Total Parking Solutions - Stamford - Oak Legal letter stage

[b789]

Thanks for that @Alexander6. Based on the POPLA assessors points and the signs you have shown, I would not put the signage argument quite as strongly as proposed. On the two photographs alone, the terms sign is not an especially weak contractual sign.

The entrance sign clearly says:

   "TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLY — SEE NOTICES IN THE CAR PARK FOR MORE DETAILS"

A reasonable driver therefore cannot safely rely on "Patient & Visitor Parking Only" while choosing merely to glance at the detailed sign. On the terms sign, the requirement:

   "Patients and Visitors must validate their parking inside the surgery"

is not buried in the tiny legal screed at the bottom. It appears in the main conditions section, alongside a parking symbol, with the £100 consequence displayed very prominently below it. If the terms sign was adequately positioned and visible, a judge could readily find the registration term sufficiently prominent under section 68 CRA 2015.

The better signage challenge is therefore evidential and contextual, rather than pretending the wording cannot be read:

• TPS's photographs are dated 28 March 2024, over 18 months before the alleged event.
  
• They do not prove which signs remained in place on 9 October 2025.
  
• They do not prove the number or distribution of signs.
  
• They do not show the relationship between the entrance, the route taken, the parking bay and the terms sign.
  
• the entrance sign does not itself state that registration is required.
  
• TPS must prove that a driver entering and parking where this vehicle did had a reasonable opportunity to encounter and read the terms sign before becoming contractually bound.
  
• Any material difference between the 2024 photographs and the signs actually present in October 2025 damages TPS's evidence substantially.
  

So yes, arrange contemporary photographs, but they need to cover the whole driver's route, not merely close-ups:

1. the entrance from the approaching driver's viewpoint;
   
2. every sign visible while entering;
   
3. the route to the relevant parking position;
   
4. the view from that position;
   
5. distances and sign heights;
   
6. any reception or internal registration notices; and
   
7. whether the sign layout has changed since TPS's photographs.
   

Patient or visitor

"Visitor" is the factually cleaner description if an occupant genuinely entered the medical centre for some legitimate purpose. A visitor need not have a pre-booked appointment or be registered as a patient at that practice. Someone may legitimately call in to make an enquiry, deliver or collect something, accompany another person or deal with an administrative matter.

However, the signs do not confer unconditional parking merely because someone qualifies as a visitor. They purport to permit patient and visitor parking subject to validation inside the surgery. Therefore:

• visitor status establishes that the vehicle belonged to the permitted user class;
  
• it does not, by itself, answer the alleged failure to validate;
  
• the defence then turns on whether that additional condition was adequately communicated, whether validation was attempted, whether the system worked correctly and whether TPS can prove its records are complete.
  

I would avoid the statement that an occupant was an NHS patient who was entitled to treatment "should the need arise". That sounds artificial and is unnecessary. Either an occupant genuinely visited the surgery for an identifiable purpose or they did not. The actual purpose need not involve an appointment, but it should not be obscured by an abstract debate about who counts as a patient.

Complaint to the practice

There is no need to identify the driver. The registered keeper can say:

   "The vehicle was present in connection with a genuine visit to the practice by an occupant. I am the registered keeper and request that the practice instruct TPS to cancel the charge."

If further detail is necessary, it can be provided in terms of "an occupant". The practice cannot disclose the driver's identity to TPS unless it knows who drove; identifying an attendee or patient does not necessarily identify the driver.

The practice complaint remains worthwhile because cancellation is the only useful intervention at this stage. Oak/ZZPS should, of course, be completely ignored.

PoFA: strong enough to defeat keeper liability?

Yes. As a matter of law, the paragraph 9(2)(e) failure is fatal to keeper liability.

PoFA does not impose liability upon a registered keeper merely because the parking operator has made a reasonable attempt to follow Schedule 4. Paragraph 4 permits recovery from the keeper only where ALL the applicable conditions have been met. Paragraph 9(2) expressly provides that the Notice to Keeper must contain the prescribed information.

Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the NtK to:

• state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver; and
  
• invite the keeper either:
  

1. to pay the unpaid parking charge; or
   
2. if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the driver's name and current address for service and pass the notice to the driver.
   

TPS's NtK does not comply:

• It says "Where we do not know…", which merely describes a conditional situation. It does not state the required fact that the creditor does not know both the driver's name and a current address for service.
  
• Its payment instruction is expressly directed only to the recipient "if you were the driver".
  
• It does not invite the recipient to pay the charge as keeper, as paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires.
  
• If the recipient was not the driver, TPS directs them only to provide the driver's details.
  

That is not a minor defect or an alternative form of the prescribed invitation. It is the omission of mandatory statutory information.

Compliance with Schedule 4 is binary. Just as a person cannot be partially pregnant, mostly pregnant or substantially pregnant, a Notice to Keeper cannot be partially, mostly or substantially compliant with PoFA. It either satisfies every applicable mandatory requirement or it does not. The Act contains no saving provision allowing keeper liability where an operator has conveyed what it considers to be broadly similar information.

TPS has failed paragraph 9(2)(e). Consequently, it cannot exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover the charge from the keeper. The unidentified driver might potentially remain liable, but the keeper cannot be made liable merely because TPS does not know who that driver was.

