Free Traffic Legal Advice

PCN issued by Private Parking Solutions (PPS). Received today, 8 days after the alleged infringement occurred.

The driver remembers being in the area and vaguely recollects stopping on the road for 2 or 3 minutes in order to enter new sat nav details.

After revisiting the road, signage is dotted along the road, tied to lamp posts. A large sign is present when entering the road. In order to review these signs, parking would presumably need to take place first as it cannot safely be viewed while driving. Based on this, the charge seems unfair but I am by no means an expert.

Secondly, the charge notice refers to a ‘car park’ on a few occasions. For clarity, this is not a car park, rather, it is an industrial estate with no on-road parking permitted. Does this make a difference?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks for your speedy reply.

I’ll appeal based on those two points.

After browsing around a bit, I wonder if I should expect PPS to reject my appeal?

As expected, PPS have rejected my appeals. I have attached their letter of response.

They state that their PCN does meet the requirements of PoFA and have ignored my statement that in the three minutes of evidence they have provided there was sufficient time for a contract to be formed.

I will now escalate my appeal to POPLA. Should it be on the basis that sufficient consideration time was not given or do I maintain their original notice does not meet the requirements of PoFA.

Many thanks!

So you have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit your POPLA appeal. I arise you to do. search of other POPLA appeals on the forum to get an understanding on how to put one together. When you are ready, show us your suggested POPLA appeal before you send anything so that we can advise.

Here are the bare bones points for your POPLA appeal that you can expand on and include any necessary references:

1. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to specify the required period of parking. Only a single timestamp is given, which is insufficient under paragraph 9(2)(a). This is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where the court held that a timestamp alone does not establish a period of parking. Therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

2. There is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and decide whether to stay. Brennan confirms that a brief stop cannot be assumed to be acceptance of a contract, especially where the only evidence is a still image. The operator is put to strict proof that a contract was formed and breached.

3. The signs at the site are all prohibitory in nature, stating that no parking, waiting, loading or unloading is permitted at any time. Such signage does not offer any contractual terms to park and therefore cannot form a contract. Prohibitory signs serve only as warnings and cannot give rise to an offer capable of acceptance.

4. The signage was not visible or safely readable without first stopping. The operator has not shown that any sign was visible from a moving vehicle prior to stopping, or that the signs were readable in the short time available. The appellant was entitled to a consideration period under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice before deciding whether to stay.

5. The operator is put to strict proof of a valid and contemporaneous contract or chain of authority flowing from the landowner, granting them the right to manage the site and issue Parking Charge Notices in their own name.

6. The operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing a charge in response to a brief stop where no obstruction occurred and no facility was used.

7. The operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park. This is misleading. The site is an industrial estate road with no marked bays or general parking provision. The operator’s mischaracterisation raises doubts about their understanding of the site and undermines the credibility of the claim.

Below is my appeal letter. I have chosen what I believe are the most valid points from those given previously. I think it’s pretty clear the PCN was unjustified from the evidence but appreciate any tips on what I’ve written.

—————

A parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle of which I am the registered keeper on 21.05.25. I appealed directly to Private Parking Solutions (PPS), however, received an appeal rejection letter from them on 02.06.25. My appeal was based, primarily, on the fact that the evidence shows the vehicle was stopped in the location for approximately 90 seconds and that this was not sufficient time to consider the terms of parking. This objection was, quite disappointingly, entirely ignored in the appeal rejection letter sent to me. I detail my complete appeal below.

Firstly, as it is not safe to read the on site signage from the driving position of a vehicle, it is necessary to stop first. The operator has not shown that any sign was visible from a moving vehicle prior to stopping and therefore a consideration period is allowed under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice before deciding whether to stay. The supplied evidence shows that the vehicle was not parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and make a decision. Further, a handful of still images showing the vehicle was stopped for as little as 90 seconds cannot be assumed to be acceptance of a contract of parking and the operator is put to strict proof that a contract was indeed formed and breached.

Secondly, the Notice to Keeper issued does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to specify a period of parking. Only a handful of timestamped images are given which is not sufficient according to paragraph 9(2)(a). This is supported by Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (2023), where the court held that a timestamp alone does not establish a period of parking. Based on this, there can be no keeper liability.

