08-17-2026, 09:25 PM
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?)
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?)
