Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks so much for your help! I've finally received the outcome of the appeal which was successful:

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver parked in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant disputes that the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The appellant disputes that a contract can be formed and therefore the charge should have been issued for trespass. They question if the operator has complied with the requirements established in the court case of Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis. They advise that no consideration period has been allowed. The appellant has asked to see evidence that the operator has a contract with the landowner.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am allowing this appeal. I will explain my reasons below. The operator has not demonstrated that any parking is permitted in this location as such the operator is required to issue a PCN under the tort of trespass and not for a contractual breach. This is explained within Section 2.22 which defines the different kinds of parking charge. In this case the PCN talks about breaching of the terms and conditions but make no reference to the tort of trespass. As no contact could be formed, I am not satisfied that the operator has shown that this PCN has been issued correctly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

Is this better?


1. PoFA 2012 – NtK non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(f)

The operator’s rejection asserts that its Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant because it says: “If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details…”. That is wrong in both timing and substance and does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

First, timing. PoFA 9(2)(f) requires a warning framed by reference to “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. PoFA 9(6) further defines when a posted notice is “given” (deemed two working days after posting). By contrast, the operator’s “after 29 days” formula is not equivalent and is liable to mislead. It is untethered to the statutory “given” date and will produce different deadlines depending on the day of posting and intervening weekends/bank holidays. The statute fixes a 28-day period from the day after “given”; the NtK’s “after 29 days” does not.

Second, substance. PoFA 9(2)(f) requires the NtK to warn that if (i) the parking charge remains unpaid after that 28-day period 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 have the right to recover the unpaid sum from the keeper. The operator’s wording (“payment or driver details”) misstates the statutory test. It implies the keeper must supply “driver details” or pay, whereas PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver; it merely sets a condition on the creditor’s ability to transfer liability where the creditor does not know both the driver’s name and a current service address. The NtK fails to convey this mandatory statutory warning accurately.

Because the NtK’s warning is neither expressed by reference to the statutory 28-day period beginning the day after the notice is “given” nor faithful to the “both the name and a current address for service” requirement, the NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(f). Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.


2. Contract cannot arise from a prohibition

The sign says “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME… UNAUTHORISED PARKING WILL RESULT IN A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100.” That is a blanket prohibition, not an offer. Contract formation requires (i) an offer conferring a permission or licence to park on stated terms, (ii) acceptance (by parking in accordance with that permission), and (iii) consideration (the driver’s compliance or payment in return for that permission).

Where parking is forbidden, there is no permission to accept and no consideration moves from the driver; at most there is a trespass. Only the landowner may pursue trespass, typically for nominal damages, and a parking agent cannot convert a prohibition into a contractual charge. This is the opposite of the Beavis model, where a time-limited licence to park was offered and the charge was a conspicuous core term of that licence.

What would be required to create a contract:
– An express offer to park (a licence) on clear terms, not a prohibition.
– Core terms stated with certainty: who may park, time limits, the tariff (if any), and the parking charge for breach stated prominently as a core term.
– Prominence and timing: entrance signage and repeated on-site signs so the driver can see and read the terms before deciding to park (see Vine v Waltham Forest; prominence akin to Beavis).
– Clarity: unambiguous wording, large fonts for the charge and headline terms, readable in the conditions and lighting at the site.
– Authority: the operator named as contracting party and agent of the landowner.

Illustrative wording (for contrast only)- This shows the sort of structure that can create a contractual licence; the operators site does not display anything like this:
“Parking is permitted for:
– Vehicles displaying a valid PPS permit or
– Pay-to-park users who purchase a session on arrival.
– Max stay: X minutes. Tariff: £X per hour.
– Parking charge: £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) payable if you fail to comply with these terms, including: no valid permit, no valid payment, overstaying, or parking outside marked bays.
– By parking you agree to these terms.”