In addition, the operator has inaccurately referred to the location as a car park. This is misleading as the site is in fact an industrial estate with no general parking areas. This mischaracterising raises doubts about the operator’s understanding of the site and undermines the credibility of their claim.

Finally, the operator has not demonstrated a legitimate interest or commercial justification for issuing a charge in response to a brief stop where no obstruction occurred and no facility was used.

Based on the above I believe the Parking Charge was issued incorrectly.

Morning all. I edited my previous appeal to include the suggested points and submitted.

I have today received notification that PPS has added comments and I’ve been invited to do the same in response to theirs. Below are their comments. Should I respond?

Thanks in advance!

————

Dear Assessor, The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The signage on site is located conspicuously around the site. The signs are legible and written in intelligible language. The entrance signs inform the drivers that they are entering private land and must be aware of the terms and conditions once they are within the car park. The terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "Private Road. This car park is controlled by Warden Patrols. If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time, you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice. No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time. No causing obstructions at any time". The charge was issued because the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no parking area within the site, which is a clear contravention of the stated terms. This is supported by timestamped photographic evidence showing the vehicle stationary on the road where parking, waiting, or loading is strictly prohibited at all times. While it is accepted that it may not be safe or practical for a motorist to read the signage from the driving position of a moving vehicle, it is reasonable to expect them to stop in proximity to a sign for the purpose of reviewing the terms before deciding whether to remain parked. In this case, the photographic evidence shows that the motorist parked at a significant distance from any signage and made no attempt to position the vehicle near a sign to enable them to read it. We therefore submit that the motorist did not stop to review the terms and conditions, but rather for an alternative, unauthorised purpose. In doing so, the motorist contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge. As there are no rules in that a PCN has to be fixed to a windscreen, we requested the registered keepers’ details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) to the registered keeper at the address listed. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, 9(2) (a), it must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The PCN states the location, the date and time of the contravention, and also contains images of the vehicle parked at the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. We would also like to advise that a PCN is a parking charge issued for a breach of contract and based on a contractually agreed sum, which is stated on the signage. Pursuant to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100; the Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it.

Just copy and paste the following into the POPLA webform response box:

I respond to the operator’s evidence as follows:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That paragraph requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The NtK issued by PPS only includes a single timestamp and a few still images. This does not constitute a “period of parking.” This is not a technicality—it is a statutory requirement. The operator has failed to evidence any actual period of parking, and therefore cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable.

This position is supported by persuasive appellate authority in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], where the court held that a timestamp alone is insufficient to establish a period of parking. The court made clear that a “period” must include a start and end time that evidences a duration long enough to demonstrate a breach of terms. PPS has not done so.

2. The operator has not evidenced that the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required to read the signs and decide whether to stay. The BPA Code of Practice and the Private Parking Code of Practice both recognise that a consideration period must be allowed. The vehicle was stopped for approximately 90 seconds. This is not sufficient to establish that a contract was formed, let alone breached.

3. The operator’s signage is prohibitory in nature. It states “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time.” This is not an invitation to park on certain terms—it is a prohibition. A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contractual agreement. This is a well-established principle in contract law. Even a first-year law student would recognise that a contract cannot be formed where the signage forbids the very act that is alleged to constitute acceptance.

4. The operator has not rebutted my point that they have failed to provide evidence of a valid contract with the landowner that allows them to issue PCNs in their own name. They were put to strict proof of this and have not provided it.
The operator’s reference to ParkingEye v Beavis is misplaced. That case concerned a car park with clear signage offering parking on defined terms, including a free period and a charge for overstaying. This case involves a brief stop in an industrial estate with prohibitory signage and no offer of parking. The facts are entirely distinguishable.

5. The operator has also mischaracterised the site as a “car park.” It is not. It is an industrial estate with no general parking provision. This undermines the credibility of their evidence and their understanding of the site.

In summary, the operator has failed to demonstrate that a contract was formed, that the NtK complies with PoFA, or that they have the authority to issue charges. The appeal should be allowed.

We haven't see the contract. Are you sure it is valid, and I don't just mean the dates?