Free Traffic Legal Advice

The Notice to Driver (NtD) fails PoFA para 7(2)(a) as there is no "period of parking" stated. Whilst it says "The period of parking to which this charge relates is the period immediately preceding the "time of issue" as stated overleaf.", that is not a "period of parking" and has been shown to be inadequate to hold a Keeper liable if the driver is not identified in the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v PPS (2023).

As there is no legal obligation for the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, there is no way they can rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.

What you should do, ONLY as the Keeper, is appeal by email on day 27, which will be Friday 10th October, to info@combinedparkingsolutions.co.uk and CC yourself. There is method behind the reason for appealing on day 27, which will give you even more ammunition if they fall for the trap.

Appeal with the following and do not try to overthink or edit the wording except to fill the placeholders for your details/VRM/PCN number:

Subject: Appeal for PCN number: 29339; Issued: 13/09/2025; VRM: [VRM]

Dear Sirs,

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 Driver (NtD) 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. CPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. CPS have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully

[Your name]

[Full postal address]

Whilst they can't hold you liable as the Keeper, by issuing the appeal on day 27, they are possible going to respond to it by simply rejecting it without ever issuing a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) in breach of PoFA para 8(4-6). This would strengthen any subsequent appeal to the IAS and would definitely win should they be so stupid as to try and litigate it.

To satisfy my lack of understanding, because in this case the driver is parked with the owner's permission, would I get anywhere by explaining the situation?

Not with CPS that's for sure - they'll argue that their terms and conditions prevail, and that the 'owner' is not able to grant you permission to breach these terms. The phrase Nemo dat quod non habet springs to mind.

That doesn't mean that argument is right, but it could get convoluted. You would need to find out what rights the 'owner' has in respect to the space - you would need to see the terms of his lease, and he in turn would likely need to offer up some evidence. Given that he has seen fit to sub-let his parking space without considering the possibility that those booking it might receive PCNs seems to suggest he might not have the most in-depth knowledge of the contents of his lease or the parking setup at the property.

There's every chance he has rights in his lease that supersede the T&Cs that CPS are seeking to enforce, but as you are not the leaseholder it risks becoming a complicated argument, so the PoFA point might be an easier one to advance.