Free Traffic Legal Advice

The driver is a sameday courier. He was collecting High Street Quarter, Hounslow TW3. It is a modern pedestrianised area. He hadn't been there before and didn't know where he was going. There are multiple entrances and he didn't know which one he wanted. The first one he went to was down Hounslow Street. This led to a large gate, with single file traffic approaching it. He didn't want to block the gate, so pulled up on the left short of it and approached the gate on foot to see if it was the entrance he needed. It wasn't, he returned to my van, did a u-turn and went back the way he came.
His initial thought was he was stationary for maybe 2 minutes - however he received a call from his office as he pulled up at 09:44 and he can see that call lasted 1 min 59 seconds. The ticket was issued to him at 09:48 - so assuming all clocks are accurate, that suggests he was there for a minimum of 4 minutes (which surprises him - he thought it was less).

The photographic evidence from PPS shows him there between 09:47:07 and 09:48:18 (1 minute 11 seconds).

Obviously it's a scam and rip off to charge him £100 (reduced to £60 in 14 days) for "parking" there. However, does he have any choice but to pay it?

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and the V5C is in my name.

Streetview Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tpsi6H8p9thxzw9KA

4 photos attached extracted from the PPS photographic evidence on their website.





Images of the Parking Charge Notice:

That is certainly one argument you can run - if the signage prohibits parking, how can they claim that the driver hade entered a contract to park for £100?

You can also argue that given the very short period of time of 'parking', that they have failed to provide a sufficient consideration period... A driver needs to be given suitable opportunity to read the contract on offer before deciding whether he accepts it (not that a contract was on offer here, but the argument still stands).

I can help you draft something up but it'll probably be tomorrow evening before I have time, others may beat me to it. There's no rush to submit anything as you're not near the deadline for appeals, so worth waiting for a few opinions before sending anything.

So that you're going into this with your eyes open, PPS will reject whatever appeal you submit, because they can. You then get the opportunity to appeal to POPLA, who won't agree with the 'no contract' argument, but might go for the 'no consideration period' argument. If they reject your appeal (which is very much possible), it'll then be a case of seeing if PPS decide to go to court, at which point you'll have the opportunity to defend the matter.

This location is a well known entrapment zone. Double check the name of the street with what is on Google Maps.

It's another point that can be added to your appeal, they have failed to specify the relevant land, and can therefore not have complied with the conditions required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (there's a link to it in my Signature at the bottom of this post) to hold you liable as the registered keeper.

You can guarantee that they will provide a Google Map satellite photo of the are that has been doctored to change the name of the road. You won’t get to see that map until they submit their own operator evidence to POPLA but you will be a bale to comment on their map.

I may have a copy of their map and the Google actual version. I’ll let you know if I find it.

Thanks, looks great.

I will deal with it as soon as I can - may not be until the weekend (or may be before - depends how work goes).

Really appreciate your support.

Here is a POPLA Appeal that was successful for the same location:

Successful POPLA appeal against Private Parking Solution (London) Ltd.  Matisse Road / Holloway Street Hounslow.

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Stuart Lumsden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

• They say they were dropping their daughter off at a party on the day of the breach.

• They say their daughter has a disability which limits their mobility and as such, they parked as close to ‘Flip Out’ as possible.

• They say they stopped on Matisse Road to drop off their daughter and wife and waited for less than 5 minutes for their wife to return before leaving.

• They say they didn’t realise they were on private land and saw no signs.

• They say no contract can be formed as no parking or waiting is permitted.

• They say the parking operator has not complied with 13.1 of the BPA Code of Pracitce.

• They say they did not stop on Holloway Road, but Matisse Road, which is not private land.

• They say they stopped forwards of the sign and could not see it as it was too small.

• They add that Matisse Road is a public highway and they did not stop on the operators land.

• They say the signs are too small to be read whilst driving and do not make the boundaries clear as it’s assumed they refer to the parking bays which they did not use.

The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal:

• Images of the site, the route to the sign and signs on site. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning.

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and appreciate they only stopped to drop off their daughter at a party. I acknowledge the images provided to demonstrate their route to the site, the area they stopped and the land in question. I note the appellant parked largely on the road, but partially on the white lines.

I also note the appellant parked next to signs but was unaware of any terms as they claim they didn’t see any, but has commented to advise that the signs are too small upon review of the evidence, the boundaries aren’t clear and what area the signs relate too.

As such, I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signs throughout the site, a site map showing the controlled areas and also the location of the signs. According to the site map the appellant stopped on Holloway Road, not Matisse Road. The appellants evidence shows the entrance to Matisse Road, but I must conclude that they stopped on Holloway Road.

Whilst the road is public land, the land to the side of it is not. The operators site map shows the area they control which includes the white lines, but only part of the white lines. I must agree with the appellant that the signs do not make the boundaries clear. One would assume that the signs refer to the parking bays and not the road or white lines. I accept that there are signs in place which should have been reviewed by the appellant, but the operators site map does not show the area they parked is monitored by them.

As stated above, the operator monitors the side of the road including the white lines, but not all the white lines. It’s down to the operator to demonstrate that the appellant breached the terms and conditions and whilst I accept they stopped partially on the white lines, I cannot conclude that the signs are clear enough to make motorists aware that the white lines are part of the relevant land or that the white lined area the appellant stopped is monitored by the parking operator.

As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

It doesn’t matter if POPLA agree or not. You will see that when the operator provides its response, they will include a map (Google) that has been doctored.