Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you b789 and H C Andersen. I submitted my reply on Saturday, hopefully will hear from POPLA soon

Already received the email yesterday, will have a look into the advice you gave to Tango33 and submit the response asap

Hi, received the below email. I believe it is the same as they sent to tango 33

From: <appeals@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024, 12:09
Subject: Appeal Case 5663194633
To: <xxxx@gmail.com>



Dear Mr ,


Below is our statement to POPLA regarding the appeal case in the subject line above, and the evidence pack is attached to this email.


"Dear Assessor, 

The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage, including three entrance signs, is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "PRIVATE ROAD. This car park is controlled by Warden Patrols. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking, waiting loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time. By parking on this private land you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the parking contract) and accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking. Do not park here unless you agree to the terms and conditions displayed."
It should be noted that when entering a private parking area, the landowner is entitled to set its own parking terms and conditions they deem necessary to form a contract with motorists. These terms and conditions are clearly set out in the signage displayed on site.
The evidence demonstrates that the terms and conditions were adequately brought to the driver's attention, as the vehicle was parked a few feet away from a sign. According to the signage, parking on the road or footpaths is prohibited. This is because it may cause a potential hazard or obstruction to vehicles and pedestrians leaving or entering the site.
The photographic evidence shows that vehicle registration Lxxxx was stationary on the road and footpath area, both of which are explicitly restricted in the stated terms and conditions. Furthermore, the vehicle was parked on a dropped kerb, where parking is generally prohibited. Therefore, the driver cannot benefit from the consideration period as it is not applicable in areas where parking is not allowed.
It is also important to note that a parking attendant would be unable to issue a PCN to a vehicle if it was in motion. When a vehicle is not in motion, it is considered parked. The photographic evidence demonstrates that vehicle registration Lxxxxx came to a halt in a no parking area without any signs of moving. As the driver has parked in a restricted area, they became liable for a parking charge.
We would also like to advise that operators do not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as we can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. The evidence demonstrates that the appellant has been invited to nominate the driver, but they refused to do so. By failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant (the keeper) has assumed liability for this PCN.
Please note that the postcode on the PCN is sufficient for the motorist to determine where the vehicle was parked at the time of the contravention. According to the contract we have with the landowner, the site name is 'Uxbridge Industrial Estate.' The roads within the Uxbridge Industrial Estate are Wallingford Road, Salisbury Road, and Arundel Road. Together, these make up the 'Uxbridge Industrial Estate.’ The postcode refers to Uxbridge Industrial Estate, where the postcode on the PCN applies. Ultimately, it is the driver's responsibility to read the signs and act according to the terms and conditions applicable to the site to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued."

--



PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD
Register Address: 43 Berkeley Square, Mayfair, London, W1J 5AP

Correspondence Address: PO Box 1115, West Drayton UB8 9XD
Telephone: 01895713136

E-Mail:info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk

www.privateparkingsolutions.co.uk
Company Registration Number: 07437253 Registered in En

Hi I tried to use the appeal you advised, changed the time in it, but unfortunately not sure what to put there about the parking on the footpath, what the used in their appeal rejection. Please can you advise, I'm a bit lost, legal things are not exactly my cup off tea :-). Many thanks in advance

There are evidential photos of the vehicle being stationary from 10:40:04 till 10:40:35, which means 31 seconds, which is inside the consideration period.It is going to hinge on no contractual liability as no contract can be formed by the signage.

The sign is primarily prohibitory, listing multiple restrictions:

“No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time.”

“No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the footpaths at any time.”

“No causing obstructions at any time.”

These prohibitions do not suggest an offer to allow parking under conditions. instead, they explicitly state what actions are not permitted. This does not form an offer that can be accepted by conduct.

The sign states: “£100 Parking Charge Notice reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.” However, this charge is presented as a penalty for non-compliance with the prohibitions rather than as an offer for parking under conditions. There is no clear wording indicating that parking is allowed if certain conditions are met and that non-compliance will result in a charge.

The wording implies that the £100 charge is a consequence of breaching the prohibitions, but it does not indicate that the driver is entering into a contract by parking.

There is no explicit offer made to drivers in terms of allowing them to park under specific conditions. The sign simply lists prohibited actions without providing terms for permitted use.

There is no consideration offered to the driver (e.g., the right to park under specified conditions). Instead, the sign only lists what is forbidden and mentions a charge as a penalty.

The mention of a “Parking Charge Notice” suggests an intention to enforce penalties, but it does not clearly state that the driver is entering into a binding contract by parking there. The language used (“agree to pay”) is conditional and can only be interpreted as a deterrent rather than an offer.

Therefore, the signs as worded, are incapable of forming a valid contract. They fails to present an offer that a driver can accept by conduct. They are solely prohibitory, listing only what is not allowed without any indication that parking is allowed under certain conditions with a corresponding charge for non-compliance. The £100 charge appears as a deterrent or penalty rather than a term of a contract that the driver consents to by parking.

For the signs to be capable of forming a contract, they would need to:

1. Clearly state that parking is permitted under certain conditions.

2. Specify that by parking in the area, the driver agrees to those conditions and accepts the stated charge for non-compliance.

3. Use clear language that conveys an offer and the acceptance of terms, leading to the formation of a binding agreement.

They don’t do any of those things.

Also, the identification of the location on the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be sufficiently clear to enable the recipient to understand exactly where the parking event occurred. Under PoFA, Paragraph 7(2)(a) requires that the relevant land where the vehicle was parked is described with enough detail to ensure the keeper is aware of the specific location.

The NtK mentions the location as "UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ," which includes the name of the industrial estate and three different roads within it. Listing multiple roads without specifying the exact road or more precise details where the vehicle was allegedly parked creates ambiguity. The keeper cannot discern the exact location or spot within the industrial estate where the alleged breach occurred.

PoFA requires that the location be identified with enough particularity so that a reasonable person can understand where the alleged contravention took place. The inclusion of multiple roads and only a general reference to an industrial estate falls short of providing enough clarity, especially if the estate is large or comprises multiple car parks or different parking arrangements.

For full PoFA compliance, the NtK should specify which road or part of the industrial estate the vehicle was parked on to leave no doubt as to the location. Without this, the location is not defined with enough particularity to meet PoFA requirements.

So, there can be no Keeper liability and the POPLA appeal must be made only as the Keeper with no obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

The other point to include in the POPLA appeal will be to put the operator to strict proof that it has valid authority from the landowner to issue PCNs in its own name at the specified location. A signed statement or witness testimony alone is insufficient. An unredacted copy of the contract or agreement between the landowner and the operator must be provided to demonstrate that such authority exists. This is essential to establish that the operator has the legal standing to enforce parking charges at this site.

Good afternoon, as expected, my appeal got rejected

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you, I tried to change the settings on the video but is not working.
I will send PPS an appeal, with the text you advised me earlier on and hope for the best.
Thank you again

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G_KYNXzjwxCS1Ymh1DQlFsHb1FsQ_s4L/view?usp=drivesdk