Free Traffic Legal Advice

I defiantly paid at the machine. In hindsight I should have used the app

I guess there no point trying to appeal with the fact I actually paid for parking ? I’ve got no real proof I did even though I did 

There is an underground car park just above it on this map here

Labelled as Swiss Cottage car park

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The ICA have contacted me. Any thing I should say back to them


 
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DRIVER & VEHICLE LICENSING AGENCY (DVLA)
 
I write further to your correspondence with the DVLA about the independent complaint assessor (ICA) review of your complaint. I confirm that a file containing your dealings with the DVLA has been received by the ICAs, and your complaint is being queued for allocation.
 
Please note that what follows is not an attempt at defining your complaint, and will not inform or shape the review. It is, rather, a brief reference at this acknowledgement stage to some of the difficulties described in the file.
 
You complained to the DVLA after ‘Private Parking Solutions’ ticketed you on 12 March 2025. You argued that the company had misused your data and expressed your dissatisfaction with the DVLA’s response in the following terms:
 
“My complaint raised serious concerns about misuse of personal data by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd and the submission of false information to a government agency. Specifically, PPS falsely claimed that no appeal had been received, which the DVLA accepted and relied upon in dismissing my Step 1 complaint. I later submitted a copy of PPS's written appeal rejection dated 6 May 2025, which proves beyond doubt that PPS did receive, process, and respond to my appeal. Despite this, the Step 2 response failed to acknowledge the significance of the operator's earlier false statement, and the case has been closed without proper accountability or enforcement under the KADOE contract. Given that the DVLA is the Data Controller for keeper information released under KADOE, I believe the matter has not been properly investigated and the response was based on incorrect and misleading information. I request that this matter now be referred to the Independent Complaints Assessor in accordance with published procedure.”
 
I have set out our jurisdiction as ICAs in an annex to this letter. We are not employees of the DfT or any of its public bodies. We cannot challenge or overturn a decision made by a public body in line with its policies. However, we can assess if the public body has administered its policies correctly, acted consistently with them and provided a reasonable standard of administration and customer service. The DVLA is in the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and we refer where relevant to his Principles and UK Central Government Complaints Framework in judging whether the DfT or one of its delivery bodies has acted reasonably. In doing so, we must be clear that we do not function as an appeals body for enforcement or regulatory decisions made by DfT public bodies. Nor can we re-make a decision based on the correct pursuit of policy and/or the public body’s approach to resource allocation.
 
I should emphasise that we cannot adjudicate on the legality of the DVLA’s supply of keeper data to private parking companies. Nor is the DVLA an actual or proxy regulator for this sector, so complaints about the legal footing and procedural basis behind a PCN need to go down the prescribed appeal route, not to the agency or us. Complaints about unlawful data release, you will understand, are for the ICO. The ICO has fully approved the DVLA’s practice of releasing keeper data for the investigation of potential liability under the reasonable cause provision (in other words, the DVLA does not have to satisfy itself of the legitimacy of a request before data release). A complaint to the DVLA that a request for data from a private parking company was erroneous, meaning that the DVLA should not have released the data, does not get off the ground.
 
Approaching 41,000 drivers are issued with PCNs by private firms each day, underlining the impossibility of the DVLA investigating each request individually. We are precluded from commenting on the content and pursuit of policy by the DVLA. In my view, a political move in an area of widespread public concern is required to change the current arrangement. You may know, however, that initiatives to address public discontent have not seemingly progressed since the then government “temporarily” withdrew the Private Parking Code of Practice in June 2022 after representations from the private parking sector.
 
At this stage, bearing the scope (above) in mind, it would be of assistance to know what your main outstanding concerns are, and what you hope to achieve through your complaint.
 
We work remotely from the DfT, part time, and will not usually be able to reply immediately to communications. Due to the high numbers of complex referrals we have received in recent months, it will in all likelihood take us 14-18 weeks (possibly longer) to complete the review. Until your case is allocated to a colleague (currently I’m sorry to say taking 3 to 4 months), please contact me about any aspect and I will get back to you as soon as I can. 
 
