Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. Failure of the operator to issue a Notice to Keeper

The operator claims they issued a “reminder Notice to Keeper” after obtaining DVLA data, but they have not supplied a copy of this document in their evidence pack. There is also no record of any original Notice to Keeper (NtK) being issued before that. Under PoFA, a parking operator can only hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge if they serve a valid NtK within strict statutory timeframes and containing all the required information.

In this case, the operator first issued a Notice to Driver (NtD), and the registered keeper then submitted an appeal using the operator’s internal process. The operator rejected that appeal and confirmed that the internal process had ended. However, they did not issue a formal NtK before or after that stage, only stating in their evidence pack that a “reminder” was sent. A reminder is not a substitute for a PoFA-compliant NtK.

PoFA Paragraph 6(1)(a) states that if an NtD has been given, then the NtK must be served not less than 28 days and not more than 56 days after the alleged parking event. It must also include specific mandatory information as set out in Paragraph 8 of PoFA. Without a valid NtK that meets all these conditions, the operator has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable.

As no NtK has been produced and no evidence has been submitted to show that one was ever issued in the correct form or timeframe, the operator cannot rely on PoFA. Therefore, liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.

2. Failure to evidence an entrance sign defining the boundary of the private land

There is no entrance signage shown anywhere in the operator’s evidence pack. This is a serious omission, especially given that the appeal specifically raised the lack of entrance signage as a key reason why no contract could have been formed with the driver.

Under Section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and section 19.2 of the BPA CoP (v9), it is a mandatory requirement that operators place a clear and prominent entrance sign at the entry point to the land they are managing. This sign must inform drivers that they are entering private land and that terms and conditions apply. Without such a sign, a driver cannot be expected to know they are entering a controlled area or that they may be entering into a contract by remaining on the land.

In this case, the location is not a traditional car park but a residential road with no ground markings or clear boundaries. This makes proper entrance signage even more important. If the driver entered what appears to be an ordinary residential street with no clear notice at the entry point, they would have no reasonable opportunity to know that private parking terms applied.

The operator has submitted only isolated images of signs placed somewhere within the site. These are not dated, not mapped, and not shown in context. There is no visual evidence of a sign at the point of entry to the site, and no indication that the driver would have seen or had the chance to read any terms before stopping or parking.

The absence of an entrance sign means that no contract can have been formed, and the driver was not adequately informed of any terms or charges. This is a breach of both the BPA CoP (v9) and the PPSCoP which undermines any claim that the parking charge is enforceable. The appeal should be upheld on this basis alone.

3. Failure to evidence that any contract could have been formed

The NtD issued by the operator does not evidence any breach of contract because it fails to show that the vehicle was parked for a period of time that exceeds the minimum consideration period required under the PPSCoP.

The NtD simply states an “observation time” of 14:01 and an “issue time” of 14:04. This shows only that the vehicle was present for a total of three minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP, a driver must be allowed a minimum consideration period of at least five minutes from entering the site before a Parking Charge Notice may be issued. This time is intended to allow drivers to locate, read, and understand the terms and conditions displayed on signs before deciding whether to accept them and remain on the land.

The operator has not provided any evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond this minimum period. Without proof that the vehicle was parked beyond the minimum consideration period, no breach of contract can be established.

Additionally, courts have confirmed in decisions such as Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) that a single snapshot or short time period is not enough to show parking, particularly where the vehicle may have stopped only briefly to assess the terms or turn around.

As the NtD does not show any period of parking, and only records a 3-minute window, it fails to satisfy the evidential burden required to establish a breach. The operator has therefore failed to show that a contract was ever accepted and breached, and the parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.

4. Rebuttal to Operator’s Agreement – Lack of Sufficient Evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator includes a document titled "Car Park Management Agreement" in their evidence pack and seeks to rely on it as proof of their authority to operate and enforce parking charges at Mill Parc, Isleworth. However, this agreement does not meet the evidential requirements set out in Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (version 1.1, dated 17 February 2025).

