<![CDATA[Private Parking Ticket Legal Advice (PPTLA) - Portal]]> https://pptla.uk/ Thu, 16 Jul 2026 21:00:42 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Parking Charge for a quick stop!]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=98 Wed, 15 Jul 2026 22:19:40 +0000 d_ancz]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=98
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 Arcadia Library & Leisure Centre, Manchester.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

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

Additional notes provided:
The charge is for Failure to Register for Duration of the stay.

it was at 22:47 in the night, I could not see any visible signs, and the leisure centre was closed, meaning I wasn't able to register my vehicle at night since it was closed.

I was there for 17 minutes.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case, thanks!]]>
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 Arcadia Library & Leisure Centre, Manchester.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

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

Additional notes provided:
The charge is for Failure to Register for Duration of the stay.

it was at 22:47 in the night, I could not see any visible signs, and the leisure centre was closed, meaning I wasn't able to register my vehicle at night since it was closed.

I was there for 17 minutes.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case, thanks!]]> <![CDATA[PCN Broadway Retail Park, Halifax]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=97 Sun, 12 Jul 2026 22:44:37 +0000 3Sh3roo]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=97
Another wider family member got the following PCN, can you please give pointers how to appeal? 


This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by ParkingEye Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 22 June 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, 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 Broadway Retail Park, Halifax.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.jpeg   PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 114.32 KB / Downloads: 2)

.jpeg   PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 74.07 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]>
Another wider family member got the following PCN, can you please give pointers how to appeal? 


This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by ParkingEye Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Monday, 22 June 2026. The notice itself is dated an unspecified date, 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 Broadway Retail Park, Halifax.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates PENDING: Enter the notice issue date to calculate deemed delivery and timing. Route applied: Not specified. The notice is treated as given on Not available.

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.jpeg   PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 114.32 KB / Downloads: 2)

.jpeg   PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 74.07 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]> <![CDATA[Horizon parking (Double dip)]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=96 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:32:41 +0000 Foxy01]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=96
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 Tesco, Burton on Trent.

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 Friday, 03 July 2026 (8 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
This is a double dip incident. The vehicle is owned by a sole trader entity. There is tracking data from the day showing the vehicle made several movements to and from sites around Burton.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.pdf   Horizon Burton (1).pdf (Size: 1.72 MB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   Horizon Burton track.pdf (Size: 121.44 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]>
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 Tesco, Burton on Trent.

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 Friday, 03 July 2026 (8 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
This is a double dip incident. The vehicle is owned by a sole trader entity. There is tracking data from the day showing the vehicle made several movements to and from sites around Burton.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.pdf   Horizon Burton (1).pdf (Size: 1.72 MB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   Horizon Burton track.pdf (Size: 121.44 KB / Downloads: 3) ]]> <![CDATA[Chequers Lane, Dagenham - Private Parking Management (PPM) - Parking Charge]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=95 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:45:41 +0000 TheParkingmeister]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=95
We have received 13 Parking Charge Notices for company vehicles for stopping on Chequers Lane on Dagenham Docks, waiting to access a waste management site which has limited capacity. Chequers Lane is an industrial estate road..... that happens to be privately owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The issue is, it's just a road, it's purpose is to serve the commercial premises on the road, it looks like public highway, and there is nothing that clearly differentiates it from the adopted public highway. There is no entrance signage, and PPM even had their enforcement signage on a section of Public Highway on Choats Road, the road leading to Chequers Lane. This has since been removed following complaints to Barking & Dagenham Council, their Counter Fraud Department, BPA and a BBC Radio 4 show about Dagenham Docks and unfair parking practices.

In 2025 we received 9. All 9 were issued and delivered outside of the relevant 14-day period required by POFA 2012 to invoke Keeper Liability. The first 4 were appealed and rejected by PPM. They were then appealed to POPLA, and PPM failed to submit evidence within 21 days. One fella at POPLA, Alex, was actually very helpful when I called and concluded all four on the POPLA portal immediately with a successful decision. The 5th Notice to Keeper, PPM included pictures of the wrong vehicle. They accepted that appeal and attributed the mistake to an "admin error". The following four were appealed, and again, rejected by PPM. These four were appealed to POPLA, and PPM withdrew from all 4. 

