Author Topic: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ? (Read 1107 times)

Alexander6 · « **on:** October 28, 2025, 02:25:56 pm »

Hello all,

I am in receipt of a Parking Charge notice from TPS, image below.

From reading round FTLA, it looks to me as though there are grounds for appeal:
[1]
- the notice fails to comply with POFA para 9, (2) (e) (i), as it does not invite the RK to pay the charges

May I ask your advice / opinion as to whether this is sufficient?
(My understanding is that the RK is under no obligation to identify the driver, and if the NtK does not comply with the strict requirements of PoFA 2012, the RK cannot hold me liable for the charge.)

https://ibb.co/twP6BN1S

Other: as a secondary, and less clear-cut approach, I'd be interested in whether it could be argued that:
[2]
- the driver did not, in fact, park

The evidence provided shows the vehicle entering and exiting, which the drive would, I suspect, not dispute.
The carpark in question is signed as for the use of patients and doctors of the NHS; as a patient under current care of that NHS Trust, the driver was perfectly entitled to park free-of-charge. They did not, however, leave the vehicle to go in to reception (where it transpires, but unknown at the time, they would have needed to enter the numberplate in to a system). If the driver simply waited in their vehicle, not parked in a parking space (in order, for example, to change and soothe a soiled and screaming infant), would this be 'not parking'? Does the lack of good evidence for 'parking' count for anything? Or is this line of enquiry too vague or specious to be of use?

with thanks for your thoughts,

A6.

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2025, 05:12:43 pm »

There is more than a single PoFA failure. Here is a PoFA (Sch 4, para 9) compliance check of the TPS NtK you have shown us:

1. Relevant land / timings

• Location (St Mary’s Medical Centre, Stamford) appears to be “relevant land”.
• Event: 09/10/2025. Issue date: 17/10/2025. Presumed delivery is two working days after issue, so 21/10/2025. That is day 12, i.e. within the 14-day requirement in para 9(4). Timing is compliant.

2. Para 9(2)(a): “specify the period of parking”

• The notice shows ANPR “observation times” 10:57:22–11:20:39 and a “duration of stay: 23 mins”. It does not state a “period of parking”. ANPR timestamps are moments of entry/exit and may include non-parking time (circulation, queuing, loading, reading signs). Labelling them as “observation times” rather than “period of parking” falls short of the statutory wording and intent. Non-compliant.

3. Para 9(2)(e)(i): mandatory “invitation to keeper”

• The NtK says liability “lies with the driver” and directs “If you were the driver, pay… If you were not the driver, tell us who was…”. It does not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. PoFA requires the keeper be invited either to pay or to name the driver. That invitation to the keeper to pay is missing. Non-compliant.

4. Para 9(2)(f): the 28-day keeper liability warning

• To transfer liability, the NtK must warn that after 28 days the creditor has the right to recover the unpaid charge from the keeper (subject to conditions). This NtK instead asserts that liability lies with the driver. I cannot see the statutory 9(2)(f) warning. Non-compliant.

5. Para 9(2)(h): identify the creditor

• The notice identifies “The Creditor is Total Parking Solutions Ltd.” Compliant.

6. Other required particulars (vehicle/land/amount/how to pay/appeals)

• These are present in substance.

Conclusion
• TPS have not met the mandatory 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(f) requirements. Even though service was in time, they have not created keeper liability under PoFA. The keeper is not liable. TPS may only pursue the driver (who need not be identified).

As for the second part of your post... it’s not your strongest primary point, but it’s usable as a supporting point about proof and signage.

Does “waiting in the car, not in a bay” count as parking? In private parking cases, “parking” is construed broadly. If a vehicle is stationary on the site (even with the driver inside), operators and many judges will treat that as parking unless the driver is in a traffic queue or in an area where brief stopping is expressly permitted.

ANPR entry/exit times don’t prove where the car was or that it occupied a bay governed by the “permit/VRM entry” terms. They only show site presence for ~23 minutes.

