PPS private parking solutions - PCN issued whilst passengers in the car

Rickerdoom

Hi everyone,

I've received a PCN stating that "obstructive parking is a contravention at the site." However, the car was never actually parked - passengers were still inside, waiting for a disabled family member.

The warden took photos from a long distance and is claiming the car was parked, but if they had taken closer photos, it would have been clear that there were people inside the vehicle.

I already submitted an appeal using the blue template, which was rejected, and I've now been issued a POPLA code.

Is it worth taking this to POPLA on the grounds that the images don't show the full situation (i.e the car was occupied and not parked)?

Coupon-mad

Show us the PCN and their distance photos.

We need to know how many minutes they captured the car for?

Car1980

Who was obstructed? I'm guessing nobody. Ergo, it can't have been obstructive, parked or otherwise.

fisherjim

Rickerdoom said:

The warden took photos from a long distance and is claiming the car was parked, but if they had taken closer photos, it would have been clear that there were people inside the vehicle.

I already submitted an appeal using the blue template, which was rejected, and I've now been issued a POPLA code.

Is it worth taking this to POPLA on the grounds that the images don't show the full situation (i.e the car was occupied and not parked)?

The car WAS parked whether there were passengers sitting in it or not, that won't wash with POPLA, it would be more reliant on how long it was parked.

The POPLA appeal is not about what happened they don't accept mitigation, they will only consider, signage, the law, process, contracts etc.

Answer the two questions above for better help.

Coupon-mad

You can argue on appeal to POPLA that one minute is insufficient to enter into a contract. 

Rickerdoom

Thank you @Coupon-mad

I will change it to: 
"Operators must allow a minimum period of 5 minutes for motorists to consider the terms and conditions before they can be deemed to have entered into a contract."

Is there anything else you think I can add to strenghten my case?

Coupon-mad

Yes of course you need to add more.

You seem to have missed the other usual POPLA appeal points in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Rickerdoom

Coupon-mad said:

It's not a 'grace period'.

I was reading through and realised this user called it grace period too: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73797736#Comment_73797736

Rickerdoom

Thanks @Coupon-mad I've read through it now. The reason I was only going with the lack of time to enter contract argument is because i read on other threads that it's now best to not include unnecessary information on POPLA appeals and only go with the main argument.   

This appeal is submitted in relation to the ‘Parking Charge Notice’ (PCN) dated ____ issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited (‘PPS’) for vehicle registration number ____.

As registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wrote to PPS challenging the PCN. PPS responded on ____ stating that the appeal had been unsuccessful.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver’s identity has not been provided and this appeal remains purely from myself as the registered keeper.

The appeal is made on the following grounds, full details of which are provided below:

1.      No Contract Formed Due to Insufficient time Period to form contract

2.      Signs in this car park are not prominent

3.      No evidence of landowner authority

for 2 & 3 I will copy the info linked in post 3 as you mentioned. Is it good to go? 

Coupon-mad

Yep give it a go. Ignore if you 'lose'.

Rickerdoom

This is my final draft regarding the insufficient time period which I adapted from another thread. What do you think?

The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice clearly outlines the need for parking operators to allow a grace period at the beginning of a driver’s visit. This ensures that motorists have a fair opportunity to read the terms and conditions displayed on signage, consider whether they wish to remain on the site, and if not, leave without penalty.

The relevant sections of the BPA Code of Practice (Version 8, January 2020) include:

Section 13.1
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

Section 13.2
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

Section 18.5 further reiterates:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave…”

In this case, the operator’s evidence consists of two timestamped photographs taken between ___ and ____ on ____, a total span of 1 minute ___. These images are presented to suggest the duration of the vehicle’s presence on site. Therefore, the total duration of the alleged contravention is at most 1 minute and 7 seconds based on the operator’s own evidence.

This extremely short interval is insufficient time to accept contractual terms. It is both unreasonable and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice to penalise such minimal activity with a Parking Charge Notice.

Furthermore, this position is supported by the BPA’s own commentary. Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the BPA, stated:

“There must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

The Code deliberately avoids setting a specific grace period for arrival because it recognises that the time required may vary depending on individual circumstances. However, it is commonly accepted through POPLA precedent and BPA guidance that anything up to 10 minutes is reasonable.

This was reinforced in a recent POPLA decision (ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) where a visit lasting 11 minutes was deemed to be within a reasonable grace period and not indicative of a parking event. In that case, the Assessor stated:

“By seeking alternative parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

While the BPA Code (Section 13.4) explicitly sets 10 minutes as the minimum grace period to leave after parking, it is logical and consistent that an equivalent or similar period should apply before any contract is formed — during the initial arrival and consideration period, particularly when no parking has occurred.

In my case:

·         No contract was entered into; the vehicle was on-site for just over 1 minute.

·        The duration was extremely brief — consistent with a driver assessing signage and then choosing to leave.

·        The photographic evidence consists only of wide-angle images taken from a distance and does not show whether the vehicle was parked or whether the driver exited the vehicle.

·        As such, there is no proof that a parking event took place, nor that the driver remained on site for any purpose other than to decide whether to stay or leave.

It is therefore respectfully concluded that the Parking Charge Notice should be cancelled, as the BPA Code of Practice has been breached due to the operator’s failure to observe a reasonable grace period for drivers deciding not to park.