So, the PCN is a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Let's analyse this a bit more...
The signage is the contract that the driver agrees to, as long as it is prominent, whether they bother to read it or not. A contract requires 3 core elements... offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Under English contract law, the sign shown attempts to establish a contractual relationship based on the three core elements. Here's how it stands—and where it may fail.
1. Offer The sign purports to make an offer: “By parking on this land you contractually agree…” and sets out the terms (£100 charge). However, the offer is internally contradictory. It states “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME” yet simultaneously invites contractual agreement if one parks. That’s not an offer—it’s a prohibition. You cannot contract for something that is expressly forbidden. This undermines the clarity and legitimacy of the offer.
2. Acceptance The sign claims that parking constitutes acceptance. But if parking is prohibited outright, then any act of parking is not acceptance of an offer—it’s a trespass. Acceptance must be of a valid offer. Moreover, if signage is unclear, obscured, or introduced post-entry, then acceptance is not informed or unequivocal.
3. Consideration The operator claims the motorist receives the “benefit” of parking, and in return owes £100. But if parking is not permitted at all, then no legitimate benefit is conferred. The consideration is illusory. Additionally, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the £100 charge may be deemed disproportionate and unfair—especially if no service was actually provided.
Conclusion This sign fails to establish a valid contract. It prohibits parking while simultaneously attempting to impose contractual liability for doing so. That contradiction voids the offer. Without a valid offer, there can be no acceptance or consideration. The result: no enforceable contract.
Next, let's consider the Notice to Keeper (NtK)...
The driver is always liable for any charge. If a parking company wants to hold the Registered Keeper of a vehicle liable for a parking charge because they don't know the identity of the driver, they must follow strict rules under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. One of those rules says the NtK must state the period of parking—not just a single time, but a clear duration showing how long the vehicle was parked. Not necessarily the whole duration, but at least a duration that can be show.
If the notice only gives one timestamp, like "incident time: 13:36", that doesn’t meet the legal requirement. In a recent persuasive appeal case—Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions—the judge agreed. He said that without a proper period of parking, the notice doesn’t follow the law, and the Keeper can’t be held responsible. That means the parking company can’t chase the Keeper for payment unless they can prove who was driving. As long as the Keeper does not identify who was driving, there is no way they can hold the Keeper liable.
It’s a simple point: if they want to rely on the law, they have to follow it properly.
Finally...
The unregulated private parking industry has to follow an Approved Operator Scheme, which in this case, is the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). That Code requires all operators to allow a minimum 'consideration period' for drivers to seek out, read and decide whether to accept any contractual terms. The driver has a minimum of 5 minutes to consider those terms and either accept them by remaining parked or rejecting them, and leaving.
The NtK does not show a minimum of at least 5 minutes elapsed with a single photo taken as 13:36. Therefore, there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for more than the minimum consideration period, which means they have no evidence of a contract being formed.
So, in this case, as long as the driver is not identified, they cannot hold you, the Keeper liable. Also, no contract could be formed because of the prohibitory signage and, even if there was a possibility of a contract, there is no evidence that the vehicle remained parked for longer than the minimum consideration period.
Are you going to fight this?
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?
There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
Frankly, I am surprised that your company has not learnt it's lesson from the persuasive appellate court case you lost, Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court found that without an observation 'period', you have not complied with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) and therefore cannot the Keeper liable.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPSave no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Thanks, really appreciate the advice. I'll update this forum on any outcome.
I received an email response to my appeal. Any recommendations/advice as to next steps?
[/url]
[/img]
Meh! You will appeal to POPLA. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit a POPLA appeal.
Have a search of the forum for some recent POPLA appeals to get a feel for how they are structured and show us what you have before you send anything.
For example, here are a couple of points you could use in your POPLA appeal:
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.
And...
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/licence to park on stated terms, (ii) acceptance (by parking in accordance with that permission), and (iii) consideration (the driver’s compliance/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
To form a contract by signage the operator would need, at minimum:
• 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:
Main terms (core terms in large text):
• “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/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.
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 gave you two comprehensive points to use in your POPLA appeal and you appear to have watered them down. Why?
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.
I don't have any experience with Popla appeals- I'd appreciate feedback or advice on this. Thanks in advance.
Like x 1
View List
Winner x 1
View List