Free Traffic Legal Advice

Are you on a lease?
What does your lease documents say about parking a vehicle?

Show us everything in your lease that mentions anything about parking. What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.

They cannot claim Keeper liability if they haven't issued an NtK!

The Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) you have shown are not PoFA compliant with paragraph 7(2)(a). You should really have waited to appeal on day 27 after the issue date of the Notice to Driver (NtD) but it is what it is now. If they have already rejected your appeals as the Keeper, then even if they try and issue an Notice to Keeper (NtK) within the relevant period (28 to 56 days after the alleged contravention), it is too late.

The NtD was not PoFA compliant, failing to specify a period of parking. The contravention type requires direct observation, not inferred presence. Any NtK issued now would be procedurally invalid and statutorily non-compliant. Therefore, no keeper liability exists, and any attempt to pursue the keeper is legally baseless.

Stand your ground for now. The odds of this ever reaching a hearing incur are slim and you have a powerful defence should they be so stupid as to try and take it that far.

For now, show us what your lease says about parking. In the majority of these residential cases, the operator has no standing to override the supremacy of contract you have with your lease.

Also, do not identify the driver as their NtD's are not PoFA compliant with paragraph 7(2)(a). If you do get another one, do not appeal as the Keeper until day 27 after the date of the contravention.

The Keeper has not identified the driver...

In the reply to my first appeal, this seems like a rather odd statement considering there hasn't been a NtK?:

"With respect to your comments regarding liability, we acknowledge your position as the registered keeper and your
decision not to identify the driver. However, we can confirm that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and liability has been correctly transferred to the keeper under the
provisions of the Act."

...If they have already rejected your appeals as the Keeper, then even if they try and issue an Notice to Keeper (NtK) within the relevant period (28 to 56 days after the alleged contravention), it is too late.

In response to my first appeal they explicitly said "we acknowledge your position as the registered keeper and your
decision not to identify the driver. However, we can confirm that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and liability has been correctly transferred to the keeper under the
provisions of the Act."

In their reply to the second appeal they didn't mention if they were pursuing me as keeper/driver/owner..?

They can say whatever they like. It doesn't alter the fact that they have not complied with the Act and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable and they have no idea who the driver is. They are not allowed to infer that the Keeper must also be the driver and that is backed up by persuasive appellate case law as in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C].

Oh yes I agree that what they're saying is nonsense, I was just pointing out the _lack_ of that particularly nonsense in the second rejection. I'm imagining both PCNs get looked at in complete isolation, so that second one I might not be able to appeal on PoFA grounds as they haven't said they were pursuing as keeper.

POPLA has nothing to do with any specified requirements of PoFA as regards keeper liability:

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

......

(d)inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

The 'arrangement for the resolution of disputes' is an integral part of the CoP and includes POPLA in this instance. However, there is NO provision within the Code for 'appeals' by a keeper against a NTD to lead directly to a POPLA code because the keeper cannot be pursued other than via a NTK and a subsequent unsuccessful 'appeal'. A keeper cannot be pursued under the Code without a NTK having been issued, see Annex C: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

Therefore, under the Code the only basis on which a POPLA code may be issued without a NTK is if following a NTD the 'appellant' identifies themselves as the driver - hence my question which has been answered, not by their response but by your 'appeals'. However, their response supports your position and prevents them from issuing POPLA codes.

So, when you appeal to POPLA pl just deal with the issue of the parking charge by stating clearly that you have no first-hand knowledge as to whether the driver contravened displayed conditions at the site and the assessor's decision should not dwell on this point. Your appeal is that the creditor cannot pursue the keeper for any charge, whether owing by the driver or not, because the mandatory conditions of Schedule 4 have not been met, that is to say a Notice to Keeper has not been issued.

Although the creditor's responses to your 'appeals' make clear that they are not pursuing you as the driver but as the keeper, you would none the less pre-empt any attempt by them to change horses midstream for the sake of expediency (and money, of course) by reiterating that they may not infer that you were the driver(in addition to being the keeper) because there is no lawful basis for such an assumption, irrespective of statements to the contrary in the Code.

