Free Traffic Legal Advice

There can be no Keeper liability as long as the driver is not identified. Not that that will stop them pushing on up to the point where they have to pay a £27 trial fee in a county court claim which point they will discontinue.

However, to also strengthen any defence, it would be advisable to show us one of their contractual signs with the terms and conditions of parking on it.

The signage is not capable of forming a contract with a driver who does not hold and display a valid permit, because it makes no contractual offer of parking to such a driver.

The sign is framed in prohibitive terms: “CUSTOMERS ONLY” and “PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”, with an instruction that a “valid permit must be obtained from shop and displayed”. Those words do not offer parking on terms to the general public. They define a closed class of authorised users and exclude everyone else. A person who is excluded cannot accept an offer that is not made to them. In those circumstances there is no “agreement” capable of being formed by conduct, and no contractual charge can arise.

Although the sign also contains a clause stating that if a vehicle “remains” or “fails to comply” the motorist agrees to pay £100, that wording does not convert a prohibition into a contractual licence. Properly construed, the sign is “no unauthorised parking”. The legal consequence of an unauthorised vehicle being left on private land is, at most, trespass. Any remedy for trespass lies with a landowner (or a party with a proprietary interest), and it is not a contractual “parking charge” owed to a parking contractor.

Further, the allegation itself (“not clearly displaying a permit”) presupposes that the driver was entitled to park on the basis of a permit but failed to display it properly. That is a fundamentally different case from “unauthorised parking”. If the operator’s case is that the driver had no valid permit on display, then by the operator’s own signage the driver fell outside the class of authorised users (“permit holders only”), meaning no contract could have been formed in the first place. The allegation therefore supports the defence: it points away from any contractual relationship and towards a bare allegation of unauthorised presence, which cannot give rise to a contractual sum.

Accordingly, even leaving aside the absence of Keeper liability, the claim fails on formation. The sign is forbidding to non-permit holders, no contract was available to be accepted by them, and the asserted “parking charge” is not a recoverable contractual debt.

POPLA Appeal: 5660136838

Vehicle Registration: [Your VRM] PCN Reference: 410894902 Operator: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this parking charge on the following grounds:

1. Failure to Comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012

The Operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper:

[] No Period of Parking: Paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires the Notice to Keeper (NtK) to specify the period of parking.
 [] The NtK provided by PPS merely states a single point in time (8:26 PM).
 [] A single timestamp does not constitute a "period" under the Act. [] Non-compliant Wording: The NtK does not use the mandatory wording required by PoFA 2012 to warn the keeper of their liability.

As the Operator cannot identify the driver and has failed to comply with PoFA, there is no legal basis to hold me, the Keeper, liable.

2. Prohibitive Signage – No Contractual Offer Made

The signage at 112 High Street, Hounslow is "prohibitive" in nature. It states:

Quote

"PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. 60 MINUTES MAXIMUM STAY WITH VALID PERMIT FOR KUJAWIAK CUSTOMERS ONLY. A VALID PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM SHOP AND DISPLAYED PRIOR TO SHOPPING"

According to established case law (e.g., PCM-UK v Bull et al), if a sign specifies that parking is only for a restricted class of people (permit holders/customers), it does not make a contractual offer to those outside that class. It is a statement of prohibition. A person who is excluded from parking cannot enter into a contract to park. Therefore, no contract was formed, and no "Parking Charge" can arise from a contract that doesn't exist.

3. Procedural Errors and Administrative Incompetence

The Operator’s rejection letter is dated 05/03/2024, yet it was sent to me via email on 13/01/2026. This extreme discrepancy highlights a complete lack of professional diligence and raises serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of the Operator's internal record-keeping and evidence.

4. Lack of Standing/Landowner Authority

I challenge the Operator to provide a contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner. I do not believe the Operator has the necessary legal standing or authorization to issue PCNs or initiate legal proceedings in their own name at this specific location.

Conclusion The Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, the signage is prohibitive, and their administrative handling of this case has been demonstrably flawed. I request that this appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name / Registered Keeper]