Visited a shop in 2022, purchased goods from shop, apparently parked in their car park longer than I was supposed to. If I was aware I couldn’t park there over a certain amount of time of course I wouldn’t have.
Received several letters which I have ignored. Dcbl now involved which is why I have this claim letter.
What are my options? They want over £300 now.
Poc is the following
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [vehicle ref] at [car park address]
2. The date of contravention is date in 2022
and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach Of The Displayed T&Cs.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees
Just trying to establish whether there are any particular nuances when it comes to parking on hospital land.
To be clear: no paperwork has been received yet.
Background: my niece recently attended Southmead Hospital (Bristol). She’s a Blue Badge holder, and her partner came to collect her afterwards. Parking there is, predictably, a disaster, but he managed to find some clearly‑marked disabled bays in the Elgar House parking area.
He parked in a disabled bay, displayed the badge, and went inside to collect her. As it turned out, a senior doctor decided she wasn’t fit for discharge, so he returned to the car and left.
The signage warns that images are captured, so my niece is worried they’ve photographed the driver and will try to use that as leverage.
I’ve uploaded two images (and attached them here in lower resolution to overcome the fileszie restriction)
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Total Parking Solutions Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 09 October 2025. The notice itself is dated Friday, 17 October 2025, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as St Mary's Medical Centre, Stamford, PE9 2DH.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Tuesday, 21 October 2025 (12 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: Yes
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
= = = = = =
Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):
‘Parking Charge’, ref: AT [XXXXXXX]
I am the keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. TPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some warped interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
I appeal / challenge the “Parking Charge”, ref: AT5144746, on the grounds that:
[1] The Parking Charge notice is not POFA compliant
I additionally appeal on the grounds that:
[2] Unfair / Unclear term: lack of transparency of qualifying condition
[3] Proof & Signage: No proof of parking
[4] Entitlement to park
Further detail:
[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)).
1.3 The Parking Charge letter, sent to the Registered Keeper, asserts that liability lies with the Driver. There is no statutory warning per POFA Paragraph 9, (2)(f). The letter is non-compliant with the requirements of POFA.
I submit that any of these three failures to be fully POFA compliant is sufficient reason for this Parking Charge notice to be cancelled; the three together makes it even clearer. Partial or even substantial compliance with POFA is not sufficient.
I also submit that this Parking Charge should be cancelled on any of the following grounds:
[2] Unfair / Unclear term: lack of transparency of qualifying condition
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 clear. The qualifying condition / term was not adequately brought to the attention of the driver (see Consumer Rights Act 2015, transparency & prominence)
[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), the driver was a Patient, 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.
Please confirm that this Parking Charge has been cancelled.
Yours, etc.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Additional notes provided:
Additional information - where we are:
- POPLA appeal was pursued on the same grounds as the initial appeal to TPS. POPLA rejected (unsurprisingly, I suspect)
- there followed three or more debt reminder / please pay letters
- and now a letter from "Oak Legal Services", adding some processing costs on, and threatening with imminent Court action
Additional information - appeal points:
- I am not certain that the NtK has a POFA failure of mandatory warning under (9)(2)(f) (para on the right seems to cover it)
- on the appeal's additional grounds, I think I'd now rely on the driver (or other vehicle occupant) being a "visitor" rather than a "patient"; while the latter is arguably true in a broad sense, the former - a visitor - is undeniably true, and I'd suggest is self-evidently true by the very fact of being there...!
I have attached images of the initial NtK, and the current Oak Legal letter, for reference.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
(Should I reply to "Oak Legal" to re-outline the grounds, if only to demonstrate "I tried" to a court, should it come to that, or to make it clear to them that I intend to fight (unless you advise otherwise!) and they may as well discontinue?)
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Smart Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Sunday, 12 July 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 28 July 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as The Embankment-Stratford upon Avon.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 30 July 2026 (18 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
Charge is for overstay of approx 30 mins. Paid for 2 hours via RingGo 07:52 - 09:52. ANPR time 07:50 - 10:23. £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days of issue. Letter received today 03/08/26
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
For anyone interested, you do not have to pay the extortionate fees charged by airports to use the drop-off zones if they use a barrier less system. The simple reason is that, as long as the driver is not identified, and the ONLY way they can identify the driver is if the Keeper, the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK), blabs it to them.
Because airport land (also ports/harbours and some country parks) is covered by byelaws, it is therefore under 'statutory control'. The ONLY way a parking firm can transfer liability form the unknown driver to the known Keeper is if they strictly follow all the requirements of PoFA 2012. One of the requirements to be able to rely on PoFA is that the land must not be under statutory control. In other words, airport land (and any other byelaws controlled land) is not "relevant" for the purposes of PoFA.
