Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received a notice as mentioned in the subject for parking car in front of a convenience store at about 1:40am. There seems to be only a single board which says that it is a private parking space but it was hardly visible being next to the board of the convenience store and the fact that it being that time of the night. There are no parking bays in the aforementioned place. No boards signifying that it is a private parking space is seen at the entry of the car park space though it hardly looks like a valid car parking space. Could I challenge this fine?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

My appeal to PPS was rejected.
Could you please advise me on the next steps?
Thank you.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and am appealing against the Parking Charge Notice issued by PPS. I respectfully request that POPLA consider the following grounds for appeal and cancel the charge:

⸻

1. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the operator fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Specifically, it does not specify “the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Instead, it refers only to a single timestamp, which cannot constitute a “period.” This omission fails to meet the statutory requirement.

This point is supported by case law: Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions [2023], in which the court confirmed that a single timestamp does not fulfill the requirement to state a “period of parking.”

⸻

2. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The NtK also fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, which requires the notice to “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.” The notice issued does not contain this mandatory wording and therefore fails to establish the keeper’s liability under PoFA.

⸻

3. Inadequate and Unclear Signage, Especially at Night

The alleged contravention occurred at 1:42am – a time when visibility is low. The signage at the location was not adequately lit or positioned to be clearly seen and understood by a driver entering the site in darkness. There is no evidence provided by the operator to show that signs were illuminated or legible at that time.

Furthermore, the area appears to be a shop forecourt with no marked bays or clear boundary signage to indicate private land. There is also no entrance signage making the parking terms apparent upon arrival. The BPA Code of Practice requires clear, prominent, and well-lit signage, which is absent here.

⸻

4. No Evidence of a Breach of Contract – No Proof of Overstay Beyond Consideration Period

No contract can be formed without the opportunity to consider the terms. The BPA Code of Practice requires a reasonable consideration period to allow drivers time to read and understand the signage before entering into a contract. The operator has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond the minimum consideration period.

I put the operator to strict proof of the duration the vehicle was present, and of how long the signage reasonably takes to read and assess under the conditions at the time (i.e., at 1:42am, in the dark).

⸻

5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator has not demonstrated that they have a valid, unredacted, and current contract with the landowner, authorising them to manage parking, issue charges, and take enforcement action in their own name. This is a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice (Section 7). I put the operator to strict proof of their legal standing at the site during the time of the alleged incident.

⸻


For the reasons outlined above, the Parking Charge Notice is invalid and unenforceable. The operator has failed to meet statutory requirements under PoFA, has not demonstrated a valid contract with the landowner, and has not provided adequate signage or evidence of a breach. I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge



Will this suffice?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and wish to appeal the Parking Charge Notice issued by Private Parking Solutions (PPS). I respectfully ask POPLA to consider the following legal and factual grounds for appeal:

⸻

1. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the PoFA 2012, which requires that the notice must specify:

“the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

The NtK issued by PPS refers only to a single timestamp rather than a period, which does not satisfy the requirement to state the duration of parking. The law clearly requires a period, not a snapshot moment.

This interpretation is supported by Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions [2023], where the court found that a timestamp alone does not meet the definition of a “period of parking.”

⚠ As a result of this statutory failure, PPS cannot rely on Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me, the registered keeper. Where the operator does not comply with PoFA in full, keeper liability cannot be established.

⸻

2. Non-compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012

PoFA 2012 requires the NtK to:

“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.”

The NtK from PPS does not contain this mandatory wording, nor any clear statement confirming that the operator lacks the driver’s details. Without this, the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are not met.

⚠ This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, and therefore PPS cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for the charge. Liability under Schedule 4 arises only if the operator meets all the conditions it lays out.

⸻

3. Inadequate Signage – Especially at Night (BPA CoP v9)

The alleged parking event occurred at 1:42 AM, during hours of low visibility. The signage at the location was:
   •   Not illuminated
   •   Not readable from the driver’s perspective
   •   Lacking entrance signage
   •   Unclear in terms of land boundaries and contract terms

According to Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice v9, signage must be:

“clear, prominent and placed at key locations on entry and throughout the site,”
and “must be readable and visible at night if parking is enforced at night.”

⚠ PPS has provided no evidence that the signage complied with these requirements at the time of the alleged event. Therefore, no valid contract could have been formed, and no breach could have occurred.

⸻

4. No Evidence of a Breach – No Proof of Stay Beyond Consideration Period (PPSCoP)

According to the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), operators must allow drivers a reasonable consideration period to read signage and decide whether to stay.

PPS has failed to:
   •   Provide evidence of the total duration the vehicle was on site
   •   Prove that the driver exceeded the consideration period
   •   Show that adequate opportunity to read and assess signage was given at 1:42 AM

⚠ Without such evidence, no breach of contract can be said to have occurred. The absence of marked bays or any visible boundary further blurs the basis for enforcement.

⸻

5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority (PPSCoP, Section 7)

PPS has not demonstrated that it has a valid, current, and unredacted contract with the landowner that authorises:
   •   Parking management
   •   The issuing and enforcement of charges
   •   Legal proceedings in its own name

The PPSCoP requires operators to hold written authorisation from the landowner. I put the operator to strict proof of:
   •   The landowner’s identity
   •   The full and unredacted agreement
   •   The specific clause permitting enforcement activity

⚠ Without this, PPS has no legal standing to pursue this charge.

⸻


   •   PPS has failed to meet several mandatory requirements under PoFA 2012, meaning keeper liability cannot be established.
   •   The signage does not comply with BPA Code of Practice v9, especially given the time and lighting conditions.
   •   PPS has not shown any actual breach of terms or that a valid contract was ever formed.
   •   There is no evidence of landowner authority, breaching the Private Parking Code of Practice.

Given the weight of these legal and procedural failings, I respectfully request POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.


Is this better?

Point #5 is not right. Of course they haven't provided evidence of landowner authority. You are putting them to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner.


I am sorry, I did not clearly understand, should I or should I not mention asking for the proof of valid contract from the landlord?

You are putting the operator to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner. You do not state in the appeal "No Evidence of Landowner Authority" because of course there is no evidence of such... yet. It is only after you submit the appeal that the are then required to evidence their landowner authority.

It's semantics, but you are dealing with a POPLA assessor who may only be the tea-boy. Explain everything as though you are talking to someone with the intellectual capacity of a chimpanzee.

Hello there. Thank you for your advice so far, unfortunately I received a response from POPLA saying that my appeal has been rejected. I have attached the response below. What would be your advice please?

There is no need to redact the assessors name. It is in the public domain and we like to keep a record of which ones ought to be let go because of their utter stupidity and ignorance.

POPLA’s response is a masterclass in procedural laziness and statutory illiteracy. The assessor has rubber-stamped the operator’s assertions without applying even the most basic scrutiny to PoFA’s mandatory language or the evidential burden required under the PPSCoP.

Their grasp of “period of parking” is laughable—treating two timestamps a second apart as compliance is not interpretation, it’s intellectual malnourishment. The decision can be safely ignored as it carries no legal weight, is not binding on you and merely confirms that POPLA remains a box-ticking exercise staffed by clipboard-wielding amateurs.

I would suggest a complaint to POPLA but that is also an exercise in futility because they are not answerable to anyone and even if they admit they are wrong, they will never reverse a decision.

FOr now, you can safely ignore all debt recovery letters that will start coming. Debt collectors are powerless and they can only try to persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).

Thank you for your advice, will do that.