Have received a similar PCN at the same Uxbridge Industrial estate location. I had already done the initial appeal as per the process but it was rejected. I would appreciate any help/advise as after reading this thread want to take it to POPLA but before I post all the details, can I add to this thread or create a new forum ?
Thanks !
Please create your own thread otherwise it gets very confusing. However, you can reference this thread and follow all the same advice already given.
An initial appeal is never successful.
Thank you for your response.
I have utilised much of the appeal material that had already been provided. One difference was that the time for which the PCN I received was applied was 3 mins 3 seconds. It was mentioned in this thread about a potential consideration period...is there anything I could add to my appeal draft in relation to this ?
Cheers !
Please show us your POPLA appeal draft so that we can advise further.
.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Having a little trouble sending the images in particular. Hopefully you have visibility of the attachments at least.
These show the initial PCN/My first appeal/ Rejection.
Attached a draft of POPLA appeal.
Many thanks !
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
So you revealed yourself to be the driver. That's blown a useful appeal/defence point away. Never mind. You raised the point about not having time to read all the terms and conditions.
Here is a suggested appeal to POPLA, for what it's worth:
This appeal challenges the validity of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. The operator's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for fairness and legality, focusing on exploiting drivers rather than ensuring proper parking management. This appeal rests on three indisputable points:
1. No contract could have been formed due to prohibitive signage.
2. The operator failed to allow a reasonable consideration period.
3. The operator deliberately sought to entrap the driver rather than prevent any alleged contravention.
Detailed Grounds for Appeal
1. No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitive Signage
The signage at the location is explicitly prohibitive, stating "No Parking. No Stopping." Such wording conveys a prohibition, not an invitation to form a contract. A legally enforceable contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Prohibitive signage fails to meet these criteria, as supported by PCM (UK) Ltd v Bull [2016], where it was ruled that prohibitive signs cannot establish a contractual relationship.
2. Failure to Allow a Reasonable Consideration Period
The operator alleges a breach of a supposed contract after the vehicle was stationary for less than three minutes. It is absurd to suggest that during this time, the driver could locate, read, and fully comprehend the terms on a sign while remaining in compliance with a "No Stopping" rule. This makes a mockery of any reasonable expectation of fairness and the concept of an informed agreement.
The Single Code of Practice (SCoP) (Annex B1) suggests that terms should be understood "while driving" in such circumstances. This is both dangerous and impractical, as it encourages driver distraction—a violation of the Highway Code and common sense.
3. Operator’s Deliberate Entrapment
It is evident from the evidence provided that the operator had an operative present at the site who actively observed the alleged contravention. Rather than fulfilling a legitimate parking management role by advising the driver that stopping was prohibited, they chose to wait and photograph the vehicle to issue a charge. This behavior underscores a profit-driven motive, prioritising revenue generation over compliance or public safety.
The operator's conduct raises serious ethical concerns. If the operative had any genuine interest in managing the site responsibly, they could have approached the driver and explained the restrictions. Instead, they chose to ambush the driver, which is entirely inconsistent with the principles of fairness and professionalism as required by the SCoP.
Conclusion
The operator's approach reflects a predatory intent rather than a legitimate attempt to manage parking effectively. There is no basis for a contract, no consideration period was allowed, and the operator’s actions are exploitative. POPLA must cancel this PCN in the interest of fairness and justice.
You can add other points raised in other POPLA appeals but, for what it's worth, it's only POPLA!
Agree x 1
View List