2025 Notice to Keeper and successful POPLA decisions  

However, despite being clearly non-POFA compliant, forfeiting their right to pursue the charge by withdrawing from POPLA and having written confirmation from the Landowner, GLA, that non-POFA charges are not pursued passed the initial appeal stage, PPM passed these four onto a debt collection agency TNC Collections, who started sending letters. They did eventually get cancelled and I got two apologies from PPM. They seemed quite upset about being reported to BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, the ICO and Action Fraud. Lucky for them though, nobody cares! They don't have a Kadoe contract so DVLA don't care; BPA is BPA, they never care; Trading Standards only investigate something if it gets numerous reports; ICO don't care as it's not personal data; and Action Fraud only seems to take reports regarding online fraud.

I thought PPM had maybe learnt their lesson. But apparently not. They gave us a 2026 new year gift of 4 more Parking Charges. But this time they weren't even claiming we were parked. They were issued for.... get this....... being "STOPPED IN A NO WAITING ZONE".

2026 Notice to Keeper, Appeal Rejection, my POPLA appeal template and POPLA outcomes. 

PPM failed to provide evidence that they had the legal standing to enforce the charges on the land and all four POPLA appeals were allowed on that point alone.

PPM have said they are unfamiliar with the Codes Signage Requirements and they were unaware that they had to provide evidence of Landowner Authority to POPLA..... as it was there first time doing it.

PPM 0 - Me 13

Anyway, BBC Radio 4 did an episode of The Patch on Dagenham Docks and the unfair parking practices by PPM

I actually had a 40 minute discussion with the presenter Polly Weston, and it was refreshing to converse with someone who had done their homework and was standing up for the little guy as they say. I was actually in the show for like 5 seconds, but they cut out the part where I explained how I didn't pay any of them lol, but I get why, and I support the narrative of the show. Screw PPM and all the parking companies.

.pdf   Notice to Keeper 2026.pdf (Size: 467.55 KB / Downloads: 1)

.pdf   1112601330-PPM-6980636330.pdf (Size: 31.92 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]>
We have received 13 Parking Charge Notices for company vehicles for stopping on Chequers Lane on Dagenham Docks, waiting to access a waste management site which has limited capacity. Chequers Lane is an industrial estate road..... that happens to be privately owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The issue is, it's just a road, it's purpose is to serve the commercial premises on the road, it looks like public highway, and there is nothing that clearly differentiates it from the adopted public highway. There is no entrance signage, and PPM even had their enforcement signage on a section of Public Highway on Choats Road, the road leading to Chequers Lane. This has since been removed following complaints to Barking & Dagenham Council, their Counter Fraud Department, BPA and a BBC Radio 4 show about Dagenham Docks and unfair parking practices.

In 2025 we received 9. All 9 were issued and delivered outside of the relevant 14-day period required by POFA 2012 to invoke Keeper Liability. The first 4 were appealed and rejected by PPM. They were then appealed to POPLA, and PPM failed to submit evidence within 21 days. One fella at POPLA, Alex, was actually very helpful when I called and concluded all four on the POPLA portal immediately with a successful decision. The 5th Notice to Keeper, PPM included pictures of the wrong vehicle. They accepted that appeal and attributed the mistake to an "admin error". The following four were appealed, and again, rejected by PPM. These four were appealed to POPLA, and PPM withdrew from all 4. 

2025 Notice to Keeper and successful POPLA decisions  

However, despite being clearly non-POFA compliant, forfeiting their right to pursue the charge by withdrawing from POPLA and having written confirmation from the Landowner, GLA, that non-POFA charges are not pursued passed the initial appeal stage, PPM passed these four onto a debt collection agency TNC Collections, who started sending letters. They did eventually get cancelled and I got two apologies from PPM. They seemed quite upset about being reported to BPA, DVLA, Trading Standards, the ICO and Action Fraud. Lucky for them though, nobody cares! They don't have a Kadoe contract so DVLA don't care; BPA is BPA, they never care; Trading Standards only investigate something if it gets numerous reports; ICO don't care as it's not personal data; and Action Fraud only seems to take reports regarding online fraud.