Are you sure that there's NO mention of parking anywhere in your lease? Did you pay for the electronic permit? There is no requirement for a permit in your lease and if you have paid for it, you should demand your money back. If they want to issue permits for free, so that they can whitelist your vehicle, then that is OK and you are only doing so as a courtesy, not a requirement.

Your lease is the governing document. If it makes no mention of parking rights, enforcement, or delegation to third parties like P4 or any other third party company, then no such authority exists.

The definition of “Common Parts” in your lease includes access ways and forecourts, but does not confer any right to regulate or restrict parking, nor does it mention enforcement mechanisms or third-party control. P4’s involvement is ultra vires—beyond the powers granted by the lease. Their actions are not legally supported unless the lease was formally amended or a supplemental deed was executed. Can you confirm this has not occurred.

Under English property law, particularly the principle of derogation from grant, a landlord or their agent cannot take away rights that have been granted by the lease. If leaseholders have historically parked in common areas without restriction, and the lease does not prohibit it, then imposing penalties or enforcement constitutes a material interference with quiet enjoyment and use.

The case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd confirms that landlords cannot extinguish parking rights arbitrarily—they may regulate, but not revoke without legal basis. TheLandlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to act reasonably and transparently in managing common parts and service charges.

Introducing a third-party enforcement firm without consultation or lease authority breaches the duty to manage the property in accordance with the lease and statutory obligations. P4 is unregulated and acting vexatiously, therefore this also breaches consumer protection laws and data protection regulations if they’re issuing notices or collecting personal data without lawful basis.

So, P4 Parking is a contractor, not a party to the lease. Their authority is strictly limited to what the landlord or management company delegates—and that delegation cannot override leaseholder rights.

If the leaseholder has a right to park (whether exclusive, general, or implied through historic use), P4 must cancel any PCN issued to a vehicle that is confirmed to belong to or be authorised by a leaseholder. Enforcement against third-party vehicles (unauthorised visitors, trespassers, etc.) may be within P4’s remit, but once notified that a vehicle is linked to a leaseholder, continued enforcement becomes unlawful.

If the management company refused to get the PCNs cancelled, then I suggest you send the following to them:

Subject: Immediate Cancellation of PCNs and Cessation of Unlawful Enforcement Against Leaseholder Vehicles

Your refusal to intervene in the unlawful issuance of PCNs by P4 Parking is a dereliction of duty and a breach of both contractual and statutory obligations. Let me make this unequivocally clear:

There is no legal requirement for a leaseholder to display a permit. The lease contains no clause mandating participation in any permit scheme—physical or electronic. Any such scheme is entirely extraneous to the lease and cannot override the leaseholder’s rights.

P4 Parking’s authority may be limited to managing unauthorised vehicles. Once notified that a vehicle belongs to or is authorised by a leaseholder, any PCN must be cancelled immediately. Continued enforcement is unlawful and constitutes:

• Derogation from grant, interfering with the leaseholder’s right to quiet enjoyment.
• A breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires you to manage the property in accordance with the lease and act reasonably.
• A violation of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), which prohibits misleading and aggressive commercial practices. Issuing PCNs based on signage or permit schemes that have no contractual basis is unlawful and may expose both P4 and your company to enforcement action.

The leaseholder has applied for an electronic permit as a courtesy, not as a legal obligation. They reserve the right to withdraw from this scheme at any time without penalty or interference. Any attempt to enforce penalties based on non-display or non-participation in a voluntary scheme is legally void.

You are responsible for the conduct of your agents. If you have failed to amend the lease or consult leaseholders before introducing enforcement, you will be held accountable for any resulting legal or financial consequences.

I demand:

• Immediate written confirmation that P4 Parking has been instructed to cancel all PCNs issued to leaseholder-authorised vehicles.
• A copy of any agreement purporting to authorise P4’s involvement.
• A full explanation of why leaseholder rights were ignored and why no lease amendment or consultation was undertaken.

If this matter is not resolved within 7 days, I will escalate to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and pursue recovery of all costs incurred due to your negligence. You are expected to act with urgency, competence, and legal compliance.