Is the “no evidence of parking” angle helpful? On its own, it’s weak because TPS can say the car was stationary on their land for 23 minutes and the terms applied site-wide. It becomes useful if you frame it as an evidential/signage failure:

1. No proof of a period of parking in a place where the alleged term applied. ANPR images show only entry/exit. There’s no on-site still of the vehicle in a signed bay or in an area where the “permit/VRM entry” requirement applies. If the car was on an internal roadway or set-down area, the operator must prove that area was covered by clear, nearby signage imposing the same term.
2. Transparency: If patients must enter the VRM at reception, that is a qualifying condition for free parking. It must be prominent at the point of decision. If the driver never left the car and the site lacked conspicuous “Patients must register your VRM at reception” notices on approach/entry, the term wasn’t adequately brought to their attention (Consumer Rights Act 2015—transparency and prominence).
3. Entitlement: The scheme is “for patients and doctors.” As a current patient, the driver fell within the class entitled to free parking; the VRM-entry step is an administrative mechanism. If not clearly signposted, failure to complete it should not trigger a £100 charge.

How I’d position it (priority order)

1. Keeper liability fails under PoFA (your strongest point here).
2. Unfair/unclear term: “Patients must register VRM at reception” not prominently disclosed at the point of parking; charge not enforceable.
3. Proof/signage gap: TPS has not shown the vehicle was parked in a location to which that term applied, nor provided a “period of parking” evidenced by anything other than ANPR timestamps; they must prove the breach and the applicable sign for that location.
4. Fallback: Even if “parked,” the driver was a patient entitled to free parking and any breach was caused by the operator’s failure to signpost the VRM-entry process adequately.

Alexander6 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2025, 02:19:06 pm »

Thank you, @b789, for your very helpful and concise read of the situation. I shall appeal on the bases outlined, and let the forum know the outcome as and when.

(Thanks, too, to this forum: reading other cases for the Bristol CAZ a few years ago provided sufficient grounds to have a notice for that cancelled too. What a great place this is!)

Alexander6 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2025, 10:28:22 pm »

Greetings. Thank you, @b789, for your help previously; an update to this one:

TPS have replied as follows:
Letter: https://ibb.co/HTfJT3Rc
Images: https://ibb.co/fdxhH9SG

As far as I can see, they haven't got much to go on. There's not even a renewed request or threat to pay up.

- TPS say I have said I am not the driver, and ask for the driver's details. This is not correct. My appeal wrote only "There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.".

- TPS attempt to use a threat of POFA. In fairness to them they do say "subject to meeting the requirements of the act", but we already know they have failed to do so... so as I understand it they cannot hold the keeper liable.

- TPS claimed their signage is adequate, and attach two images (both from March 2024).
These are unhelpful inasmuch as the larger sign says (small print!) "patients and visitors must validate their parking inside the surgery"; and also helpful, as they are clear that both patients and visitors may park.

- TPS ask for an appointment letter, presumably to show a patient was parking to attend an appointment.
I do not think this is necessary to produce (and the driver does not have one): the T&C's do not say "only patients attending an appointment" (as opposed to, e.g., going in to confirm details, drop off a sample, or return / collect a form, etc.), and clearly additionally states "Visitors".

Instinctively I would reply to the effect that:
A = They have failed POFA compliance (as before: did not specify period of parking; failure to invite keeper; no stat. warning per POFA 9-2-f). On these ground alone the charge must be cancelled.
B = correction on acknowledgement of driver (I did not say I wasn't the driver, I said there will be no admission, etc.)
C = the part of the signage requesting parking to be 'registered inside' was neither prominent nor conspicuous, so not adequately brought to the attention of the driver (CRA 2015 — transparency and prominence).
D = None of the terms now shown make a requirement for a "patient or visitor" to be in possession of an appointment letter, so this is an irrelevance.

Does this seem a sensible approach? Or is it clearer to simply reply and rely on POFA, without bothering with the rest (which might stimulate unnecessary discussion and correspondence), if POFA failures are the clear-cut route to dismissal?

with thanks for your thoughts,

A6.

InterCity125 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2025, 08:07:42 am »

The letter above appears to be fully redacted.

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2025, 09:30:33 am »

All the points you have identified are correct and valid. The operator’s letter being redacted does not affect the substance, because your summary makes clear what they said and what they attempted to rely on. Their misunderstanding of your driver statement, their empty reference to PoFA, their use of non-contemporaneous signage images, and their fishing request for an appointment letter are all weak positions that do nothing to overcome their statutory failures.