I thought PPM had maybe learnt their lesson. But apparently not. They gave us a 2026 new year gift of 4 more Parking Charges. But this time they weren't even claiming we were parked. They were issued for.... get this....... being "STOPPED IN A NO WAITING ZONE".

2026 Notice to Keeper, Appeal Rejection, my POPLA appeal template and POPLA outcomes. 

PPM failed to provide evidence that they had the legal standing to enforce the charges on the land and all four POPLA appeals were allowed on that point alone.

PPM have said they are unfamiliar with the Codes Signage Requirements and they were unaware that they had to provide evidence of Landowner Authority to POPLA..... as it was there first time doing it.

PPM 0 - Me 13

Anyway, BBC Radio 4 did an episode of The Patch on Dagenham Docks and the unfair parking practices by PPM

I actually had a 40 minute discussion with the presenter Polly Weston, and it was refreshing to converse with someone who had done their homework and was standing up for the little guy as they say. I was actually in the show for like 5 seconds, but they cut out the part where I explained how I didn't pay any of them lol, but I get why, and I support the narrative of the show. Screw PPM and all the parking companies.

.pdf   Notice to Keeper 2026.pdf (Size: 467.55 KB / Downloads: 1)

.pdf   1112601330-PPM-6980636330.pdf (Size: 31.92 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]> <![CDATA[Euro Car Parks PCN]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=94 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:00:45 +0000 johnny p]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=94
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 16 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 24 June 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 Finchley Memorial Hospital.

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 Friday, 26 June 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
I am going through this process as a favour for a friend.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

Thanks, John

.jpg   IMG-20260630-WA0001.jpg (Size: 89.99 KB / Downloads: 1)

.jpg   IMG-20260707-WA0007.jpg (Size: 102.96 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Euro Car Parks Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 16 June 2026. The notice itself is dated Wednesday, 24 June 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 Finchley Memorial Hospital.

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 Friday, 26 June 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
I am going through this process as a favour for a friend.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

Thanks, John

.jpg   IMG-20260630-WA0001.jpg (Size: 89.99 KB / Downloads: 1)

.jpg   IMG-20260707-WA0007.jpg (Size: 102.96 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> <![CDATA[PCN APCOA Broad Street Plaza, Halifax]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=93 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 21:11:31 +0000 3Sh3roo]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=93
Last time I used the following appeal and won, I've noticed they've changed the layout of their 'PCN', can you please check and approve if my appeal is ok?

Quote:PCN Ref : XXXXX
Date

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: XXXXXX) for vehicle registration mark XXX XXXX, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.


.jpeg   PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 101.24 KB / Downloads: 1)

.jpeg   PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 142.46 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]>
Last time I used the following appeal and won, I've noticed they've changed the layout of their 'PCN', can you please check and approve if my appeal is ok?

Quote:PCN Ref : XXXXX
Date

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: XXXXXX) for vehicle registration mark XXX XXXX, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.


.jpeg   PCN Front.jpeg (Size: 101.24 KB / Downloads: 1)

.jpeg   PCN Rear.jpeg (Size: 142.46 KB / Downloads: 1) ]]> <![CDATA[PCN - UKPS - Dragon Retail Park, Cardiff]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=92 Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:29:33 +0000 onFourWheels]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=92
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: Yes. The location is stated as Dragon Retail Park - Cardiff.

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 Friday, 26 June 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.png   PCN-2.png (Size: 613.27 KB / Downloads: 4)

.png   PCN-1.png (Size: 523.33 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]>
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: Yes. The location is stated as Dragon Retail Park - Cardiff.

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 Friday, 26 June 2026 (9 days after the alleged event).

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.

.png   PCN-2.png (Size: 613.27 KB / Downloads: 4)

.png   PCN-1.png (Size: 523.33 KB / Downloads: 4) ]]> <![CDATA[PCN UKCPS Leeds City Station]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=91 Thu, 11 Jun 2026 19:05:17 +0000 samh47]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=91
Great forum, followed it from FTLA. Can you please help with the PCN, details below and attached, the driver was waiting to pick up family, did not see any signs anywhere but did notice other cars (incl Taxis) waiting there as well.