Please tell us if we should adjust our approach to communicate better with you.
 
We prefer email communications as they get to us directly (terrestrial post is referred on to us by the DfT, adding time to the process). We will make any adjustment that we can to be of assistance.
 
If you intend to write to us using Royal Mail it would be helpful to know in advance so we can ask DfT staff to be sure to refer correspondence to us as soon as possible.
 

Popla have come back with PPS’s response to the claim.

Few photos too of my car and the parking signs and the road layout

"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 signage on site is located conspicuously around the site. The signs are legible and written in intelligible language. The entrance signs inform the drivers that they are entering private land and must be aware of the terms and conditions once they are within the car park. 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. No causing obstructions at any time".
The charge was issued because the appellant's vehicle was parked on private land in a no parking area, which is a direct contravention of the terms and conditions of parking. The photographic evidence shows vehicle registration XXXX XXX stationary on the road, where parking is not permitted under the site's terms and conditions. It can also be seen that the vehicle was parked at the entrance/exit of a car park, obstructing the free passage to/from the car park. By choosing to ignore the terms and remain, the appellant contravened the parking contract, and this has resulted in them being liable for a parking charge.
As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed. As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2)(f) “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.” The Notice to Keeper correctly conveys this information. It states the keeper has ‘If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details’, which is the equivalent of ‘28 days beginning the day after the that on which the notice is given’. This is compliant with PoFA Act 2012 requirements. The evidence, however, does not indicate that the keeper provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver, and by failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant (the keeper) has assumed liability for this PCN.
The NTK indicates the location; the postcode on the NTK 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. The NTK does not need to specifically state the times of parking the NTK relate to, as long as it is clear from the NTK, which is 10:26. The evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was observed stationary in a no parking area for 44 seconds, which is the period of parking the NTK relates to. Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd is identified as the creditor on the PCN. The parking charge is BPA and POFA 2012 compliant.
It is important to note that when entering private parking land, the landowner is entitled to set their own parking terms and conditions to form a contract with motorists. These terms are clearly set out in the signage on site. Landowners are under no obligation to allow use of their land if they do not wish to. In this case, the signage is placed at regular intervals, including at the entrance and throughout the controlled area. The signs are large, clearly visible, and use simple, jargon-free language. The signage communicates: “By parking on this land, you contractually agree to pay the displayed charge.” The text at the bottom of the sign further instructs motorists not to park unless they agree to the terms. This constitutes a contractual offer not to park and communicates that a driver choosing to disregard that instruction will incur a charge. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they understand and comply with the site's terms before deciding to park."

Ok added that info in

POPLA Appeal Submission

Appellant: [Your Full Name]
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Operator: [Insert Operator Name]
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Date of Notice: [Insert Date]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]

⸻

Grounds of Appeal

⸻

1. Inadequate Location Description

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the notice to “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked.” The notice merely states:

“UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ”

This is not a single, specific location but a broad collection of roads across a large industrial area. In fact, UB8 2RZ does not cover all of these roads; the alleged contravention occurred at a different postcode (UB8 2RP). The location is therefore vague, ambiguous, and misleading—failing the statutory requirement of specificity under PoFA.

⸻

2. No ‘Period of Parking’ Specified – Breach of PoFA & Failure to Establish Contract

The NtK only states a single timestamp rather than a period of parking, breaching PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a), which clearly requires:

“The period of parking to which the notice relates.”

This deficiency was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court held that a timestamp does not constitute a “period.”

Moreover, if the operator cannot demonstrate how long the vehicle was parked, they cannot establish that any parking occurred beyond the consideration or grace period. This undermines their entire claim. A contract cannot be formed without:
   •   An offer
   •   Acceptance
   •   Consideration

If the duration of stay is not evidenced, then no acceptance or consideration can be presumed, and thus no contract could have been formed. Therefore, even if a sign were visible, it would not result in any enforceable agreement without proof of a measurable stay.