POPLA's bare assertion that the NtK is "compliant in all aspects" does not identify, analyse or answer the specific paragraph 9(2)(e) failure. POPLA cannot repair a defective NtK or create keeper liability where Parliament has not conferred it. Its decision is not binding upon the keeper or any court.

No litigation outcome can be literally guaranteed because a judge must still identify and apply the law correctly. However, that does not make the underlying legal test uncertain: if the NtK fails any mandatory requirement of paragraph 9(2), there is no keeper liability. "Substantial compliance" is not an available halfway house.

Paragraph 9(2)(a) provides an additional, although less decisive, failure. TPS has supplied only ANPR entry and exit observation times and described the intervening 23 minutes as the "duration of stay". Those camera timestamps merely record the vehicle crossing two points; they do not specify the period during which it was actually parked. TPS has not identified or evidenced where within the car park the vehicle was allegedly parked. Consequently, it has established neither the route taken to that position nor the route subsequently taken by the driver to enter the medical centre.

Without that evidence, TPS cannot show which signs the driver would have encountered, whether any detailed contractual sign was visible from the parking position or route taken, or whether the validation requirement was displayed with sufficient prominence to bind that driver. Nevertheless, the paragraph 9(2)(e) failure is sufficient by itself, without reliance upon paragraph 9(2)(a).

Accordingly, the eventual defence points should be ranked as follows:

1. Failure to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e), defeating keeper liability.
   
2. Paragraph 9(2)(a): failure to specify the actual period of parking.
   
3. TPS's failure to prove the signs and layout existing on 9 October 2025, rather than in March 2024.
   
4. Failure to prove that the validation condition was adequately brought to the driver's attention along the actual route taken.
   
5. The genuine visitor status and legitimate purpose of the visit.
   
6. Strict proof of the completeness and correct operation of the registration system and its records.
   
7. TPS's landowner authority to contract, enforce parking terms and commence litigation.
   
8. The additional £70, including the paragraph 4(5) prohibition against recovering from a keeper more than the amount specified in the NtK.
   

POPLA's supposed finding that TPS "provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site" should also be checked against the evidence pack. If TPS supplied only the two ANPR entry/exit images, that statement is factually wrong: those images establish presence between two timestamps, not where or for how long the vehicle was stationary.

The position now remains simple: complain to the practice, ignore Oak/ZZPS completely, obtain proper photographs, retain all evidence and respond only if a genuine Letter of Claim arrives.

A formal complaint to the Practice Manager is worthwhile because the medical centre is TPS's principal and can instruct it to cancel the charge. It should be made expressly by the registered keeper, without identifying the driver. The purpose is not to rehash the POPLA appeal but to require the practice to address the treatment of a genuine visitor and its agent's escalation of the charge.

Dear Practice Manager,

FORMAL COMPLAINT: TPS PARKING CHARGE AT5144746

I write as the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

On 9 October 2025, the vehicle was present at St Mary's Medical Centre for approximately 23 minutes in connection with a genuine visit to the practice by an occupant. It was not being used for unrelated parking. Nevertheless, Total Parking Solutions Ltd (TPS), acting as the practice's parking contractor, issued Parking Charge AT5144746 and is now demanding £170 through its debt-collection trading style, Oak Legal Services/ZZPS.

I ask that this correspondence be registered and investigated as a formal complaint concerning the actions of the practice's contractor.

The car park signage prominently describes the site as "PATIENT & VISITOR PARKING ONLY". The vehicle was present for precisely that permitted purpose. TPS alleges a failure to validate the vehicle inside the surgery, but the separate validation requirement was not stated on the prominent "Patient & Visitor Parking Only" sign.

TPS has produced only photographs of signage dated 28 March 2024, more than 18 months before the alleged event. It has not established:

• what signs were actually present on 9 October 2025;
  
• where within the car park the vehicle was allegedly parked;
  
• the route taken to that position;
  
• the route subsequently taken by the driver to enter the medical centre;
  
• which signs would have been encountered along those routes; or
  
• whether the validation requirement was sufficiently visible and prominent to the driver concerned.
  

The practice has subsequently published an acknowledgement that genuine visitors have received parking charges despite entering the correct registration details and that a TPS system problem may have been responsible. The practice invited affected visitors to contact it for assistance. Although that announcement postdates this particular incident, it demonstrates that the registration system and TPS's records cannot safely be treated as infallible.

The registered keeper also disputes TPS's entitlement to transfer liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In particular, its Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of paragraph 9(2)(e). However, the practice should not require a genuine visitor to defend threatened county court proceedings arising from its contractor's parking and registration arrangements.

TPS acts at the authority of the practice or its landowner. Any suggestion that the practice is unable to intervene would therefore be untenable: TPS's authority cannot exceed that of its principal, and the principal can instruct its agent to cancel a charge.

I therefore require the practice to:

1. instruct TPS immediately to cancel Parking Charge AT5144746 and remove the associated, unlawful £70 enhancement;
   
2. require TPS and ZZPS/Oak Legal Services to cease recovery activity;
   
3. investigate whether the registration system and signage were operating correctly on 9 October 2025;
   
4. confirm what signs were present on that date and when they were last inspected; and
   
5. provide a substantive written response under the practice's formal complaints procedure.
   

Please confirm that this complaint has been formally recorded and that the cancellation instruction has been issued to TPS.

Yours faithfully,

[Registered keeper's name]

[Address]
[Vehicle registration]
TPS reference: AT5144746