-----
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UKCPS Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 26 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 09 June 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 Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 11 June 2026 (16 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
------

.jpg   PCN Front.jpg (Size: 82.11 KB / Downloads: 2)

.jpg   PCN Rear.jpg (Size: 101.71 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]>
Great forum, followed it from FTLA. Can you please help with the PCN, details below and attached, the driver was waiting to pick up family, did not see any signs anywhere but did notice other cars (incl Taxis) waiting there as well.


-----
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by UKCPS Ltd, relating to an alleged contravention on Tuesday, 26 May 2026. The notice itself is dated Tuesday, 09 June 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 Leeds City Station, LS1 4DY.

A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Thursday, 11 June 2026 (16 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.

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

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
------

.jpg   PCN Front.jpg (Size: 82.11 KB / Downloads: 2)

.jpg   PCN Rear.jpg (Size: 101.71 KB / Downloads: 0) ]]> <![CDATA[Gladstones Letter Before Claim - NPM PCN - No e-Permit - Woodgrange Road E7]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=90 Sat, 06 Jun 2026 13:58:04 +0000 armz247]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=90
I previously posted this on FTLA, but understand b789 may now be more active here. My FTLA thread is here:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...?topicseen

This relates to a private parking charge from National Parking Management Ltd at Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7.

Summary:

* PCN: NPM207017
* Operator: National Parking Management Ltd
* Solicitor: Gladstones
* Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7
* Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised, no e-permit
* Date of alleged charge: 23/12/2025
* Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01, approx. 2 minutes 43 seconds
* Notice received: postal Notice to Keeper
* Keeper appeal rejected
* Driver has not been identified
* I am the registered keeper
* Letter Before Claim dated: 2 June 2026
* Amount now claimed: £170
* Estimated total if proceedings are issued: £255

Redacted Letter Before Claim:

Page 1: https://ibb.co/DHjWGvcM
Page 2: https://ibb.co/xqg4tG09
Page 3: https://ibb.co/JF2M6L6P

On FTLA I posted a draft PAPDC/document request response based on similar b789 templates I found. I have since had a reply suggesting that the response to a Letter of Claim should be simpler, and questioning the value of asking Gladstones for documents I already have, such as the Notice to Keeper.

I would appreciate guidance on the best response to Gladstones at this stage.

Would something shorter like the below be more suitable, or should I still use a fuller PAPDC/document request response?

---

Subject: Response to Letter Before Claim - PCN NPM207017

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter Before Claim dated 2 June 2026
PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Limited
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15

I deny any debt to your client.

The vehicle was present on site for less than three minutes. I deny that any contract was formed or breached. The signage at this location does not make any clear offer of parking, nor does it explain how a driver could obtain an e-permit. In the absence of a clear offer capable of acceptance, no contract can exist.

I also dispute the added £70. Please explain the legal basis on which this sum is claimed, whether it is said to be consideration, damages, debt recovery costs, or something else, and whether VAT is included.

Please also provide the documents and evidence on which your client intends to rely, including:

1. Actual photographs of the signs in place on the material date, not stock images.
2. A site plan showing the position of the signs.
3. The precise wording of the clause or clauses allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to enforce and litigate at this location.
5. Your client’s full basis for alleging keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. Copies of any video evidence relied upon.

I will not use your web portal. Please correspond by email or post.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking debt advice, but I deny the debt.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

---

Am I on the right track with this shorter response, or should the fuller PAPDC non-compliance template be used instead?]]>
I previously posted this on FTLA, but understand b789 may now be more active here. My FTLA thread is here:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...?topicseen

This relates to a private parking charge from National Parking Management Ltd at Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7.

Summary:

* PCN: NPM207017
* Operator: National Parking Management Ltd
* Solicitor: Gladstones
* Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15, London E7
* Alleged contravention: Vehicle not pre-authorised, no e-permit
* Date of alleged charge: 23/12/2025
* Alleged time on site: 21:08:18 to 21:11:01, approx. 2 minutes 43 seconds
* Notice received: postal Notice to Keeper
* Keeper appeal rejected
* Driver has not been identified
* I am the registered keeper
* Letter Before Claim dated: 2 June 2026
* Amount now claimed: £170
* Estimated total if proceedings are issued: £255

Redacted Letter Before Claim:

Page 1: https://ibb.co/DHjWGvcM
Page 2: https://ibb.co/xqg4tG09
Page 3: https://ibb.co/JF2M6L6P

On FTLA I posted a draft PAPDC/document request response based on similar b789 templates I found. I have since had a reply suggesting that the response to a Letter of Claim should be simpler, and questioning the value of asking Gladstones for documents I already have, such as the Notice to Keeper.

I would appreciate guidance on the best response to Gladstones at this stage.

Would something shorter like the below be more suitable, or should I still use a fuller PAPDC/document request response?

---

Subject: Response to Letter Before Claim - PCN NPM207017

Dear Sirs,

Re: Letter Before Claim dated 2 June 2026
PCN: NPM207017
Client: National Parking Management Limited
Location: Woodgrange Road 13-15

I deny any debt to your client.

The vehicle was present on site for less than three minutes. I deny that any contract was formed or breached. The signage at this location does not make any clear offer of parking, nor does it explain how a driver could obtain an e-permit. In the absence of a clear offer capable of acceptance, no contract can exist.

I also dispute the added £70. Please explain the legal basis on which this sum is claimed, whether it is said to be consideration, damages, debt recovery costs, or something else, and whether VAT is included.

Please also provide the documents and evidence on which your client intends to rely, including:

1. Actual photographs of the signs in place on the material date, not stock images.
2. A site plan showing the position of the signs.
3. The precise wording of the clause or clauses allegedly breached.
4. The written agreement between your client and the landowner evidencing authority to enforce and litigate at this location.
5. Your client’s full basis for alleging keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6. Copies of any video evidence relied upon.

I will not use your web portal. Please correspond by email or post.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking debt advice, but I deny the debt.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]

---

Am I on the right track with this shorter response, or should the fuller PAPDC non-compliance template be used instead?]]> <![CDATA[Group Nexus overstay at Roadchef Maidstone Services]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=89 Sat, 30 May 2026 19:50:14 +0000 SamedayCourier]]> https://pptla.uk/showthread.php?tid=89
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 Roadchef Maidstone ME17 1SS.

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 Thursday, 28 May 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
The driver drove into the services. As the driver arrived he observed signs at the entrance stating 3 hours free. After about 2 hrs 30 minutes, preparing to leave, the driver noticed signs saying 2 hours free. So the driver walked back to the entrance to photograph the 3 hours free sign. The driver could find no such sign. The driver had clearly misread the sign. At this point the driver downloaded the app to try and pay for the overstay, but the app would not allow a time in the past to be selected. The driver then left the service area.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I note that my letter is identical to that received in the "GroupNexus Moto Burton in Kendal" thread. I assume my route to follow is the same as outlined there?

.jpg   20260530 Group Nexus01.jpg (Size: 92.1 KB / Downloads: 5)

.jpg   20260530 Group Nexus02.jpg (Size: 73.24 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>
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 Roadchef Maidstone ME17 1SS.

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 Thursday, 28 May 2026 (10 days after the alleged event).

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

Additional notes provided:
The driver drove into the services. As the driver arrived he observed signs at the entrance stating 3 hours free. After about 2 hrs 30 minutes, preparing to leave, the driver noticed signs saying 2 hours free. So the driver walked back to the entrance to photograph the 3 hours free sign. The driver could find no such sign. The driver had clearly misread the sign. At this point the driver downloaded the app to try and pay for the overstay, but the app would not allow a time in the past to be selected. The driver then left the service area.

Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
I note that my letter is identical to that received in the "GroupNexus Moto Burton in Kendal" thread. I assume my route to follow is the same as outlined there?

.jpg   20260530 Group Nexus01.jpg (Size: 92.1 KB / Downloads: 5)

.jpg   20260530 Group Nexus02.jpg (Size: 73.24 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>