10-12-2026, 04:15 PM
@zyno, the screenshot of your Amazon delivery block is useful, but on its own, it is insufficient evidence to establish that a delivery was being made at the location of the alleged parking contravention.
It confirms that an Amazon delivery block was scheduled between 19:45 and 22:15 on 1st October 2026, which includes the time of the alleged contravention. However, it does not establish where any deliveries were made or whether the vehicle was stopped at Donnington House for that purpose.
If we are going to rely on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, we need better evidence connecting the delivery to that particular location.
Try to obtain delivery records, route history, GPS information, delivery confirmations or anything else from Amazon showing that a package was being delivered to Donnington House or an address served by that car park at approximately 20:22–20:29.
Preserve the screenshot you already have, but see what additional evidence you can obtain. The stronger the evidence connecting the delivery to that location, the better. Remember, Jopson distinguished genuine loading and unloading from ordinary parking, but it is not an automatic exemption for every delivery vehicle.
Now, regarding the appeal form and the driver's identity, I want to make this absolutely clear because it is an important distinction.
You are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not as the driver.
PPS already obtained the registered keeper's name and address from the DVLA. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing those details again when submitting the appeal.
The form asks for:
Providing the registered keeper's name and address is NOT the same as identifying the driver.
Furthermore, when corresponding with PPS, you must distinguish between the registered keeper and the driver.
For example:
DO NOT SAY:
INSTEAD, IF THOSE FACTS NEED TO BE MENTIONED, SAY:
Always refer to the driver in the third person. Do not make any statement that identifies the keeper as the driver, and do not make any false statement about who was driving.
There is no legal obligation on the registered keeper to identify the driver to a private parking firm. Parliament specifically enacted Schedule 4 of PoFA to provide parking operators with a mechanism for transferring liability to a keeper when the driver remains unidentified, provided the operator complies with the statutory requirements.
If PPS have failed to comply with those requirements, they cannot simply disregard PoFA and presume that the keeper was driving.
Finally, submit the keeper appeal exactly as previously drafted. There is no need to mention Amazon, the delivery or the driver's actions in that initial appeal.
Our primary argument remains PPS's failure to comply with PoFA. The delivery evidence is being preserved as a potential additional argument if the matter progresses to POPLA or, ultimately, court.
Correct the false PoFA certaintyClarify the appeal form instructions
It confirms that an Amazon delivery block was scheduled between 19:45 and 22:15 on 1st October 2026, which includes the time of the alleged contravention. However, it does not establish where any deliveries were made or whether the vehicle was stopped at Donnington House for that purpose.
If we are going to rely on Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, we need better evidence connecting the delivery to that particular location.
Try to obtain delivery records, route history, GPS information, delivery confirmations or anything else from Amazon showing that a package was being delivered to Donnington House or an address served by that car park at approximately 20:22–20:29.
Preserve the screenshot you already have, but see what additional evidence you can obtain. The stronger the evidence connecting the delivery to that location, the better. Remember, Jopson distinguished genuine loading and unloading from ordinary parking, but it is not an automatic exemption for every delivery vehicle.
Now, regarding the appeal form and the driver's identity, I want to make this absolutely clear because it is an important distinction.
You are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not as the driver.
PPS already obtained the registered keeper's name and address from the DVLA. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing those details again when submitting the appeal.
The form asks for:
• "YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS" – Enter the registered keeper's name and address.
• "NAME AND ADDRESS OF DRIVER/KEEPER (IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE)" – Leave this blank. You are the registered keeper and have already provided those details. There is no requirement to identify the driver.
• "NAME AND ADDRESS OF DRIVER/KEEPER (IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE)" – Leave this blank. You are the registered keeper and have already provided those details. There is no requirement to identify the driver.
Providing the registered keeper's name and address is NOT the same as identifying the driver.
Furthermore, when corresponding with PPS, you must distinguish between the registered keeper and the driver.
For example:
DO NOT SAY:
• "I parked there to make an Amazon delivery."
• "I was only there for a few minutes."
• "I didn't realise a permit was required."
• "I was making a delivery and didn't see the signs."
• "I was only there for a few minutes."
• "I didn't realise a permit was required."
• "I was making a delivery and didn't see the signs."
INSTEAD, IF THOSE FACTS NEED TO BE MENTIONED, SAY:
• "The driver stopped to make a delivery."
• "The vehicle was stationary for a short period."
• "The driver was carrying out a delivery."
• "The vehicle was stationary for a short period."
• "The driver was carrying out a delivery."
Always refer to the driver in the third person. Do not make any statement that identifies the keeper as the driver, and do not make any false statement about who was driving.
There is no legal obligation on the registered keeper to identify the driver to a private parking firm. Parliament specifically enacted Schedule 4 of PoFA to provide parking operators with a mechanism for transferring liability to a keeper when the driver remains unidentified, provided the operator complies with the statutory requirements.
If PPS have failed to comply with those requirements, they cannot simply disregard PoFA and presume that the keeper was driving.
Finally, submit the keeper appeal exactly as previously drafted. There is no need to mention Amazon, the delivery or the driver's actions in that initial appeal.
Our primary argument remains PPS's failure to comply with PoFA. The delivery evidence is being preserved as a potential additional argument if the matter progresses to POPLA or, ultimately, court.
Correct the false PoFA certaintyClarify the appeal form instructions
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