A demand for an appointment letter is entirely unnecessary, is not a contractual requirement, and has no place in a keeper appeal. If they ever attempted litigation, that request would be used against them as unreasonable conduct, an abuse of process, and a misuse of personal data contrary to the UK GDPR principles of necessity, data minimisation, and purpose limitation.

Your proposed reply is proportionate, accurate, and keeps the focus on the decisive issue: they cannot hold the keeper liable.

I would respond as follows:

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice [reference]
Vehicle: [VRM]

Thank you for your recent letter.

1. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, it fails to:

• Specify a “period of parking” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR entry/exit timestamps are not a period of parking.
• Contain the required invitation to the keeper under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
• Contain the mandatory warning in the form prescribed by paragraph 9(2)(f).

As such, you have not and cannot establish keeper liability. Any suggestion that you “may” pursue the registered keeper under PoFA, “subject to meeting the requirements of the Act”, is misconceived because those requirements have already not been met and cannot be remedied retrospectively.

2. Driver identification

You state that I have said I am not the driver. That is incorrect. I have made no such admission or denial. My position is that there will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumption can lawfully be drawn. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver and none will be provided.

3. Signage and entitlement to park

Your own signage photographs (which are not contemporaneous with the date of the alleged event) demonstrate that “patients and visitors may park” and contain, in small print, a further requirement to “validate” parking inside the surgery. You have provided no contemporaneous evidence that this qualifying term was prominently and clearly brought to the driver’s attention at the point of parking or decision-making, as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (transparency and prominence).

The driver fell within the class of “patients and visitors” who are entitled to park. Any alleged failure to follow a hidden or insufficiently prominent validation process is a direct consequence of your own inadequate signage.

4. Request for appointment letter / medical evidence

Your request for an appointment letter is entirely unnecessary and has no basis in the contractual terms you now rely upon. The wording you have produced does not limit the entitlement to “patients attending a booked appointment” nor does it require production of an appointment letter as a condition of parking. It clearly extends to both “patients and visitors”.

For the avoidance of doubt:

• I decline to provide any appointment letter or medical documentation.
• There is no contractual term requiring a patient or visitor to possess or produce such documents.
• Any attempt to insist upon such evidence would be an intrusive and excessive request for special category personal data without lawful necessity, contrary to the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation under the UK GDPR.

Should you pursue this matter to litigation, I will rely upon your unnecessary and intrusive request for medical/appointment information as evidence of unreasonable conduct, misuse of personal data and an abuse of process when the court considers conduct and costs.

5. Required outcome

In light of the above:

• You cannot recover this sum from me as keeper under PoFA;
• You have failed to demonstrate a properly communicated contractual term requiring “validation” at reception; and
• Your request for appointment evidence is irrelevant, disproportionate and declined.

Please now confirm that this Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken against the registered keeper. In the alternative, if you refuse to cancel, treat this as my final position and issue a formal rejection together with details of the independent appeals service in accordance with your AOS obligations.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
Registered Keeper

Alexander6 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2026, 12:21:11 pm »

@b789 - thank you for your considered reply in November, which I duly submitted.

TPS came back on Christmas Eve with the following rejection https://ibb.co/4RBswxCD

If I may:
- should I appeal via POPLA, outlining the case as per previous correspondence?
- Or, given there is clear open-and-shut POFA non-compliance, just reply directly (re-)pointing out that they can't get anywhere with Keeper anyway, so give up or go to court?

(I guess taking all available appeal routes looks better in court, should it get that far, but if they can't extract the driver details due to POFA failure it's pretty moot)

- and - is there a suitable paragraph to suggest that any further correspondence / action to Keeper - when they know they can't get anywhere - can be construed as harassment and charges brought against them accordingly?

Grateful for your advice, as ever,

A6

DWMB2 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2026, 02:46:10 pm »

In general it's always wise to appeal to POPLA if the option is presented.

Draft something up and show us. From a look at the notice, I'm not convinced that they have failed to comply with 9(2)(f) - the first paragraph on the right hand column seems to cover it.

You can include the other 2 alleged failures, and also put them to proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner, and any arguments about poor prominence of the signage.

It's not too late to speak to the medical centre, to see if they will intervene and instruct TPS to cancel the charge.

