09-28-2026, 02:41 PM
@therealrjp, thanks. There are already some useful points in what you have now provided.
First, the landowner contract does not simply expire after 12 months. Page 2 says that after the initial 12-month period it automatically extends for another 12 months and continues thereafter until terminated. So I would not argue that PPS needed a new contract merely because the PCN was issued after 7 February 2025.
However, there are potentially much more important problems with the authority they have produced. Page 1 expressly requires a site map to be attached "clearly defining boundaries", yet the pages you have supplied contain no map at all. Page 3 even repeats the requirement to include a map clearly defining the boundaries, but that section is completely blank. PPS therefore needs to prove that the precise location where your vehicle stopped actually falls within the land over which it was authorised to operate.
There is also no evidence in what they have supplied establishing what legal interest "TRADE SALES" has in the land. Their own contract anticipates that it may be signed by a landowner, leaseholder or appointed agent and specifically requires a leaseholder to provide evidence of its authority. Merely putting "TRADE SALES" in the customer box does not establish that it owns the land or had authority from the landowner to confer enforcement rights upon PPS. I would therefore retain the standing/authority point, although I would not presently allege that the contract had expired.
The photographs are more interesting. You said they demonstrate approximately two minutes of stopping, but the five photographs you have supplied are timestamped:
11:32:36 → 11:32:45 → 11:32:49 → 11:33:04 → 11:33:13.
That is a total evidenced interval of only 37 seconds.
More remarkably, the NtK says the vehicle "was parked" on 19 May 2025 at 11:34. None of the photographs you have supplied shows the vehicle at 11:34.
That brings me to your question about the "period of parking". There are actually two different evidential questions here which POPLA appears to have conflated.
Several timestamped photographs can obviously prove that a vehicle was stationary between the times at which those photographs were taken. I am not suggesting otherwise. Here they provide evidence that the vehicle was stationary over a period of at least 37 seconds.
However, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) imposes a separate statutory requirement upon the Notice to Keeper itself. It requires the notice to:
That wording is important. The NtK does not specify "11:32:36–11:33:13", or any other period. It alleges simply that the vehicle "on 19th May 2025 at 11:34 was parked". That is a single point in time, not a period of parking. Schedule 4 also subsequently refers to the "single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)", reinforcing that Parliament deliberately required a period to be specified.
POPLA's reasoning that several photographs carrying different timestamps somehow causes the NtK itself to specify a period is therefore questionable. The photographs may be evidence from which a duration can be inferred; that is not the same question as whether the statutory notice specifies the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a).
There is another potentially very useful point arising from the 37 seconds. The PPSCoP states that the consideration period is fundamentally the period before the driver has accepted the terms, and specifically gives remaining stationary for more than five minutes as an example of evidence from which acceptance may be established. The PPSCoP is applicable to incidents occurring after 17 February 2025, so it applied on 19 May 2025.
Against that background, PPS's own evidence of only 37 seconds is going to require some explanation as to how and when they say the driver had read and accepted the contractual terms before supposedly breaching them.
There is also an apparent contradiction worth preserving. The contract describes the restriction as:
Yet PPS's signage apparently goes considerably further by prohibiting parking, waiting, loading and unloading. I want to see the actual close-up photograph of that sign before drawing conclusions from that discrepancy. The "on-site signage" link in your post currently just takes me to the ImgBB homepage rather than the photograph itself.
So please correct that signage link. Once I can see the actual sign clearly, I think we have enough to finalise the Defence.
One other thing: do not identify the driver in anything you post or send. That remains important because PPS is attempting to pursue you as "driver and/or registered keeper", and its ability to establish keeper liability under PoFA remains very much in issue.
First, the landowner contract does not simply expire after 12 months. Page 2 says that after the initial 12-month period it automatically extends for another 12 months and continues thereafter until terminated. So I would not argue that PPS needed a new contract merely because the PCN was issued after 7 February 2025.
However, there are potentially much more important problems with the authority they have produced. Page 1 expressly requires a site map to be attached "clearly defining boundaries", yet the pages you have supplied contain no map at all. Page 3 even repeats the requirement to include a map clearly defining the boundaries, but that section is completely blank. PPS therefore needs to prove that the precise location where your vehicle stopped actually falls within the land over which it was authorised to operate.
There is also no evidence in what they have supplied establishing what legal interest "TRADE SALES" has in the land. Their own contract anticipates that it may be signed by a landowner, leaseholder or appointed agent and specifically requires a leaseholder to provide evidence of its authority. Merely putting "TRADE SALES" in the customer box does not establish that it owns the land or had authority from the landowner to confer enforcement rights upon PPS. I would therefore retain the standing/authority point, although I would not presently allege that the contract had expired.
The photographs are more interesting. You said they demonstrate approximately two minutes of stopping, but the five photographs you have supplied are timestamped:
11:32:36 → 11:32:45 → 11:32:49 → 11:33:04 → 11:33:13.
That is a total evidenced interval of only 37 seconds.
More remarkably, the NtK says the vehicle "was parked" on 19 May 2025 at 11:34. None of the photographs you have supplied shows the vehicle at 11:34.
That brings me to your question about the "period of parking". There are actually two different evidential questions here which POPLA appears to have conflated.
Several timestamped photographs can obviously prove that a vehicle was stationary between the times at which those photographs were taken. I am not suggesting otherwise. Here they provide evidence that the vehicle was stationary over a period of at least 37 seconds.
However, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) imposes a separate statutory requirement upon the Notice to Keeper itself. It requires the notice to:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".
That wording is important. The NtK does not specify "11:32:36–11:33:13", or any other period. It alleges simply that the vehicle "on 19th May 2025 at 11:34 was parked". That is a single point in time, not a period of parking. Schedule 4 also subsequently refers to the "single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)", reinforcing that Parliament deliberately required a period to be specified.
POPLA's reasoning that several photographs carrying different timestamps somehow causes the NtK itself to specify a period is therefore questionable. The photographs may be evidence from which a duration can be inferred; that is not the same question as whether the statutory notice specifies the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a).
There is another potentially very useful point arising from the 37 seconds. The PPSCoP states that the consideration period is fundamentally the period before the driver has accepted the terms, and specifically gives remaining stationary for more than five minutes as an example of evidence from which acceptance may be established. The PPSCoP is applicable to incidents occurring after 17 February 2025, so it applied on 19 May 2025.
Against that background, PPS's own evidence of only 37 seconds is going to require some explanation as to how and when they say the driver had read and accepted the contractual terms before supposedly breaching them.
There is also an apparent contradiction worth preserving. The contract describes the restriction as:
"Vehicles must not park within No parking areas (roads and footpaths)."
Yet PPS's signage apparently goes considerably further by prohibiting parking, waiting, loading and unloading. I want to see the actual close-up photograph of that sign before drawing conclusions from that discrepancy. The "on-site signage" link in your post currently just takes me to the ImgBB homepage rather than the photograph itself.
So please correct that signage link. Once I can see the actual sign clearly, I think we have enough to finalise the Defence.
One other thing: do not identify the driver in anything you post or send. That remains important because PPS is attempting to pursue you as "driver and/or registered keeper", and its ability to establish keeper liability under PoFA remains very much in issue.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