⸻

3. Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual

The notice alleges:

“Parking in a No Parking Area”

This is a prohibition, not an invitation to park under certain terms. As per PCM v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], prohibitive signage is incapable of forming a contract because it offers no terms capable of acceptance. A sign forbidding parking cannot result in contractual liability. As such, no contract was entered into, and there can be no breach.

⸻

4. Failure to Identify the Creditor

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(h) requires the notice to:

“Identify the creditor.”

The NtK merely states:

“We, the creditor, require payment…”

This does not identify any specific legal entity. The term “we” could refer to the landowner, their managing agent, or the operator itself. This vagueness is a breach of the statutory requirement, as the keeper cannot be expected to discharge a liability to an unidentified party.

⸻

5. Lack of Landowner Authority – Strict Proof Required

I put the operator to strict proof of a valid and current contract with the landowner that:
   •   Specifically grants them authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at the precise location in question;
   •   Covers the relevant land (which is not clearly defined by the postcode used);
   •   Confers the right to take legal action in their own name.

Without such a contract, the operator has no standing to issue or enforce parking charges. This is a fundamental requirement confirmed in the BPA Code of Practice (Paragraph 7.1) and upheld in countless appeals.

⸻

6. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified

The operator has failed to identify the driver, and has not established the right to hold the registered keeper liable. As clearly stated in VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan ruled:

“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving…”

As PoFA compliance has not been achieved (per the above points), the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability to the Keeper, and has not shown who the driver was. There is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver.

⸻

Conclusion

This appeal should be upheld. The Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to:
   •   A vague and misleading location description
   •   Absence of a period of parking (both a PoFA breach and proof no contract could exist)
   •   Prohibitive signage that cannot form a contract
   •   Failure to identify the creditor
   •   Lack of demonstrated landowner authority
   •   No evidence of driver identity, and no keeper liability

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the charge.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Date]

I’ve had a go drafting something.



Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued by Private Parking Services
 

POPLA Reference: 
PCN Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
Date of Alleged Contravention:
 
This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle, and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:
 
 

1. Inadequate Location Description
2. No 'Period of Parking' Specified
3. Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual
4. Failure to Identify the Creditor
5. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified
 

Grounds for Appeal:


1. Inadequate Location Description

The NtK states the location as:

"UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ"

This is not a single identifiable site but rather a broad grouping of separate roads which extend well beyond any identifiable 'Ind Est'. Additionally, UB8 2RZ is not a postcode that covers all those roads—on the contrary, it relates to a specific location, whereas the alleged contravention occurred at a different postcode entirely (UB8 2RP). This fails to satisfy PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the notice to “specify the land on which the vehicle was parked”. A vague and potentially misleading group reference is not sufficient.

2. No 'Period of Parking' Specified

The NtK merely states a single timestamp. PoFA para 9(2)(a) requires that the NtK “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single moment in time does not evidence a period of parking. This principle was clearly addressed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the Judge held that a timestamp alone is insufficient to demonstrate a period of parking. Without a specified duration and certainly not less than the consideration period, the NtK fails to establish that any contravention occurred, and thus keeper liability cannot arise.

3. Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual

The allegation is “Parking in a No Parking Area”. This denotes a clear prohibition, not a contractual term. As per the reasoning in PCM v Bull (2016) [B4GF26K6], prohibitive signage cannot form the basis of a contract, as it offers no consideration or terms capable of acceptance. As no contract could have been formed, there can be no breach of contract and therefore no keeper liability under PoFA.

4. Failure to Identify the Creditor

The NtK uses the phrase “We, the creditor, require payment...” without identifying who “we” refers to. This is in breach of PoFA paragraph 9(2)(h), which requires that the notice must identify the creditor—meaning the specific legal entity to whom any liability would be owed. A generic and ambiguous reference that could be either the landowner, their agent or the operator

5. 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

Inadequate location description fails to meet PoFA
The 5-minute consideration period was not exceeded. A single moment in time is not parking (Brennan)
Allegation is Prohibitive, Not Contractual (PCM v Bull)
Failure to Identify the Creditor
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.

Ok that’s done

Should I be making an appeal to popla ?

Think I’ve got around 14 left before my window closes.