Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. Land Likely Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA – No Keeper Liability

The Notice to Keeper was issued by post, and the operator seeks to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) to pursue the Keeper. However, the location — Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL — raises serious doubt as to whether the land qualifies as “relevant land.”

There are multiple indicators that the area is under statutory control, and therefore excluded under Paragraph 3 of PoFA:

• Double red lines are present, which usually fall under Transport for London regulation.
• location is part of the Royal Docks area, potentially falling under the Port of London Authority (PLA) jurisdiction.
• The surrounding roads may be adopted highway or under Newham Council traffic regulation orders.

If the area is part of the public highway or under control of a statutory traffic authority (e.g. TfL, the local authority, or PLA), it is not relevant land under PoFA. The operator has provided no evidence to show otherwise. Therefore, they cannot pursue the Keeper, and the PCN must be cancelled unless the operator can definitively prove that PoFA applies.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not PoFA 2012 compliant

A single timestamped observation of a stationary vehicle lasting less than the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes is not a "period of parking." Even if multiple photos show the same timestamp or a short sequence, that still does not constitute a proper "period". The courts have made it clear that in order to be able to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA, there must be evidence of actual parking activity over a meaningful interval. This was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the judge ruled that a single timestamp or momentary observation is not sufficient.

3. Contradictory Road Markings – Red Route vs. Drop-Off Bay

The ground markings are self-contradictory:

• A solid double red line runs along the kerb, which signifies no stopping at any time.
• Directly alongside that is a white dashed bay marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”.

This is nonsensical. The motorist is both told they cannot stop at all and must stop (to drop off). These two messages cannot co-exist lawfully or logically.

Such inconsistency creates legal ambiguity and is a breach of consumer protection law — specifically, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sch. 2, para 10 — which prohibits enforcement based on unclear or ambiguous terms. No driver can be expected to comply with contradictory markings, and no fair contract can arise in such a situation.

4. Signage is 100% Prohibitory – No Contract Can Be Formed

The only visible sign states:

NO PARKING AT ANY TIME... no stopping... no waiting... no loading/unloading...”

This is a prohibitory sign. It offers no contractual alternative, no invitation to park, and no consideration. It is not capable of forming a contract.

In private parking enforcement, the signage must communicate clear terms and offer a driver the opportunity to accept them. Here, the sign communicates only forbiddance, not offer. That makes any claim of contractual liability untenable.

5. Driver Was a TfL-Licensed PHV Lawfully Dropping Off in a Designated Bay

The vehicle was a TfL-licensed Private Hire Vehicle (PHV), displaying a valid TfL licence disc. The driver is also registered with TfL and was actively working at the time.

They dropped off a passenger and received another fare nearby at 13:04. This short stop was lawful and standard for PHV operation.

The bay is explicitly marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY”. There is nothing on the sign or road to prohibit PHVs from stopping. In practice, across London, PHVs use taxi drop-off points routinely, unless expressly restricted.

TfL’s official guidance confirms this:

“Private hire vehicles can pick up and drop off passengers anywhere that this is permitted... but must not wait for passengers.”

(https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information)

The driver complied with this. They did not park or wait — they dropped off a fare in a marked drop-off bay and left. This was a lawful action, and enforcement in this context is without justification.

6. Jopson v Homeguard – Set-Down is Not Parking

In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) [B9QZ4H3R], it was held that:

“Stopping briefly to allow a passenger to board or alight is not ‘parking’.”

This case is directly on point. The driver remained in the vehicle with the engine running. There was no parking, no abandonment of the vehicle, no waiting. The action was lawful, necessary, and reasonable. No contravention occurred.

7. Minimum Consideration Period Not Breached

Photographic evidence shows that:

• First photo was taken at 13:04:16
• Final photo at 13:06:51
• Total time observed: 2 minutes 35 seconds

Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Feb 2025) states:

“A minimum 5-minute consideration period must be given to allow a driver to read the terms and conditions on signage before entering into a contract.”

Even if a contract could have been formed (it couldn't — see points 2 & 3), the operator has not shown that the driver remained on site for longer than the minimum 5 minutes required to be able to form a contract by condut. The burden of proof lies with them.

8. Keeper Not Liable – Driver Not Identified

Since this land is not relevant under PoFA, the Keeper cannot be held liable.

Furthermore, the driver has not been identified, and there is no legal presumption that the Keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), HHJ Gargan stated:

“Simply because somebody is the registered keeper does not mean, on balance of probability, they were driving...”

The operator has provided no evidence of who was driving. They cannot hold the Keeper liable and cannot prove driver liability either.

