Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi knowledgeable folks,
We received two PCN as shown below. We are looking for advise on how to challenge the same.

I can see the discrepancy as notice says to park in marked bay, whereas there are no bays. Any help will be appreciated.

PCN 1:

PCN 2:

Notice:

Pic of area:

Another notice

Pic of area

Thanks for the reply. Will use this in the appeal. They are being sneaky in the appeal form (see attached).
The  trick question is Name and address of driver/keeper (if different from above). I will just strike out the driver wording. 

Thanks b789, I got confused by the website. Will email directly.
Cheers

The usual failure:

9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) 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;

… if nothing else.

Each PCN must be appealed separately with POPLA. Use the following:

POPLA Appeal: PCN [Insert PCN Number]

In assessing this appeal, the first and most fundamental consideration is whether the operator has complied with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), such that liability for the parking charge can be transferred from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The appellant contests this point directly, asserting that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) and therefore invalidates any claim against the keeper.

If the operator cannot establish keeper liability, the appeal must be upheld without further consideration. If, however, the operator contends that PoFA compliance has been achieved, which it hasn't, the next issue is whether a valid contract was formed between the driver and the operator. This requires evidence that the driver remained on site long enough to read and accept the terms, and that a minimum period of parking occurred sufficient to satisfy the legal threshold for contractual formation.

Only if both keeper liability and contractual formation are evidenced can the assessor proceed to evaluate whether the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on site.

As I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing against the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a)
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that a Notice to Keeper must:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

The NtK issued the operator fails to specify any period of parking. It merely states that the vehicle was observed at a single moment in time, allegedly “not clearly displaying a valid permit”. This timestamped observation does not constitute a “period”. The statutory requirement is for a duration—a timeframe that establishes at least a meaningful span of time. This does not necessarily mean for the whole duration of parking, but a period of observation that covers at least the minimum consideration period.

This omission is a fatal flaw. As the operator has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold the keeper liable. Keeper liability under PoFA is only possible if all conditions are met. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.

2. Persuasive authority: Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]
In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], the court clarified that the “period of parking” required under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 does not need to reflect the entire duration the vehicle was stationary, but it must nonetheless specify a minimum identifiable period. A single timestamp or momentary observation is insufficient. The judge held that even a short span—such as the time between first observation and issuance of a charge—would suffice, but it must be stated. Logically, this minimum period must at least exceed the minimum consideration period required for a contract to be formed, typically at least five minutes. Where no such period is shown, as in this case, the NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a), and keeper liability cannot apply.

3. No evidence of a contract being formed
The operators own initial appeal response states:

“Please be advised that when parking on private land, the motorist must read the signs and decide whether they wish to stay and be bound by the contract offered on the signage or leave the site.”

The operators own statement acknowledges that a contract is only formed after the motorist has had a fair opportunity to read and consider the terms. Yet PPS has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on site for longer than the minimum consideration period required for a contract to be formed. A single timestamped observation cannot establish that the driver had time to read, understand, and accept any contractual terms.

Therefore, there is no evidence of a contract, and no lawful basis for issuing a charge.

4. The driver has not been identified
There has been no admission as to who was driving the vehicle, and no evidence has been provided to establish the identity of the driver. The operator cannot rely on assumptions, inferences, or any interpretation of agency law to pursue the registered keeper. As the NtK is non-compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from the unidentified driver to the keeper.

5. Strict proof of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

Conclusion
As the NtK fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, and there is no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, this appeal must be allowed. The burden of proof lies entirely with the operator, and they have failed to meet it.

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the PCN.

Hi,
I have receiveid the reply from PPS, regarding the POPLA submission.
**
"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 makes it explicitly clear that the site is private land and subject to specific terms and conditions. It states: “PRIVATE LAND. 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. PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. A valid parking permit must be clearly displayed on the windscreen.”
The photographic evidence confirms that the appellant’s vehicle was parked in a bay where these terms applied, and no valid permit was displayed at the time of enforcement. Accordingly, the motorist contravened the parking contract and became liable for a parking charge.
It is important to note that we do not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as we can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge.
In the present case, 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. The evidence does not indicate that the keeper provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver, and by failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant (the keeper) has assumed liability for this PCN.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 states: “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The Parking Charge Notice specifies the vehicle, the location, and the date and time of the contravention. It also includes images of the vehicle parked at the site, which are sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The online images provide a clear indication of the duration the vehicle was observed on site. The PCN is therefore PoFA compliant.
According to the Code of Practice, the consideration period is the time the driver is in the process of parking and is allowed to read and understand the applicable terms and conditions and decide whether to accept them and remain or reject them and leave.
This period is not a period of free parking and should only be used for its intended purpose of reviewing the terms and conditions of the site. The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them), which may, for example, be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises. There is no evidence of any motorists in view at the time the pictures were being taken, and the vehicle is unattended. The motorist therefore left the site and cannot benefit from the consideration period. Ultimately, it remains the motorist's responsibility to ensure the vehicle is parked in compliance with the site’s terms at all times."

Regards,

Have they provided any documents alongside that response? Their landowner contract, for example?

No, they haven't provided!

Hi, I checked again and found that they have indeed loaded some documents. Here they are: