LPS Ltd - PCN - Private Access Road - Delivering On Site & Vehicle Breakdown

[TheParkingmeister]

A company vehicle was delivering to a contractors premises, Oakleaf Recycling which is situated on a private access road owned by Oak Leaf Farms. The Recycling business is seemingly a lease holder.

Google Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/EnbX4aTiDWxD2ZWC7 

We have had 5 of these before that were subsequently cancelled. They were all recorded stopped on the road waiting to enter the site due to its limited capacity.

This time the vehicle had stopped coming out of the site. I didn't know why at first and didn't look into it as I don't have the time to investigate everything. As far as I'm concerned, there is an implied licence to use the road as a customer/supplier of the leasehodler.

We received a Parking Charge NtK, I appealed it on the information I had at the time on 20th February.

Link to the original Notice to Keeper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jr9hWGm...p=drivesdk 

Link to initial appeal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O_EpXWi...p=drivesdk

Also emailed the "Head of Legal Compliance" on 23rd February, as he had previously assisted in getting the previous ones cancelled and seemed reasonable.

Link to email correspondence with "Head of Legal Compliance": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zQ9OhRw...p=drivesdk 

I later found out the vehicle had a defect that made it unsafe to continue it's commercial operations, or frankly to be on the road at all.

I submitted this information to the operator on 26th February with an invoice for the repairs made at Scania Heathrow that was a few miles down the road.

Email providing the Operator with the information: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1szzBxVf...p=drivesdk

Then we received an appeal rejection notice yesterday, 02/03/2026.

Link to Appeal Rejection Notice: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n-jCVLO...p=drivesdk

After that was received, I sent our Head of Legal Compliance ex-friend, an email as the rejection notice did not consider the vehicle defect.

Link to further correspondence with Head of Legal Compliance: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_TSOhI7...p=drivesdk

The Head of Legal Compliance thinks he did something by repeatedly saying every aspect of the code and case law I mentioned is misplaced, but then simultaneously only comes out with waffle himself. He also thinks he exposed me by stating some of my points are similar to those found on FTLA forums at the same time he's quoting Beavis for a business access road with no invitation to park. It was a poor attempt to discourage me from taking it further I know.

But my only option here is to appeal to IAS. If you remember anything about my employer, it's that they won't take this to court. They get spooked by their stupid debt collector letters and pay it. Which makes my job all the more impossible. 

In terms of appealing to IAS, what is the best strategy? I know with POPLA there is basically no point in appealing on legal grounds as the assesors will overlook it, but clear PPSSCoP breaches can be considered. Such as if a consideration period has not been exceeded.

I am aware that IAS is much worse though.

Alternatively, is it possible to provide my details as the driver details so all correspondence comes to me personally so I can deal with it,or is that a really bad idea?

[b789]

Hi @TheParkingmeister. Welcome the forum.

I will have a review of all the documents you have linked to and get back later today. (I am currently visiting family in Winnipeg so I'm 6 hours behind you)

If you get a chance, it would help me if you could complete this PCN details form and then paste the summary here. I helps me keep track of all the cases in a more organised way.

https://gullibletree.com/tools/pcnform_main.html

[b789]

On initial review of the material provided, the company presently benefits from a solid Schedule 4 position.

The Notice to Keeper is vulnerable on PoFA grounds and, if tested in court, that defect would likely prevent the operator from transferring liability to the company. Legally, that is a strong footing.

The issue is not whether the PoFA argument is sound, but whether it will ever be permitted to do its work. If the company is inclined to settle once the tone escalates, the statutory protection becomes academic rather than operative.

Ordinarily, a defect of this nature places the operator in a binary position: identify the driver or abandon keeper liability. Because the point is rooted in statutory wording rather than factual dispute, it carries real weight before a judge.

The constraint in this case is therefore not the law, but the employer’s likely response to escalation.

If the employer has a pattern of capitulating as soon as debt recovery letters begin, then the practical value of a PoFA defence is limited. It will never reach the stage where the argument is tested. The operator will escalate to a debt collector, the tone of correspondence will change, and the employer will pay to make it go away. In that scenario, the statutory defence is legally sound but commercially irrelevant because it will not be allowed to operate.

You therefore have two paths.

The first is to maintain the PoFA position and keep the matter at keeper level. That preserves the strongest technical defence. But it leaves control in the hands of an employer who has demonstrated that they will likely fold once the matter escalates.

The second option is to identify the driver. If the driver is formally named with a full serviceable address, the operator must pursue the driver directly. That removes the employer from the liability chain and from the decision-making process.

However, that step has consequences.

Once the driver is identified, the Schedule 4 protection falls away. There is no longer any need for the operator to rely on keeper liability. The claim becomes a straightforward contractual claim against the driver. Any PoFA defect becomes irrelevant. The driver stands alone.

That does not mean the case becomes weak. It simply means the defence must move from statutory technicality to substantive liability.

As driver, the available defences would be as follows.

First, signage and contractual formation.

The sign states “NO PARKING” and then refers to liability for a parking charge of £100. There is an argument that a purely prohibitive sign does not offer a contractual licence to park on terms, but instead withdraws permission entirely. In that construction, no contract is formed and the only possible cause of action would be trespass, which only the landowner could pursue and only for actual loss.

That argument is not frivolous, but it is not a guaranteed winner. Courts increasingly treat signs that combine a prohibition with a stated charge as creating a contractual framework. The presence of the £100 charge and reference to driver liability strengthens the operator’s contractual argument.
A clearer photograph of the signage will assist in assessing the precise wording and structure of the terms, which is essential to determining whether the sign creates a contractual offer capable of acceptance or merely imposes a prohibition. The exact language used, particularly how the £100 charge is framed, is critical to analysing whether any enforceable contract arose.

Second, implied licence as a contractor.

The driver was not a random motorist. The vehicle was attending a legitimate business on that private road. There is a strong argument that a business operating from that site carries with it an implied right of access for customers and suppliers. That implied licence extends to reasonable use of the access road incidental to deliveries and collections.

The operator will say that any such licence does not extend to remaining stationary in breach of clearly displayed restrictions. The strength of this defence will depend on the precise terms of the leaseholder’s rights and the nature of access arrangements on that road.

Third, necessity due to mechanical defect.

This is the most factually persuasive defence. The vehicle developed a defect affecting its lighting system, rendering it unroadworthy and unsafe for continued operation. If the vehicle could not lawfully or safely continue, and arrangements were made promptly to attend a repair facility, then the stop was not discretionary parking. It was compelled by safety and regulatory necessity.

If compliance with the alleged contractual term (immediate departure) would have required the driver to commit a regulatory offence or create a road safety risk, that materially alters the analysis. Contract law does not require a party to commit illegality or expose themselves to danger in order to avoid a parking charge.

The key will be evidence. The nature of the defect, when it was discovered, why the vehicle could not be moved elsewhere immediately, and whether the duration of approximately 39 minutes was strictly necessary must all be capable of being explained coherently.

Fourth, proportionality and legitimate interest.

This is not a retail car park managing turnover. It is an industrial access road serving businesses. Penalising a contractor dealing with a safety defect does not obviously serve a legitimate commercial interest comparable to the Supreme Court reasoning in Beavis. That does not automatically defeat the claim, but it frames it differently.

If the driver is identified, the case is no longer technical. It becomes fact-sensitive and evidence-driven. It is defensible, but it carries litigation risk. You would need to be prepared to defend a small claim properly and calmly.

As for the IAS, you should approach it with realistic expectations.

An IAS appeal will need to be tightly structured and focused on legal points and evidential necessity. It should not read like a forum submission. It should identify the statutory and contractual defects, the absence of a defined parking period, the nature of the signage, the implied licence, and the safety-driven necessity.

However, the IAS is not a court. It is not a statutory tribunal. It is operated within the same corporate environment as the trade association and therein lies the inherent conflict of interest. Assessors are anonymous and most likely not even legally trained, even though they mendaciously claim they are. They are supposed to produce reasoned, legally rigorous decisions but, as experience shows, that is highly unlikely. Technical arguments, particularly on PoFA, are frequently dismissed with superficial reasoning. Fact-based arguments are usually brushed aside if the operator’s photographs show a vehicle stationary for a period of time.

In blunt terms, an IAS rejection is more likely than not, regardless of merit.

The IAS stage should therefore be treated as a procedural step, not as the arena in which you expect justice to be done. The real battleground, if it comes to it, is the small claims court, where statutory construction, contractual principles, and evidence are examined impartially by an actual judge.

The decision therefore comes down to control versus protection.

Keeping the matter at keeper level preserves the strongest statutory defence but leaves the employer as the weak link.

Identifying the driver removes the employer from the equation, removes the PoFA shield, and places the matter squarely in the hands of someone willing to defend it.

The legal case remains defensible if the driver is named. It simply changes character from a technical Schedule 4 challenge to a substantive contractual and necessity-based defence.
In your scenario, my advice is to appeal to IAS as Keeper. If rejected, immediately notify the operator of the driver’s full name and serviceable address and require all future correspondence to be directed to the driver. This approach preserves leverage for as long as possible without triggering the employer’s reflex payment behaviour.

As for the “Head of Legal & Compliance,” there is no strategic value in further informal contact. That avenue has been exhausted. The matter should now be treated as adversarial and procedural.

The defence, if the driver is later identified, remains viable on signage, implied licence, and necessity grounds. But control over who receives the pressure letters is a separate strategic decision, and the proposed timing is the rational one if employer behaviour is the dominant constraint.

Do you need assistance in putting together the IAS appeal at this stage?

[TheParkingmeister]

This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by London Parking Solutions Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 03 February 2026. The notice itself is dated Monday, 09 February 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 OAK LEAF FARM HORTON ROAD STANWELL MOOR TW19 6AF.

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 Wednesday, 11 February 2026 (8 days after the alleged event).

Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No

Response/appeal already sent (verbatim where possible):

Have appealed to the parking operator. 
Appeal Rejection Notice received.

[TheParkingmeister]

Thanks for your detailed response.

Unfortunately, as soon as the debt collection letters start coming, people within the Company want it paid and filed away ASAP. Despite my best efforts over the last year, this hasn't changed. As annoying as it is, I guess to them the costs are so small in the totality of the operational costs thay they just pay it.......... and try and pass it on to the driver. But I do manage to prevent that with parking charges that are legitimately disputed like this one.

That being said, on a personal level I do not want anyone paying these parking companies anything if I can help it. 

In this instance there's not a lot I can do to avoid it being paid by the company. Unless I can pull a miracle from somewhere and get a successful IAS appeal decision. As you say the assessors are most likely not even legally trained, and it certainly appears so from my experience too, technical legal arguments are usually dismissed or looked over.

So, what is a winning IAS strategy, to focus on PPSSCoP arguments perhaps?

This is a picture of the site signage: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11q_6V-Q...p=drivesdk

[b789]

I am trying to see if there are any pressure points you could use to encourage the company to reconsider its current approach to parking charges. From what you have described, you appear to be a conscientious manager who is actively trying to protect the drivers you supervise, even though the final decision about whether to pay these invoices sits elsewhere within the organisation.

The company, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, is entitled to decide whether it wishes to contest or settle a private parking charge. A parking charge issued by a private operator is simply an allegation of a civil debt. If the company chooses to pay it rather than challenge it, that is ultimately a commercial decision open to them.

However, the legal position becomes more complicated if the company then attempts to recover that payment from the driver or employee.

At the moment it is not clear what mechanism the company uses to do this. It may be by deduction from wages, but it could equally be by asking the driver to reimburse the company directly after the company has paid the charge. The distinction matters slightly in legal terms, but the underlying principle is broadly the same.

If the company deducts the money from wages, the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies. An employer cannot make deductions from wages unless the deduction is authorised by statute, clearly authorised by the employment contract, or agreed in writing by the employee in advance. A private parking charge is not a statutory penalty. It is simply a civil invoice alleging breach of contract. If the employment contract does not clearly authorise recovery of this type of charge, a deduction from wages could potentially be challenged as an unlawful deduction.

If the company instead asks the driver to reimburse it directly, the position is slightly different but still raises questions. In that situation the company would effectively be asserting that the driver owes them the money because the driver caused the company to incur the liability. The difficulty with that approach is that the company has chosen to pay the charge voluntarily. If the driver had been given the opportunity to challenge the charge, it may have been successfully defended, particularly in cases where the parking operator has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

In other words, by paying the charge early the company may be settling claims that it was not legally liable to pay. If the company then seeks reimbursement from the driver, the driver could reasonably argue that the employer voluntarily settled a disputed civil claim without allowing the driver the opportunity to defend it.

That does not automatically make the company’s behaviour unlawful, but it does weaken the position if they try to insist on repayment. In practice, unless there is a clear contractual term requiring drivers to reimburse the company for private parking charges, the company would likely struggle to compel repayment if the driver refused.

The practical pressure point therefore lies in the internal policy rather than the parking company itself. If the company is paying charges that could potentially be defended and then attempting to pass those costs to employees without a clear contractual basis, it risks disputes with staff and potentially claims relating to unlawful deductions from wages if deductions are made.

That may be the most realistic angle to raise internally when discussing whether the company’s current approach to PCNs is the most sensible one.

[TheParkingmeister]

I am not a manager, just an administrator lol. 

But before I had the specific role of handling PCN's almost all Penalty Charge Notices and Parking Charge Notices were paid unless the driver had a parking receipt (ie there was a keying error). 

The wage deductions is in the contracts. For Penalty Charge Notices I will appeal it if I can. I have had 3 successful London Tribunal appeals and 2 successful Traffic Tribunals in the last 4 months. Those are the only ones I have taken to tribunal too. But if it's clear cut, box junction or bus lane or 7.5t weight limit contravention (those are the most common) and the evidence is clear I'll speak with the driver and let them know it will be deducted. When it's like that, 90% of the time the driver is expecting it and cool with it.

Likewise for Parking Charge Notices, if a driver parked at a service station overnight but hadn't paid when they should have or for example one I had last week where a driver parked in a B&M car park overnight, it's an easy conversation with drivers and they are often expecting the charge.

But ones like this, where liability is disputed, and it isn't the fault of the driver, just an unfortunate situation (and unfair/predatory enforcement practices) I don't agree with it being deducted, because as you say by paying the charge early the company may be settling claims that it was not legally liable to pay. And I have actually told drivers previously to dispute it with management where the company voluntarily settled disputed charges denying the driver the opportunity to defend it. It actually happened like 2 weeks ago. I just put the words in the drivers mouth and passed on the message lol. I'm pretty sure they reimbursed him. This was another one where the driver paid for parking at MOTO services but there wasn't enough room in the HGV parking area and some jobsworth took pictures and sent a Parking Charge a week later.

I have a very juicy one to post here next week. I have four ongoing Parking Charge Notices for our vehicles on a road, Chequers Lane, in Dagenham, waiting to access a waste site on that road. This road is owned by GLA (and not part of the public highway) who have repeatedly told me they will continue to issue "fines" and that "parking on the pavement is illegal", a misrepresentation of authority, and they have stated that the leasehodler business on the road have acquired rights of access and that they wish to recoup costs of maintaining the road (inside of adding a service charge to the leaseholder agreements) and so the parking company PPM is issuing these charges for "stopping in a no waiting zone", and have said in their appeal Rejection Notice "there is no consideration period on private land", "as it was issued for waiting a parking period is not required", and "we submit your vehicle was queuing, waiting to access a business site". 

Good thing about this one is, it's GLA, a public authority that I can make a complaint about to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. That's a job for next week though.

[b789]

Understood. In the meantime, here is a draft IAS appeal you can try and work on:

Independent Appeals Service Appeal
Appellant: Registered Keeper

The Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned. The identity of the driver has not been provided and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver. The Operator is therefore required to establish liability strictly in accordance with the law and is put to strict proof of every element of its claim.

1. Preliminary evidential position

The Operator asserts that a parking charge of £100 is payable. In any civil claim the party asserting liability bears the burden of proof. The Operator must therefore demonstrate:

1. that clear contractual terms were prominently displayed at the location;
   
2. that those terms constituted a contractual offer capable of acceptance;
   
3. that the driver accepted those terms;
   
4. that the Operator has the legal standing required to enforce those terms; and
   
5. that the circumstances relied upon fall within the scope of those terms.
   

If any one of these elements is not established, liability cannot arise.

2. Requirement for reasoned determination

This appeal raises specific questions of contractual formation, standing, implied licence and necessity. Determination of the appeal therefore requires an examination of whether the Operator has discharged the evidential burden necessary to establish liability.

A determination that merely repeats the Operator’s assertions or relies solely on photographs of a stationary vehicle would not address the legal issues raised in this appeal.

The determination must therefore explain:

• whether the signage relied upon constitutes a contractual offer or merely a prohibition;
  
• whether the Operator has standing to pursue any alleged breach in its own name;
  
• whether vehicles attending a tenant’s premises operate under an implied licence; and
  
• whether a stop compelled by vehicle safety concerns can reasonably be characterised as “parking”.
  

Unless these issues are examined and resolved, the Operator’s claim cannot be sustained.

3. Requirement for evidential proof

The Operator’s case appears to rely primarily on photographs showing a vehicle stationary for a period of time. Photographs of a stationary vehicle do not establish the existence of a contractual agreement or breach of contractual terms.

The Operator must demonstrate:

• that the signage at the site was clear, prominent and capable of forming a contractual offer;
  
• that the terms relied upon applied to vehicles attending the commercial premises on the site;
  
• that the Operator has the legal authority from the landholder to enforce those terms; and
  
• that the circumstances of this stop fall within the scope of those terms.
  

If the Operator cannot establish those matters with evidence, the mere presence of a vehicle cannot create liability.

4. Failure of contractual formation

The signage relied upon by the Operator is prohibitive in nature. Language such as “No Parking” or similar wording withdraws permission rather than offering a contractual licence on defined terms.

Contract law requires an offer capable of acceptance. A prohibition is not an offer. Where signage merely forbids parking, no contract can arise between the operator and a driver.

In those circumstances the only theoretical cause of action would be trespass. A claim in trespass may only be brought by a party with sufficient proprietary interest in the land. A parking operator acting as an enforcement contractor cannot pursue damages for trespass in its own name.

Furthermore, damages for trespass are compensatory and must reflect the landowner’s actual loss. They cannot be a fixed contractual sum such as £100.

The Operator is therefore required to demonstrate that the signage constituted a genuine contractual offer rather than a prohibition.

5. Commercial access and implied licence

The location concerned is an access road serving Oakleaf Recycling, a business operating from Oak Leaf Farm. A commercial enterprise necessarily carries with it an implied licence permitting customers, suppliers and contractors to access the premises for legitimate business purposes.

Delivery vehicles and contractors must be able to enter and exit the site in order for the business to function. Vehicles attending the premises in the course of commercial activity are therefore operating under that implied licence.

The vehicle concerned was attending the site in the course of legitimate commercial operations.

The Operator must therefore demonstrate how a third-party parking enforcement scheme can extinguish or override the ordinary implied licence enjoyed by suppliers attending the tenant’s premises.

Unless clear contractual terms overriding that licence were prominently displayed and capable of binding those attending the site for business purposes, the Operator’s claim cannot succeed.

6. Necessity arising from mechanical defect

The vehicle developed a defect affecting its lighting system. This rendered the vehicle unsafe and potentially unlawful to continue operating on the public highway.

Drivers are under a legal obligation not to operate vehicles that are unsafe or unroadworthy. The driver therefore had no lawful option other than to interrupt the journey.

The vehicle was subsequently taken to a Scania repair facility located a short distance away and documentary evidence of the repair was provided to the Operator.

The stop was therefore not discretionary parking but a safety-driven interruption of the journey compelled by the vehicle’s condition.

Contract law does not require a party to expose themselves to illegality or danger in order to avoid a private parking charge. If compliance with the alleged contractual term would have required the driver to continue operating an unsafe vehicle on the highway, such a term cannot reasonably be enforced in these circumstances.

7. Operator standing

The Operator is put to strict proof that it possesses the legal authority required to issue and enforce parking charges at this location.

A parking operator acting as a contractor must demonstrate that it has been granted the necessary rights by the landholder to enter into contracts with motorists and to pursue parking charges in its own name.

Absent such authority, the Operator has no standing to pursue this charge.

8. Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis

Parking operators frequently rely on the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

That case concerned a retail car park where the operator had a legitimate interest in controlling parking duration in order to ensure customer turnover.

The present case concerns an industrial access road serving commercial premises. The presence of delivery vehicles and contractors is an inherent and necessary feature of such a location.

Penalising a delivery vehicle attending a tenant’s premises and dealing with a vehicle defect bears no resemblance to the circumstances considered by the Supreme Court in Beavis.

The Operator is therefore required to explain what legitimate interest is served by imposing a £100 charge on a vehicle engaged in commercial activity on a business access road.

9. Failure to properly consider evidence

Evidence explaining the vehicle defect and subsequent repair was provided to the Operator during the initial appeal.

The rejection notice does not address this evidence in any meaningful way and instead simply asserts that the charge remains payable.

Ignoring relevant evidence does not establish liability.

Conclusion

The Operator has failed to demonstrate that a contractual agreement capable of giving rise to a £100 charge was formed.

The vehicle was attending a commercial tenant under an implied licence and was compelled to stop due to a mechanical defect which made continued operation unsafe.

For these reasons the Operator has not discharged the evidential burden necessary to establish liability and the charge cannot be sustained.

The appeal should therefore be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

[TheParkingmeister]

Thanks for that draft, I was off work the back half of last week, so I will work through it today and put an appeal together.

[b789]

Great. If you want to show it here for scrutiny before you send it, feel free to do so.