The agreement is between Spring Parking Ltd and Proxima GR Properties Ltd c/o Firstport Property Services Ltd. It includes a generic statement that the client "confirms that it has authority from the site owners" to contract out car park management. However, no evidence has been provided to prove that Proxima GR or Firstport is the landowner or has been granted the necessary legal authority by the landowner to authorise parking enforcement on this site. There is no lease, deed of appointment, or written authority from the landholder confirming the capacity in which the client is acting.

Furthermore, the agreement has been signed by an individual whose name is printed, but no job title or position is given. This omission raises doubt as to whether the individual was authorised to bind the client company in this matter.

Section 14 of the Code requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder or a person acting with the authority of the landholder. That authorisation must confirm the identity of the site, the duration of the contract, and the ability of the operator to issue parking charges. Crucially, it must also be clear that the person signing the agreement has the appropriate authority. The absence of supporting documents and the failure to identify the signatory's position mean that the operator has not discharged the burden of proof in this regard.

In summary, the agreement included in the operator’s evidence pack is insufficient to demonstrate that they hold the necessary authority to manage and enforce parking at the location. It lacks any supporting evidence of landowner status or delegated authority, and the signatory’s role is unstated, making it impossible to verify whether the agreement has been validly executed. Given the requirements of Section 14 of the PPSCoP, the operator has failed to establish that it has the legal standing to pursue parking charges at this site. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

5. Rebuttal – Misrepresentation of Keeper Appeal

In the operator’s Case Summary, it is falsely stated that an “email appeal was received from the driver.” This is factually incorrect and misleading.

The appeal was explicitly submitted by the Registered Keeper, not the driver. The wording of the appeal clearly stated:

- “The Notice to Driver (NtD) was passed to me by the driver, and I am now submitting this appeal as the Keeper. I am providing my details as the Registered Keeper...”

The operator has chosen to disregard this clear and unambiguous statement and instead recorded the appellant as “the driver”, presumably to mislead the appeals process or to suggest that liability has been admitted. This is not only inaccurate but also undermines the operator’s credibility.

Moreover, the appeal expressly instructed the operator not to request the Keeper’s data from the DVLA, since it had already been voluntarily provided. The relevant extract from the appeal reads:

- “Since you now have my details, you must not request my data from the DVLA.
Any such request would be a breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018... and a misuse of the DVLA KADOE system...”

As the operator has subsequently requested the Keeper’s details from the DVLA, this constitutes unlawful processing under the UK GDPR and a breach of their KADOE contract with DVLA.

In light of the above, any assertion that the driver appealed or admitted liability must be dismissed. The operator’s misrepresentation in their evidence undermines the reliability of their case and supports the position that the charge must be cancelled.

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your Letters Before Claim – PCN References: [Insert both references]

I write in response to your Letters Before Claim concerning two alleged parking charges involving the same vehicle and location, on different dates. These appear to relate to substantially the same cause of action. Please be advised that any attempt by your client to issue multiple court claims for matters that should properly be addressed within a single set of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. You are formally put on notice that I require these matters to be consolidated into a single claim, and I will apply for sanctions and costs should your client disregard this requirement.

I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with your data protection obligations:

[Insert full foreign address]

The Data Protection Officers of both your client and BW Legal have been sent separate Data Rectification Notices with the necessary evidence.

I am permanently resident outside the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Should your client wish to pursue a claim, it must follow the correct procedure for serving proceedings outside the jurisdiction under Part 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Any attempt to issue a claim to a UK address previously associated with me, in the knowledge that I have provided a valid overseas address for service, will be treated as a deliberate attempt to frustrate service and may result in an application to strike out any proceedings as improperly served or to set aside any default judgment. Costs will be sought on that basis.

As both Letters of Claim are non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. They lack the detail required under paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1, and 5.2 of the Protocol and fail to enclose the documents that must accompany a compliant Letter Before Claim.

