My appeal is below:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this Parking Charge Notice and submit this appeal in full.
I am handling this matter strictly as the registered keeper under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the relevant Code of Practice.
I make no admission as to the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
1. Failure to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, keeper liability does not apply.
Under Paragraph 9(5), where no notice was affixed to the vehicle, the Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days of the alleged incident.
The alleged incident occurred on 05 March 2026. The deadline for delivery was therefore 19 March 2026.
The Notice to Keeper was received on 21 March 2026, outside the statutory period.
I require strict proof of the date of posting. The operator must demonstrate when the notice was actually entered into the postal system, not merely when it was generated.
As the notice was not delivered within the required timeframe, the operator has forfeited any right to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
2. Land is Not Relevant Land Under the Act
The location is Leeds City Station, which is subject to statutory control under the Railway Byelaws 2005.
Under Schedule 4 Paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, land is not relevant land if it is subject to statutory control.
Railway land, including station forecourts and access roads, is excluded.
As a result:
The operator cannot rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue the registered keeper
No keeper liability can arise under any circumstances
The operator cannot require the keeper to identify the driver
Any potential enforcement would fall under railway byelaws, which can only be enforced by the landowner or relevant statutory authority, not a private parking company
In these circumstances, the operator is limited to pursuing the driver only, whom they have not identified.
This renders the charge unenforceable against the registered keeper.
3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
I put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the Code of Practice regarding landowner authority.
The operator must provide a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted written agreement with the landowner which includes:
The identity of the landowner
Defined site boundaries
Duration and scope of authority
Authority to issue parking charges and pursue legal action in their own name
Details of any applicable byelaws
Parking terms, conditions, and exemptions
Responsibility for signage and statutory consents
These are mandatory requirements.
Any failure to provide a fully compliant agreement invalidates the charge.
As confirmed in Vehicle Control Services v HMRC 2013, an operator without proper landowner authority has no standing to issue or enforce charges.
4. No Contract Formed Due to Inadequate and Unfair Terms
A valid parking charge requires a legally binding contract.
As established in ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, this requires clear, prominent, and intelligible signage, allowing a driver a fair opportunity to read and accept the terms.
At a busy train station environment:
Signage is not safely readable while driving
A no stopping zone provides no opportunity to read or consider terms
A driver cannot accept terms that require immediate compliance without any consideration period
The operator’s terms are therefore incapable of forming a contract.
5. Necessary Stop Due to Safety, Professional Duties, and Equality Obligations
The vehicle was operating as a licensed taxi and was present solely to drop off a disabled passenger.
Due to the nature of this role, the driver’s work is inherently unpredictable. The driver must prioritise safety at all times, including the safety of themselves, their passengers, and other road users and pedestrians.
This means that situations can arise where the vehicle must be brought to a stop immediately and safely in response to circumstances outside of the driver’s control.
In this instance, the vehicle was stationary for less than 60 seconds. The driver remained inside the vehicle at all times, with the engine running, and was actively managing the situation involving the passenger.
At no point was the vehicle parked or left unattended.
The stop was necessary due to passenger safety and behaviour. The driver was required to deal with the situation safely and appropriately. Failing to do so could have created risk for other road users and pedestrians.
This is recognised in law and guidance:
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides exemptions where stopping is necessary due to circumstances beyond the driver’s control, including safety considerations
The Highway Code recognises that drivers may stop where necessary to avoid danger or respond to immediate circumstances
Legal principles distinguish between parking and stopping, confirming that a brief and necessary stop does not constitute parking
In addition, any fair and lawful parking regime must allow a reasonable consideration period for a driver to read signage, assess conditions, and act accordingly.
A system that penalises a vehicle that was stationary for less than 60 seconds, with the driver present and engaged in safety related activity, is unreasonable and contrary to basic principles of fairness.
Given the nature of taxi work and the need to respond to real time situations, a reasonable grace or consideration period should be allowed.
The absence of such a period makes compliance impossible and renders enforcement unfair.
Furthermore, under the Equality Act 2010, there is a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals.
Allowing sufficient time and safe access for drop off is a clear example of such an adjustment.
Penalising a driver for complying with safety obligations and assisting a disabled passenger is unreasonable and may amount to unlawful discrimination.
The driver’s actions were lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
This was not parking, but a justified temporary stop, and no breach can be said to have occurred.
6. Frustration of Contract
Even if a contract were capable of being formed, which is denied, it would be frustrated.
The driver was required to stop due to safety concerns and passenger behaviour, circumstances entirely outside their control.
This prevents performance of any alleged contractual term and renders the contract void.
7. Predatory and Unreasonable Enforcement
The operator’s enforcement model is predatory.
A no stopping zone enforced by automatic cameras, with no grace or consideration period, captures drivers instantly without allowing any realistic opportunity to comply.
This is particularly problematic given the nature of taxi work, where stops are often necessary, brief, and safety driven.
Such enforcement disproportionately impacts professional drivers and those assisting vulnerable or unpredictable passengers.
This is unreasonable and contrary to the requirement to act fairly and proportionately.
8. Breach of Code of Practice
The operator has failed to act reasonably, fairly, and proportionately.
The combination of:
No consideration period
Instant enforcement
Failure to account for disabled passengers
Failure to consider the realities of professional driving
places the operator in breach of the Code of Practice requirements regarding fairness, professionalism, and duty of care.
9. Charge is Disproportionate and Not a Genuine Reflection of Any Loss or Impact
The charge is excessive and not representative of any disruption or loss.
The stop was brief and necessary for safety.
There is no evidence of obstruction, damage, or impact on site operations.
The nature of taxi work means drivers do not have full control over passenger behaviour and may be required to stop unexpectedly to manage situations safely.
In this case, the stop was influenced by a disruptive passenger and was necessary to prevent risk to others.
As evidenced by the job record, the fare for this journey was £5.70.
The parking charge is significantly higher and bears no relation to the activity undertaken or any alleged impact.
While ParkingEye v Beavis allows charges in certain circumstances, it also requires that charges serve a legitimate interest and are not excessive or unconscionable.
In this case, the charge is clearly disproportionate.
10. No Evidence the Keeper Was the Driver
There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver.
The burden of proof rests entirely with the operator.
Keeper liability only arises where the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are met, which they have not been.
Only the driver could be liable and I am under no obligation to identify them.
11. Planning Permission and Advertising Consent
I put the operator to strict proof that:
All necessary planning permission for the camera system has been obtained
All required advertising consent for signage is in place
In the absence of such consent, the operation of the enforcement system is unlawful and the charge is invalid.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined:
The Notice to Keeper is non compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The land is not relevant land and is subject to statutory control
No keeper liability exists
No valid contract was formed
Any alleged contract would be frustrated
The operator has not demonstrated landowner authority
The stop was lawful, necessary, and required for safety
The charge is disproportionate and unjustified
The enforcement is predatory and in breach of the Code of Practice
I require that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled immediately.
If you reject this appeal, you must provide:
Full evidence of compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Proof that the land is relevant land
A complete and unredacted landowner agreement
Evidence of adequate signage
Proof of the date of posting of the Notice to Keeper
Evidence of planning permission and advertising consent
Failure to address these points will be considered unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper
