Free Traffic Legal Advice

Section B: Case Summary and rules/conditions
Case Summary
The Parking Charge was issued under POFA. In response to the Parking Charge Mr xxxxxx, who
we are pursuing as the Registered Keeper, appealed stating that the Parking Charge was not POFA
compliant.
Rejecting his appeal, we advised that clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform
drivers of the need to pay for parking, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises
without passing multiple signs.
By parking the vehicle on the site the driver entered into a valid contract and agreed to abide by its
terms and conditions. The ample signage displayed throughout the site advises the terms and
conditions of use. One of the conditions is that this is a pay to park site. The signage advises that a
Parking Charge of £50 will be issued when allowing your vehicle to remain on site without making
payment for parking.
It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions of the site. In this
case, by allowing the vehicle to remain on site for 51 minutes without paying for parking, the driver
breached those terms and conditions.
Valid payments at this site generate electronic permits. We have included in Section G a copy of the
permit search, which confirms that this vehicle did not hold a valid permit for this site on the day in
question, which means the driver did not pay for parking. We note that Mr xxxxxx has not
claimed that the driver paid for parking nor has any evidence been provided to show as such.
We can confirm that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations –
please see images and photographs provided in Section F which support this.
As the keeper did not provide us with details of the driver on the day in question we are pursuing
them as the registered keeper. We can confirm that the Notice to Keeper advises that if the amount
requested in the Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name
and current address), the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.
We can confirm that the Charge was issued on 27/01/2026 and therefore deemed to be delivered on
29/01/2026, the contrary has not been proven. As such, the Charge was issued within PoFa time
limits. We have included in Section C a copy of the Parking Charge which states the “This Charge is
given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”.
We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the
appellant to provide evidence to support their claim that we do not - if the appellant genuinely
believes that we do not have such authority, they are to go to the BPA to obtain this information. The
photographs included in Section F show that signage and equipment is in place at the site to manage
the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority.
Our position remains that we have received no mitigating circumstances or evidence for which we
should cancel the Parking Charge. We maintain that Mr xxxxxx entered into a valid contract and
should pay the valid parking charges as per the signage on the site

Ground of appeal: The operator has no keeper liability as the land is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I was not the driver and the driver has not been identified.

The operator asserts that it is pursuing the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”). This is incorrect as the location in question is not “relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA.

The site forms part of Leigh Woods, which is land managed by Forestry England on behalf of the Forestry Commission.

Parking on this land is governed by the Forestry Commission Byelaws 1982, made under section 46 of the Forestry Act 1967. These byelaws are statutory in nature and regulate conduct on the land, including the payment of charges and penalties for non-compliance.

As such, parking on this land is “subject to statutory control”.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 PoFA defines “relevant land” and expressly excludes:

“any land on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

Because Forestry Commission byelaws apply, this land is excluded from the definition of relevant land.

Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.

As the keeper, I am under no legal obligation to name the driver and have not done so.

In the absence of relevant land, and driver identification, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper.

Conclusion
As the land is subject to statutory control and is not relevant land under Schedule 4 PoFA, keeper liability does not apply. The appeal must therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.