Free Traffic Legal Advice

There will be no admission as to who was driving,

This is a story about a busy little van called "Amazon" who went to visit Forest Homes on a weekday morning. The van was full of parcels with names and flat numbers on them, and the driver was careful and kind and wanted to make sure everyone got their things on time. He steered the van slowly through the gate, found a safe place to stop near the entrance, and said, “I will stop here for a short while so I can take the parcels inside”. He did not turn off for a long rest, and he did not wander away to do something else. He simply paused, opened the back, lifted the boxes one by one, and began to carry them to the flats.

Up on a tall pole, a quiet camera watched the road. The camera was very good at taking a picture when the van came in and another picture when the van went out, and it wrote down the clock times in neat little numbers. But the camera could not see the driver carefully walking to the door, could not see the parcels being lifted and signed for, and could not see that the stop was a short and necessary part of the day. The camera only knew “time in” and “time out”, and it did not understand what happened in between.

On the wall by the entrance there was a sign with many words and many rules. The letters were small and the sentences were long, and they were hard to read while doing a quick and careful job. The driver did not stand and study the sign because people were waiting for medicines and books and bits and bobs they needed at home. He chose to work swiftly and safely, and he carried on unloading so that the people in the flats would not be kept waiting. A fair sign should help a driver do a short, important task, not try to catch him out while he is doing good work.

Later, a letter came to the keeper of the van. The letter said, “Pay this charge”, and showed the two pictures with the two times, and it called the whole thing “time in car park”. But the letter did not show a period of parking, because there was no period of parking. There was only a short stop to unload. The law that helps keepers, called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, asks for a true period of parking if someone wants to make the keeper pay, and a drive in and a drive out with a short unload in between is not that. A camera’s clock does not turn a careful unload into parking; it only shows that a vehicle was somewhere for a while.

There was also another story told before by a wise judge in a case called Jopson v Homeguard. In that story, the judge explained that “parking” means leaving a car for longer than the little time needed to get in or out or to load and unload, and that a quick stop for deliveries is different. He even spoke about delivery vans, which must sometimes pause at doors to carry things inside. The judge’s words fit this story very well, because the van at Forest Homes was doing just that—stopping briefly to unload parcels so that people could receive their goods, and then moving on as soon as the job was done.

The keeper also asked a simple question that is important in places like this: “Who says the company may give out charges here, and where is the paper that proves it?” If a company wants to send letters and collect money, it should be able to show a clear agreement with the landholder, written down properly and not hidden or chopped up, saying it may act in its own name. If there is no such paper, then there is no standing to demand money from drivers who are just doing their work.

Some people might remember a famous story called Beavis, about a very busy shop car park where a charge was used to make sure spaces turned over quickly for shoppers. But this story is not that story. Forest Homes is not a retail park, and a delivery van doing a short, necessary unload is not the same as a shopper who overstays for a long time. There is no special reason here to punish a quick stop that helps residents receive their parcels, and so the lesson from Beavis does not fit these facts.

So our story has a gentle ending. The Amazon van arrived, the driver stopped for a short time, the parcels were carried to the right doors, and the van went away. The camera saw arrival and departure but did not see unloading. The sign was not clear or kind for a quick and necessary task. The letter did not show a period of parking as the law requires, and no proper proof has been shown that the company may claim money in its own name. The earlier judge’s story tells us that unloading is not parking, and that is exactly what happened here. For these simple reasons, the fair and sensible thing is to cancel the charge and let the little van carry on helping people with their parcels.

I. Introduction

I am the registered keeper. I deny liability and appeal in full. The vehicle was engaged in Amazon parcel deliveries at Forest Housing Association. The stop was brief and solely for unloading parcels to residents. That activity is not “parking”, and no enforceable charge arises.

II. Grounds of Appeal

1. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court, HHJ Harris QC, appeal), the court explained that “parking” means leaving a vehicle for a duration beyond that needed for getting in or out, loading or unloading. The judge stated that merely stopping is not parking, and expressly contemplated delivery vehicles carrying out short, necessary unloading. On the facts here, the vehicle paused only to unload parcels and then departed. ANPR images showing entry and exit do not evidence any period of “parking” within the meaning adopted in Jopson. Accordingly, no parking contract arose.

2. No keeper liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) not complied with
Keeper liability is created only if the operator strictly complies with every applicable requirement of Schedule 4. The Notice to Keeper fails paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not state a “period of parking”. “Time in car park” derived from ANPR includes driving and brief stopping/unloading, which is not a period of parking. The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with all other mandatory elements of paragraph 9, including 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f), 9(2)(h), 9(2)(i) and 9(5). Any defect defeats keeper liability. As the keeper, I cannot be held liable.

3. No standing – landowner authority (strict proof)
The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous, unredacted, site-specific contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises ParkingEye to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue them in its own name. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, 17 Feb 2025) section 14.1(a-j) (Relationship with Landowner) sets mandatory minimums: written confirmation identifying the landowner; the precise site/plan and boundaries (and any applicable byelaws); the duration and scope of authority; the detailed parking terms and conditions including any permissions/exemptions; the method of issuing/enforcing PCNs; responsibility for planning/advertising consents; and the operator’s obligations and appeals procedure under the Code. These are preconditions to issuing PCNs. The operator must produce a dated and signed agreement by authorised signatories. Redactions must not obscure the above; generic attestations or agent letters are insufficient unless they evidence compliance with PPSCoP §14.1(a-j).

4. No contract formed – signage incapable of creating a fair and transparent agreement for delivery circumstances
The operator must prove that signage was sufficiently prominent, legible, and positioned so that a delivery driver could read and understand the terms before any alleged contract was formed. At a residential estate where delivery vehicles must briefly stop near entrances, any term purporting to prohibit or penalise short unloading is unreasonable in context and incapable of fair acceptance at the material time. ANPR timestamps do not prove that terms were seen or accepted. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sections 62–68), terms must be fair and transparent; a term penalising a brief, essential delivery stop is not fair or transparent and should not be enforced.

5. Beavis is distinguishable on facts and purpose
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned shopper parking at a retail site with a strong legitimate interest in space turnover. This is a residential housing association location and the vehicle performed a short, essential unloading task. There is no comparable commercial justification to penalise a brief delivery stop. Any charge here operates as a penalty rather than a proportionate deterrent linked to a legitimate interest, and is therefore unenforceable on these facts.

6. Private Parking Single Code of Practice – consideration and grace; fair treatment
Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 February 2025), operators must act fairly and reasonably and must not penalise unavoidable, brief activities such as loading/unloading. The Code distinguishes (i) a consideration period on arrival to read and decide whether to stay (section 5.1) and (ii) a minimum 10-minute grace period after a parking session ends (section 5.2). ANPR “in/out” does not evidence a true period of parking or compliance with these safeguards. Penalising a delivery driver for a short, necessary unload conflicts with these standards.

III. Conclusion

The evidence shows only entry and exit, not a period of parking. On Jopson v Homeguard, the brief stop for unloading was not “parking”, so no contract arose. The NtK fails PoFA Schedule 4 because it does not state a period of parking and the operator has not shown strict compliance with all other requirements; keeper liability therefore fails. The operator has not proved landowner authority, the signage could not form a fair and transparent contract for a short delivery stop, and Beavis is not applicable to these facts. For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the charge cancelled.