Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is an appeal by the keeper. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd is invalid and must be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitory Signage
2. Stopping for 31 Seconds Does Not Constitute Parking and Falls Within the Consideration Period
3. Ambiguous Location on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)
4. The Operator Lacks Landowner Authority
5. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply With PoFA 2012
6. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Keeper Is the Driver

1. No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitory Signage

The signage at Uxbridge Industrial Estate is incapable of forming a contract with drivers. It is only prohibitory, listing multiple restrictions:

• “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time.”
• “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the footpaths at any time.”
• “No causing obstructions at any time.”

These statements impose outright bans rather than offering terms. For a contract to exist, the signage must:

• Clearly state that parking is permitted under specific conditions.
• Specify that the driver agrees to those conditions by parking.
• Offer consideration, such as the right to park under those terms.

Here, no such offer or consideration is presented. Instead, the signage prohibits parking entirely, with a £100 charge framed as a penalty for breaching prohibitions. This does not constitute a contractual agreement but is instead a deterrent.

The Single Code of Practice (SCoP) at Section 5.0 prohibits the use of predatory practices, and Section 2.9 states that terms must be clear and enforceable. Prohibitory signage that fails to present any terms capable of forming a contract cannot meet these standards.

Without a valid contract, there can be no breach, and the PCN is unenforceable.

2. Stopping for 31 Seconds Does Not Constitute Parking and Falls Within the Consideration Period

The operator’s photographs show the vehicle stationary for just 31 seconds (10:40:04 to 10:40:35). This brief stop falls squarely within the consideration period required under the Single Code of Practice (SCoP).

Section 5.1 of the SCoP allows drivers sufficient time to read signage and decide whether to park. Penalising a stationary vehicle for such a brief period is unreasonable and contrary to the fairness principles outlined in Section 7.2.

The SCoP explicitly requires operators to allow for a consideration period and prohibits predatory behaviour. The operator’s actions in this case violate these standards.

Stopping briefly for 31 seconds cannot reasonably be considered "parking," and the operator has failed to demonstrate that a contravention occurred.

3. Ambiguous Location on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)

The NtK fails to identify the location of the alleged contravention with sufficient clarity, violating Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

The NtK lists the location as:

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

This description refers to an entire industrial estate spanning multiple roads, creating ambiguity. PoFA requires the location to be described with enough particularity for the keeper to identify where the vehicle was parked. The inclusion of multiple roads does not meet this standard, especially for such a large estate.

As the keeper cannot discern the exact location of the alleged breach, the NtK fails to comply with PoFA, and no keeper liability can arise.

4. The Operator Lacks Landowner Authority

The operator has not demonstrated that they have the authority to issue PCNs at this location. Section 2.19 of the SCoP requires operators to have written authorisation from the landowner.

A mere statement or witness testimony is insufficient. To establish authority, the operator must provide an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, showing:

• The operator’s right to issue PCNs in their own name.
• The specific areas within the industrial estate covered by their enforcement.
• That the contract was valid at the time of the alleged contravention.

Without this evidence, the operator cannot demonstrate the legal standing required to enforce parking charges.

5. The Notice to Keeper Fails to Comply With PoFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which are necessary to transfer liability to the registered keeper. Specifically:

Failure to Include an Invitation to the Keeper as Required by PoFA 9(2)(e)(i):

The NtK does not include the required statement inviting the keeper to pay the parking charge or to provide the details of the driver. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) explicitly requires that the NtK state:

“…invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges; or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver…”

The omission of this invitation invalidates the NtK for the purpose of transferring liability to the keeper.

Failure to Clearly Identify the Location as Required by PoFA 9(2)(a):

The NtK lists the location as “UXBRIDGE IND EST, Wallingford Rd, Salisbury Rd, Arundel Rd, UXBRIDGE, UB8 2RZ.” This description spans multiple roads within a large industrial estate and fails to identify the specific location with enough detail.

PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to specify the land on which the alleged contravention occurred. By failing to do so, the NtK does not comply, and no keeper liability can arise.

Non-compliance with PoFA 2012 renders the NtK invalid, and liability cannot be transferred to the keeper. As the keeper of the vehicle, I deny liability for this charge. There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be made.

6. The Operator Has Not Shown That the Keeper Is the Driver

Private Parking Solutions Ltd has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the person being pursued (the keeper) was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

PoFA 2012 allows liability to be transferred to the keeper only if the operator fully complies with all the requirements of Schedule 4. In this case, the NtK fails to meet those requirements, as outlined in Section 5.

Where keeper liability cannot be established, the operator must prove that the keeper and driver are the same person. No such evidence has been provided.

The burden of proof lies with the operator to show who was driving. In the absence of such evidence, liability cannot be presumed or inferred.

The registered keeper cannot be pursued under a “law of agency” interpretation or any other presumption of liability. The operator’s failure to identify the driver or establish keeper liability invalidates their claim.

Conclusion

The PCN issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd is invalid due to the following reasons:

• The signage is prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract.
• Stopping for 31 seconds falls within the consideration period and does not constitute parking.
• The NtK fails to identify the location with sufficient clarity, breaching PoFA 9(2)(a).
• The operator has not provided evidence of landowner authority.
• The NtK fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) by omitting the required invitation to the keeper.
• The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing is the driver.

Given the above, I request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs the operator to cancel the PCN.