Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome. You are confusing a scummy, parasitic bunch of ex-clampers with an 'authority' that can issue fines and penalties. PPS have sent the Keeper of the vehicle a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver.

The fact that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant has also been missed. PoFA 9(2)(a) require an NtK to state the period of parking, which cannot simply be a single moment in time. This is private land, not under any statutory control. For a contract to have been formed with the driver, they must have been given a minimum consideration period to seek out, read and decide whether to agree with the terms or leave. The minimum consideration period is 5 minutes.

So, the scummy morons at PPS have lied when they state in their NtK that the Keeper can be liable under PoFA. This warrants a formal complaint to the DVLA for breaching the KADOE contract which puts them at risk of losing their access to the DVLA database.

As PPS have no idea of the drivers identity, and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm, any appeals must be only as the Keeper. The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) 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. PPS 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 NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

This will be rejected but a POPLA code will be issued which is valid for 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection. It may be possible to persuade a POPLA assessor that the PCN is invalid.

Even if the POPLA appeal is unsuccessful, there is no obligation to pay the PCN and a county court claim is easily defended and has less than a 1% chance of ever getting to a hearing as it would be struck out or discontinued. The only reason it would go so far is in the hope that the recipient is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will pay up out of ignorance and fear.

There is no such thing as the "owner" as far as private parking charges are concerned. There is only the Keeper and the Driver, both separate legal entities, although the Keeper could also be the Driver, but they do not know that. As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the Driver, you must not do so.

These private companies cannot compel the Keeper to identify the Driver and they are not allowed to presume or infer that the Keeper must also be the driver. If using a webform to submit your appeal, make sure you only select an option that says "other" or "Keeper only".

Their website says that you can contact them by email at info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk

So, submit your appeal by email or as an attachment to one, making sure you reference the PCN number .

While there is no need to worry, you can guarantee that the initial appeal is going to be rejected. One step at a time.

Just do a search for other POPLA appeals on this forum and see how they are composed and what points are made in them and adapt something for your case.

Don't send anything until you've posted your attempt here so that you can get advice on anything tat needs adding, removing or correcting. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal, so no rush.

Thanks again for your time.....

Please see my dialogue to Popla, the wordings that I have gone through on the forum from various other posts - most of which @b789 you have done - have gone completely over my head! So sorry if what I am contemplating sending in the Popla appeal is incoherent, I really, really appreciate any feedback or even editing to what I have done.

I miraculously managed to add the images to 'imgur' and the link to these is here....

https://imgur.com/a/gh71t0M

I hope the link works!!

You can see picture #1 was taken at 13:04:16 then subsequent pictures up to picture #9 13:04:28 a full 12 seconds. The warden must have moved fast...lol! Picture #10 was then taken at 13:06:51, one presumes this is the 'consideration period given' a full 2 minutes and 23 seconds.

I wanted to put in something regarding that along the lines of...

'The NtD does not show that the vehicle remained onsite beyond the minimum consideration period, so there is no evidence that any contract was formed'

...but wasn't able to fathom where it should go in my appeal below....




Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued by Private Parking Services
 

POPLA Reference: 
PCN Reference:
Vehicle Registration:
Date of Alleged Contravention:
 
This is an appeal by the Keeper of the vehicle, and I raise the following points for POPLA to consider:
 
 

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
2. Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage
3. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity

 

Grounds for Appeal:
 

1. The Location is Not 'Relevant Land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA):
 
The alleged contravention occurred at Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL. Paragraph 3(1)(a) of Schedule 4 of PoFA explicitly states that "relevant land" excludes any land that is “a highway maintainable at the public expense”. Therefore, Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA. 