Quote from: Alexander6 on January 06, 2026, 12:21:11 pm

- and - is there a suitable paragraph to suggest that any further correspondence / action to Keeper - when they know they can't get anywhere - can be construed as harassment and charges brought against them accordingly?

I think you would struggle to argue that a company pursuing an alleged debt, where liability is disputed (they are of the opinion they have complied with PoFA, you are of the opinion they have not), constitutes harassment. There's also the risk of how such comments might be perceived if the matter were to get to court - court should be seen as a last resort, and correspondence that might be perceived as "don't write to me again or I'll sue you" might not be seen positively.

Alexander6 · « **Reply #8 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:22:02 pm »

@DWMB2, thank you for your reply, and @b789 for your prior suggestions which I have leant on heavily!

I intend to appeal to POPLA as follows; grateful for any suggestions (in particular, I am tempted to remove anything apart from POFA failure, or at least remove [3] and [4]: since the POFA failure on its own means they have no case to pursue, introducing the rest seems as though it may invite discussion that is not necessary?)

with thanks for your input,

A6

= = = = = = DRAFT = = = = = =
POPLA Appeal, ref xxxxxxxx
‘Parking Charge’, ref: AT5144746

The Parking Charge ref. AT5144746 is appealed, on the same grounds as prior correspondence with TPS.

I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

[1] The Parking Charge notice is not POFA compliant

1.1 The Parking Charge letter, sent to the Registered Keeper, fails to “specify the period of parking” (POFA Paragraph 9, (2)(a)). The letter shows “observation times” rather than a “period of parking”, which falls short of the statutory wording and intent.

1.2 The Parking Charge letter, sent to the Registered Keeper, fails to invite the Registered Keeper to pay the parking charges sought; which is required by POFA (POFA Paragraph 9, (2)(e)(i)).

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by TPS does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, TPS is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA 2012 is not sufficient. TPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only, TPS fails to identify the driver, and TPS may make no inference or assumption as to the identity of the driver. This Parking Charge cannot be pursued further by TPS, and should be cancelled.

While either (and both) of the POFA failures (above) is sufficient on its own merits to warrant the cancellation of the Parking Charge, I additionally appeal on the grounds that:

[2] Unfair / Unclear term: lack of transparency of qualifying condition
A qualifying condition / term was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver (see Consumer Rights Act 2015, transparency & prominence).

TPS's own signage photographs (which are not contemporaneous with the date of the alleged event) demonstrate that “patients and visitors may park” and contain, in small print, a further requirement to “validate” parking inside the surgery. TPS have provided no contemporaneous evidence that this qualifying term was prominently and clearly brought to the driver’s attention at the point of parking or decision-making, as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (transparency and prominence).

The driver fell within the class of “patients and visitors” who are entitled to park. Any alleged failure to follow a hidden or insufficiently prominent validation process is a direct consequence of TPS's inadequate signage. If users of the car park must enter the Vehicle Registration Mark at the reception desk, this is a “qualifying condition” for parking. Details must be prominent at the point of decision, but the signage does not make this adequately clear.

[3] Proof & Signage: No proof of parking
The Parking Charge letter, and TPS’ online portal, show only ANPR-style images at entry and exit. TPS has not shown that the vehicle was parked in a location to which terms applied, nor provided firm evidence for a ‘period of parking’. The breach and applicable sign for the location have not been proven. The vehicle was not left unattended, and no contract was formed.

[4] Entitlement to park
Even if ‘parked’ (which is not admitted), a "visitor or patient" was present, and thus had entitlement to free parking. Any breach was caused by the parking operator’s failure to signpost the Vehicle Registration Mark entry process adequately.

TPS's failure to fully comply with the statutory requirements of POFA (2012) is sufficient reason for this Parking Charge to be cancelled; with the additional factors noted also taken into account, it is proportionate and reasonable that the Parking Charge should be cancelled.

Yours,

A6

= = = = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = =

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ? (Read 1107 times)

Alexander6

TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

b789

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

Alexander6

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

Alexander6

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

InterCity125

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

b789

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

Alexander6

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

DWMB2

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?

Alexander6

Re: TPS - Parking Charge - POFA 9/2/e/i ?