditions of parking on it.
I had parked on where the black car is.
Attached are photos of closeup notice:
1. https://i.postimg.cc/d1b46841/PXL_20251219_145504318_MP.jpg
2. https://i.postimg.cc/tTK2kh2q/PXL_20251219_145521157.jpg
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards.
-
Back of PPN:
https://postimg.cc/zbmMJTNY
-
There can be no Keeper liability as long as the driver is not identified. Not that that will stop them pushing on up to the point where they have to pay a £27 trial fee in a county court claim which point they will discontinue.
However, to also strengthen any defence, it would be advisable to show us one of their contractual signs with the terms and conditions of parking on it.
-
If nothing else, PoFA 2012 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) requires
8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
and there is no “period of parking”. Stating a single time is a period does not make it true.
Do not identify the driver and appeal on the basis of non-compliance preventing the transfer of liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
Plenty of sample appeals here, I suggest you post your proposed appeal before sending it.
-
"2026" hopefully they are not charging in advance for these tickets!
Can you post up some photos of the signage?
Also, the back of the PPN?
-
Hi FTLA,
The driver parked on a bay at 8:26PM on the 6th of December, 2026 and received a `Parking Charge`.
Apparently, no permit is what is cited. I, the registered keeper, received the PCN on the 15th of December while the date of letter is 9th of December.
Attached are the photos: https://i.postimg.cc/QxCmWBY1/PCN-6-December-2025-2-1.jpg
Link to the Google Street Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/QjRYoT6xYqR4kBR27
Do I stand any chance?
Thank you and kind regards.