Conclusion

• The land is almost certainly under statutory control — PoFA does not apply.
• The NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA.
• Road markings contradict each other — enforcement is impossible.
• Signage is entirely prohibitory — no contract can arise.
• The driver was a TfL-licensed PHV dropping off and picking up in a marked bay — a lawful action.
• The brief stop is not “parking” (Jopson).
• The 5-minute consideration period was not exceeded so no evidence of contract formation.
• No driver has been identified — Keeper liability fails.

This PCN is invalid on multiple grounds. I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel it.

POPLA Appeal Rebuttal – Comments on Operator Evidence

In response to the evidence submitted by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd, I would like to highlight several factual errors and omissions which undermine their case.

1. The contract they rely on is signed by a leaseholder and includes a request to “provide a document or contract where states your authority over the site to be managed by us.” They have failed to provide any evidence that the leaseholder has authority from the landowner to enter into a contract with PPS. Without proof that the landowner has granted such rights, this contract is insufficient. Furthermore, PPS has provided no evidence that the land is not under statutory control. The area may fall under the control of Transport for London, the London Borough of Newham, or the Port of London Authority. If so, the land is excluded from Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and keeper liability cannot apply.

2. PPS claims the vehicle was parked in a taxi rank. This is factually incorrect. Their own photographic evidence shows the vehicle was stopped in a bay marked “TAXI DROP OFF POINT ONLY.” A drop-off bay is not a taxi rank. According to Transport for London’s published parking guidance for private hire drivers, licensed PHVs are permitted to stop briefly to pick up or drop off passengers on red routes, including in designated drop-off bays, provided there is no signage stating otherwise. The vehicle stopped briefly to allow a pre-booked passenger to alight and then left. This complies with TfL’s rules. The relevant guidance is found on TfL’s website: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information.

3. PPS claim that stopping on a red route is prohibited and that only black cabs are exempt. This is false. Transport for London’s own published guidance confirms that licensed private hire vehicles may stop on single and double red lines to pick up or drop off passengers, even in areas with waiting or loading restrictions, as long as there is no signage explicitly prohibiting stopping. The vehicle was a TfL-licensed PHV and was performing a lawful drop-off, consistent with TfL’s rules. This is confirmed in TfL’s Private Hire Vehicle Driver’s Handbook and on their official webpage: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/parking-information.

4. PPS argues that the driver is not entitled to the five-minute consideration period because the vehicle was parked in a taxi rank. As already shown, this is false. The bay is a taxi drop-off point, not a rank. Therefore, their entire justification for denying the consideration period is based on a misrepresentation of the location. The photos show the vehicle was on site for only 2 minutes and 35 seconds. This is less than the required minimum five-minute consideration period set out in the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Without evidence of the vehicle being parked for more than the minimum consideration period, there is no evidence of a contract being formed by conduct, even if the signs were not prohibitory.

5. The signage is prohibitory. It states, “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time.” This is not an offer to park under any conditions and cannot form the basis of a contract. Even a POPLA assessor should know that for a contract to be formed by conduct, basic contract law requires three essential elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration. In this case, the sign does not contain any offer that a motorist can accept. It is purely a prohibition and does not invite any action or provide any alternative conditions under which stopping or parking is permitted. There is no consideration being offered in return for compliance or any reference to a charge being incurred for breaching terms. PPS claims that a contract was formed, but the wording on the sign contradicts that and fails to satisfy the legal test. This principle was confirmed in PCM v Bull (2016), where the court held that a prohibitory notice cannot give rise to contractual liability.

6. PPS fails to address the point made in my original appeal that set-down is not parking. Instead, they continue to rely on their incorrect description of the area as a taxi rank. Their own evidence contradicts this.

7. PPS suggests that because I have not named the driver, I am liable. This is incorrect. They must meet all conditions of PoFA to hold the keeper liable. They have not shown that a 'period of parking' beyond the minimum consideration period which according to the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v PPS (this same operator) has been evidenced in order to comply with PoFA 9(20(a) has been met. They have not demonstrated that the land is relevant under PoFA, nor have they complied with all other PoFA requirements. There is also no legal basis to presume that the keeper was the driver. In VCS v Edward (2023), the court confirmed that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver simply because they do not identify who was driving.

In conclusion, PPS has failed to prove that the land is relevant land, failed to show a period of parking beyond the minimum consideration period, failed to produce evidence of landowner authority, misrepresented the location, ignored the TfL exemptions for PHVs, denied the consideration period based on a false claim, relied on prohibitory signage, and made an incorrect assumption about keeper liability. The vehicle was lawfully stopped in a bay marked for drop-off only, not parked. The charge should be cancelled.