Free Traffic Legal Advice

• 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".
  
  • 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.
• 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.
  
  • 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.
• Failure to Rebut "Prohibitive Signage"
  The Operator has failed to provide a valid legal rebuttal to the "Prohibitive Signage" argument.
  
  • 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.
• 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".
  
  • 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.

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.

rivate Parking Solutions (London) Ltd (the Operator) submits this statement in response to the appeal made to POPLA by the registered keeper of the above vehicle. The Parking Charge (PC) was issued after the vehicle was observed parked on private land without clearly displaying a valid parking permit, in breach of the site’s clearly displayed terms and conditions. The Operator respectfully submits that the appeal should be refused for the reasons set out below. The appellant asserts that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Operator confirms that the appellant was identified as the registered keeper via a DVLA data request and that a compliant Notice to Keeper was issued within the required statutory timeframe. The notice clearly specified the contravention date, location, vehicle registration, and the circumstances in which the charge arose. The appellant refers to a “29-day” reference within the notice. This wording relates to the period after which the Operator may take steps to recover the unpaid charge and does not replace or alter the statutory 28-day period prescribed under PoFA. The notice substantially complies with the requirements of Schedule 4. The appellant further contends that a “period of parking” was not stated. However, the Operator’s photographic evidence contains date- and time-stamped images showing the vehicle parked for approximately six minutes without clearly displaying a valid permit. This satisfies the requirement to specify the period of parking. Accordingly, liability has been correctly established in accordance with PoFA 2012. The appellant claims that the vehicle was present for only one second and that no consideration period was provided. This is incorrect. The photographic evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was observed parked for approximately six minutes. The signage at the location clearly states: “Kujawiak Customers Only” and “A valid permit must be obtained from the shop and displayed prior to shopping.” The terms further make clear that failure to comply will result in the issue of a Parking Charge Notice. The BPA Code of Practice provides for a reasonable consideration period to allow motorists to read the signage and decide whether to accept the terms. In this case, six minutes is sufficient time to read the signage, enter the shop, obtain a valid permit, and display it prior to commencing shopping, or alternatively leave the site if unwilling to comply. The vehicle remained on site without clearly displaying a valid permit. Therefore, the consideration period requirements were not breached. The appellant argues that the signage is prohibitive and incapable of forming a contract. This is incorrect. The signage clearly identifies the land as private property and sets out the conditions under which parking is permitted, namely that parking is strictly for Kujawiak customers and that a valid permit must be obtained from the shop and displayed prior to shopping. The signage therefore constitutes a contractual offer subject to clearly stated conditions. Parking is permitted only upon compliance with those conditions. A motorist who chooses to park without obtaining and displaying a valid permit accepts the contractual consequences as set out on the signage. The signage is prominently displayed, clearly legible, and photographic evidence has been provided. The appellant refers to a rejection letter dated March 2024 but issued in January 2026. The Operator acknowledges that a minor clerical error occurred in the dating of correspondence. This administrative mistake does not invalidate the PCN, affect the substantive merits of the case, or prejudice the appellant’s appeal rights. All appeal rights, including referral to POPLA, were preserved and communicated appropriately. A minor dating error does not negate a valid contractual charge arising from a breach of clearly displayed parking terms. The Operator has a valid and current agreement with the landowner authorising it to install signage, monitor compliance, issue Parking Charges, and recover unpaid charges at this location. The Operator confirms that it has full authority to manage and enforce parking at this site. Accordingly, the Operator respectfully requests that POPLA refuse this appeal and uphold the Parking Charge.

POPLA Appeal: 5660136838

Vehicle Registration: [Your VRM] PCN Reference: 410894902 Operator: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this parking charge on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012

The Operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper:

[] No Period of Parking: Paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to specify the period of parking.
 [] The NtK provided by PPS merely states a single point in time (8:26 PM).
 [] A single timestamp does not constitute a "period" under the Act. [] Non-compliant Wording: The NtK does not use the mandatory wording required by PoFA 2012 to warn the keeper of their liability.

As the Operator cannot identify the driver and has failed to comply with PoFA, there is no legal basis to hold me, the Keeper, liable.

2. Prohibitive Signage – No Contractual Offer Made

The signage at 112 High Street, Hounslow is "prohibitive" in nature. It states:

Quote

"PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY WITH VALID PERMIT FOR KUJAWIAK CUSTOMERS ONLY. A VALID PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM SHOP AND DISPLAYED PRIOR TO SHOPPING"

According to established case law (e.g., PCM-UK v Bull et al), if a sign specifies that parking is only for a restricted class of people (permit holders/customers), it does not make a contractual offer to those outside that class. It is a statement of prohibition. A person who is excluded from parking cannot enter into a contract to park. Therefore, no contract was formed, and no "Parking Charge" can arise from a contract that doesn't exist.

3. Procedural Errors and Administrative Incompetence

The Operator’s rejection letter is dated 05/03/2024, yet it was sent to me via email on 13/01/2026. This extreme discrepancy highlights a complete lack of professional diligence and raises serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the Operator's internal record-keeping and evidence.

4. Lack of Standing/Landowner Authority

I challenge the Operator to provide a contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner. I do not believe the Operator has the necessary legal standing or authorization to issue PCNs or initiate legal proceedings in their own name at this specific location.

Conclusion The Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, the signage is prohibitive, and their administrative handling of this case has been demonstrably flawed. I request that this appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name / Registered Keeper]

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.