Accordingly, I require your client to provide the following information and documents, without which I am unable to consider my position:

1. A clear explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether your client is pursuing me as the driver or the keeper
3. Full particulars of the alleged contraventions, including the times, duration of stay, and how the sum claimed has been calculated
4. A copy of the signage terms that are alleged to have been breached
5. Photographs of the vehicle allegedly in breach of those terms
6. A copy of the contract with the landowner authorising enforcement at the material time, in accordance with the PPSCoP
7. A site plan showing the placement of all signs
8. Photographs of the signage in situ at the time of the alleged events, showing legibility (font size, contrast, positioning, height)
9. A detailed breakdown of the original charge, any interest applied, and all additional costs
10. An explanation of the £70 ‘debt recovery’ fee — whether VAT is included, and if so, on what basis VAT is being charged
11. Clarification of whether the principal charge is alleged as a contractual fee (consideration) or damages for breach

If your client does not provide this information, I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c), and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claims or consider my position in relation to them. It would be entirely premature — and a waste of both costs and court time — for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so regardless, I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and request that the court order disclosure of the missing information and consider costs sanctions.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Subject: Misuse of Keeper Data and Breach of Code – Further to Formal Complaint

Dear Sirs,

Further to your recent response to my formal complaint dated [insert date of your complaint email], I must place on record my serious concern regarding the continued misuse of my personal data and your ongoing breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and your DVLA KADOE obligations.

Your reply attempts to claim that you are entitled to pursue me as the registered keeper under PoFA, but that is plainly incorrect. You acknowledge that the site is owned by Transport for London, and even describe it as "the direct car park for the North Greenwich Station." As such, the land is not 'relevant land' for the purposes of Schedule 4 of PoFA, which excludes land subject to statutory control. There is no ambiguity here. This is not private land within the scope of PoFA and you are not entitled to invoke keeper liability.

Moreover, you admit that no penalty has been issued under railway byelaws and that you are pursuing a contractual Parking Charge only. Therefore, this PCN may only be pursued against the driver, not the registered keeper. You were informed of this in my original appeal dated 19 March 2025, and again when I declined your improper request to identify the driver. At no time have you issued a rejection or provided a POPLA code as required under:

• Clause 8.4.1(b) – requiring a response to appeals within 28 days,
• Annex C.1.1 – requiring access to the Appeals Service if the appeal is rejected.

Your failure to do so renders your escalation of the charge to ZZPS a further breach of the Code. The complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Team has already been submitted and includes a supporting statement referencing your misuse of DVLA data. For the avoidance of doubt, that complaint relates not to your initial request, but to your continued unlawful processing and misuse of my keeper data in breach of the KADOE contract.

Your attempt to argue that there is no requirement to name the car park’s legal designation is a red herring. My appeal did not argue that your PCN was non-compliant for omitting a postcode; it clearly raised a jurisdictional issue — namely, that this is land subject to statutory control and therefore PoFA does not apply. You have failed to engage with this point or to provide any legal justification for continuing to pursue a registered keeper on such land.

You now claim you are "not reviewing [my] correspondence as an appeal," yet your earlier reply admitted to placing the charge on hold for seven days while requesting the driver's details. The PPSCoP makes clear that any correspondence raising issues about a PCN must be treated as an appeal or complaint — not ignored or arbitrarily diverted to a debt collector. There has been no lawful conclusion to the appeal process and no access to the appeals service has been offered.

I now require the following:

• Confirmation that the PCN is cancelled,
• Confirmation that ZZPS have been instructed to close the file,
• Written confirmation that my personal data is no longer being processed or shared in connection with this PCN,
• A formal explanation of why no POPLA code was ever issued.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 7 days, I will escalate this further to the BPA and pursue a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) concerning misuse of my personal data.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

"I have regularly visited Gunnersbury Park for over four years to use the sports facilities, particularly for family badminton sessions, and have never previously been required to pay for parking."

"I booked and paid for badminton at the park’s sports centre for that time slot and can provide the booking confirmation as proof of legitimate use."

"I believe this shows that my use of the parking space was in line with the purpose of visiting the park and should be considered in the context of fairness."

"While I was not initially aware of the parking charge requirements, there were no clear instructions on how to pay for parking at the time of the alleged contravention."