Because PPS’s signage is purely prohibitory and does not extend any permission to park on terms, no contract could have formed and keeper or driver contractual liability cannot arise. If the landowner believed a wrong occurred, the correct cause of action would be trespass, which PPS has no standing to pursue.



3. No evidence of a “period of parking”

The NtK records only a single timestamp (for example, “13:36”) and provides no evidence of the duration of stay. PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single timestamp fails to satisfy that requirement. This defect was confirmed as fatal in Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023, H6DP632H). Without a period of parking, the NtK is non-compliant and cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

4. Consideration period not shown

The BPA Code of Practice requires that drivers be allowed a minimum of 5 minutes to read and decide whether to accept terms. PPS has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained parked for longer than this mandatory consideration period. The images provided by PPS are insufficient to prove a contract was formed.

⸻


PPS’s NtK is defective under PoFA 2012 and fails to transfer liability to the keeper. The signage is purely prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract. No evidence has been provided of any period of parking or consideration period. For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal.

Many thanks for your help. Is this any good?:

1. No Keeper Liability – NtK not compliant with PoFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (PPS) does not comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

(a) Failure to specify a “period of parking” (PoFA 9(2)(a)): PPS’s NtK only gives a single timestamp (for example “13:36”). This is not a “period of parking” as required. In Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023, case ref H6DP632H), the judge confirmed this defect prevents keeper liability.

(b) Incorrect statutory warning (PoFA 9(2)(f)): The NtK states “If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details…”. The statute requires: “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given … and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.” PPS’s wording misstates the law by:
   •   Using “after 29 days” instead of “28 days beginning with the day after … given.” The two are not equivalent.
   •   Incorrectly suggesting the keeper must either pay or provide “driver details.” PoFA imposes no such obligation.

Because of these defects, keeper liability cannot apply. Only the unidentified driver could be pursued, and the keeper is not obliged to name them.

⸻

2. No Contract Formed – Prohibitory Signage

The sign states: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME. UNAUTHORISED PARKING WILL RESULT IN A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100.”

This is a prohibition, not an offer. Contract formation requires offer, acceptance, and consideration. If parking is forbidden, no contractual licence is offered and no consideration moves to the motorist. At most, parking could be trespass, which only the landowner (not their agent) could pursue.

This case is not comparable to ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where a time-limited licence to park was clearly offered. Here, no contract is capable of forming.

⸻

3. No Evidence of a Grace/Consideration Period

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow a minimum of 5 minutes for motorists to consider the terms and decide whether to stay or leave.

PPS’s NtK only shows one timestamped image. This does not prove the vehicle was present beyond 5 minutes. Without evidence of duration, PPS cannot establish that a contract was accepted by conduct.

⸻

4. Unfair and Disproportionate Charge

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, terms must be fair and transparent. A £100 charge where parking is expressly prohibited and no service is provided is both disproportionate and unfair.

Unlike Beavis, there is no legitimate interest in deterring overstays because no parking is permitted at all. The charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty.

⸻

5. Lack of Standing

PPS has not shown it has landowner authority to offer contracts or pursue charges in its own name. Only the landowner could pursue trespass. Strict proof of landowner contract is required.

⸻

Conclusion
- The NtK is non-compliant with PoFA 2012: no keeper liability can arise.
- The signage is prohibitory and cannot form a contract.
- PPS has no evidence the vehicle stayed beyond the 5-minute consideration period.
- The charge is disproportionate and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
- PPS has not provided evidence of landowner authority.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal.

I received an email response to my appeal. Any recommendations/advice as to next steps?

[/url]


[/img]

Thanks so much for your help. I feel much more empowered knowing this. I will draft an appeal based on this- do you recommend I include all these points?

Hi guys, I've received a "parking charge" notice from private parking solutions. The road that was parked on was unmarked- there are signs stating no parking in the vicinity but not clearly referring to the specific area the vehicle was parked. I'm new to this. Is it recommended to ignore this or should I be appealing? If I should appeal, how should I be wording the appeal? thanks in advance