 

Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of PoFA defines a “parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority” 

 

Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of PoFA in sub paragraph (1)(b) ”traffic authority” means each of the following - 

 

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Welsh Ministers;

(c) Transport for London;

(d) the Common Council of the City of London;

(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;

(f) a parish or community council;

(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly

 

The vehicle of the alleged contravention is registered by TfL as a PHV (Private Hire Vehicle) with a TfL Vehicle Licence badge in clear regulated view and therefore has red route exemption for the purposes of picking up and setting down of passengers as defined on TfL’s webpage https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/exemptions

 

 

2.  Inadequate Evidence of Clear and Prominent Signage:
 
Private Parking Solutions has not provided sufficient evidence that the terms and conditions were clearly displayed and visible to motorists. For a driver to have agreed to any contractual terms, the signage must have been legible, prominently positioned, and capable of being read before entering into a contract. Without evidence of the signage’s visibility and clarity at the time of the alleged contravention, the claim is unsubstantiated. The signage at the time of the alleged contravention is obscured from sight by tree foliage.



 
 
3. No Legal Obligation to Identify the Driver or Assumption of Driver Identity:
 
As the registered Keeper of the vehicle, I am not legally obligated to identify the driver. Private Parking Services has provided no evidence to identify the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. Since liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper under PoFA due to the site’s statutory control, Private Parking Services must pursue the driver—if they can identify them. Without such identification, their claim against the Keeper is baseless.
 
Furthermore, the POPLA assessor must not assume or infer that the Keeper was also the driver. There is extensive persuasive case law on this matter. In VCS v Edward H0KF6C9C [2023], HHJ Mark Gargan in his conclusion, stated in paragraph 35.3:
 
 

“It is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on balance of probability they were driving on this occasion, because one simply cannot tell. For example, there will be companies who are registered keepers of vehicles where many drivers have the use of the vehicle from time to time. There will be individual employers who are the registered keeper but who allow a number of people to drive their vehicles. There may be situations where husband and wife are each registered keepers of their respective vehicles but for some reason drive the other. These are all possibilities which show that it is not appropriate to draw an inference that, on balance of probability, the registered keeper was driving on any given occasion.”

 

The appellant is explaining this point in detail because some assessors have in the past erroneously allowed MET Parking Services to claim that the Keeper was likely the driver without any evidence. MET attempts to mislead assessors by relying on a misleading and erroneous note in Annex C of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which states:
 
 

“Liability
It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge.
NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.”

 

This statement is contrary to the law, as explained in VCS v Edward. The Keeper’s refusal to identify the driver does not permit any assumption of driver identity. Any such inference would be legally baseless and improper. POPLA assessors must adhere to established legal principles and not be misled by incorrect interpretations provided by rogue parking operators.



 

Conclusion:
 
The location within Royal Victoria Docks places it under the control of the Highways Act 1980 and excludes it from being considered relevant land under PoFA. The wording of Paragraph 3(1)(a) and Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 4 of PoFA is clear: land is not relevant land if it is a highway maintained at the public expense and a parking space is one which is controlled by a traffic authority. The TfL Exemptions link provided with this appeal confirms the fact that beyond any doubt the land the vehicle had allegedly parked on is under their jurisdiction. Additionally, the registered Keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver, as supported by persuasive case law. Private Parking Services cannot hold the registered Keeper liable for the alleged parking charge. I therefore request POPLA to uphold this appeal and instruct Private Parking Services to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.




Patiently, eagerly and gratefully awaiting further advice. Many thanks!

Absolutely brilliant - you have definitely worded it so much better than I ever could - thank you for that!

I just have to change the figure on the time of the supplied pictures as I mistakenly said the first photo taken was 13:04:16 it was in fact 13:04:12 which would then add 4 secs onto the total time making it 2 minutes and 39 secs.

Can I ask as to whether or not I copy and paste what you have written or do I need to kind of re word it (god knows how I'm going to do that) as when I've been on Popla's web page it says this....

"Be honest and use your own words

We know you want your appeal to be successful and might have looked for guidance from successful claims on other sites, however, using templates or copying and pasting text won't help your claim. Our site has been designed so that you can provide most of the information we need in just a few clicks and without too much typing. Where needed, using your own words to describe your situation is the best way to proceed with the appeal."


How they determine 'whose own words a person uses' is beyond me...have I inadvertently answered my own question??

Thanks, I will do exactly as you have advised after double checking all the dates/times etc.

I have this screenshot

of the job the driver did, should this also be sent along with the Popla appeal? Do you think this gives legitimacy to the appeal as there is proof of need to be where the driver was at?

Many thanks!