Because PoFA cannot be used, unless the driver is identified, they have nowhere else to go with this. Only the driver can be liable and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm.
I have not paid a drop-off fee or paid a single PCN for not doing so for many years now. My latest was after the driver dropped off a family member at Manchester Airport. This was the PCN received:
Appealed with the following:
Quote:I am the registered keeper. APCOA cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, APCOA will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Manchester Airport is not 'relevant land'.
If Manchester Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because APCOA is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for APCOA’s own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and APCOA has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. APCOA have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Just received the cancellation:
Another reason why you should never identify the driver.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 29 June 2026. The notice itself is dated on the 7th of July, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Arcadia Library & Leisure Centre, Manchester.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
The charge is for Failure to Register for Duration of the stay.
it was at 22:47 in the night, I could not see any visible signs, and the leisure centre was closed, meaning I wasn't able to register my vehicle at night since it was closed.
I was there for 17 minutes.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case, thanks!
Another wider family member got the following PCN, can you please give pointers how to appeal?
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by ParkingEye Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 22 June 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Broadway Retail Park, Halifax.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Horizon Parking Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Thursday, 25 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 01 July 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Tesco, Burton on Trent.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates COMPLIANT: Likely PoFA timing compliant for paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Friday, 03 July 2026 (8 days after the alleged event).
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: No
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Additional notes provided:
This is a double dip incident. The vehicle is owned by a sole trader entity. There is tracking data from the day showing the vehicle made several movements to and from sites around Burton.
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
We have received 13 Parking Charge Notices for company vehicles for stopping on Chequers Lane on Dagenham Docks, waiting to access a waste management site which has limited capacity. Chequers Lane is an industrial estate road..... that happens to be privately owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The issue is, it's just a road, it's purpose is to serve the commercial premises on the road, it looks like public highway, and there is nothing that clearly differentiates it from the adopted public highway. There is no entrance signage, and PPM even had their enforcement signage on a section of Public Highway on Choats Road, the road leading to Chequers Lane. This has since been removed following complaints to Barking & Dagenham Council, their Counter Fraud Department, BPA and a BBC Radio 4 show about Dagenham Docks and unfair parking practices.
In 2025 we received 9. All 9 were issued and delivered outside of the relevant 14-day period required by POFA 2012 to invoke Keeper Liability. The first 4 were appealed and rejected by PPM. They were then appealed to POPLA, and PPM failed to submit evidence within 21 days. One fella at POPLA, Alex, was actually very helpful when I called and concluded all four on the POPLA portal immediately with a successful decision. The 5th Notice to Keeper, PPM included pictures of the wrong vehicle. They accepted that appeal and attributed the mistake to an "admin error". The following four were appealed, and again, rejected by PPM. These four were appealed to POPLA, and PPM withdrew from all 4.
However, despite being clearly non-POFA compliant, forfeiting their right to pursue the charge by withdrawing from POPLA and having written confirmation from the Landowner, GLA, that non-POFA charges are not pursued passed the initial appeal stage, PPM passed these four onto a debt collection agency TNC Collections, who started sending letters. They did eventually get cancelled and I got two apologies from PPM. They seemed quite upset about being reported to BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, the ICO and Action Fraud. Lucky for them though, nobody cares! They don't have a Kadoe contract so DVLA don't care; BPA is BPA, they never care; Trading Standards only investigate something if it gets numerous reports; ICO don't care as it's not personal data; and Action Fraud only seems to take reports regarding online fraud.
I thought PPM had maybe learnt their lesson. But apparently not. They gave us a 2026 new year gift of 4 more Parking Charges. But this time they weren't even claiming we were parked. They were issued for.... get this....... being "STOPPED IN A NO WAITING ZONE".
PPM failed to provide evidence that they had the legal standing to enforce the charges on the land and all four POPLA appeals were allowed on that point alone.
PPM have said they are unfamiliar with the Codes Signage Requirements and they were unaware that they had to provide evidence of Landowner Authority to POPLA..... as it was there first time doing it.
I actually had a 40 minute discussion with the presenter Polly Weston, and it was refreshing to converse with someone who had done their homework and was standing up for the little guy as they say. I was actually in the show for like 5 seconds, but they cut out the part where I explained how I didn't pay any of them lol, but I get why, and I support the narrative of the show. Screw PPM and all the parking companies.
![[Image: R7W2848.jpeg]](https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/R7W2848.jpeg)
![[Image: c4NfmFV.jpg]](https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/c4NfmFV.jpg)
