Private Parking Solutions - Hounslow PCN

intex310

Good morning all.

Absolutely gutted to get another PCN from this scammer. Wonder how many motorist might have just paid them and how they have been allowed to operate is questionable!!

Just stopped by the side of the road next to the building waiting to pick up a friend whose gone to the bank on the high street in Hounslow and next I get this PCN on the post. They managed to pick a covert picture of my vehicle!

PCN dated 01 May and only received yesterday, 9th.

Gr1pr

Reminds me of the Mrs Sunglasses scam site a few years ago by CPM or PCM or similar , or the Piccadlly Station scam site and Leeds Station scam sites run by UKCPS, or another infamous Station site down south but I forget where at the moment

Edit. ( this place. )

High Point Village - Hayes and Harlington

If its no parking then no contract was on offer to the driver, plus dropping off and picking up is not parking

Castle

OP

You may want to remove the various Parking Charge Numbers references which are still showing on those images.

Coupon-mad

Covert surveillance on foot from metres away! The person was clearly lurking & hiding purely to penalise people.

Six seconds between the photos!

Appeal and try POPLA based on no consideration period. No contract was seen, read or agreed in seconds and the car left to avoid a charge when a dirty sign in a corner was glimpsed.

intex310

Here is my draft as copy paste. Please advise before I send it.

Re PCN number: I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. The images you’ve provided on the portal was taken between 15:00:12 to 15:04:02 which is technically less than 5 minutes within which the vehicle had left.

If the allegation involves "no parking at anytime" there is no offer to park for the general public so no contract was offered and a two bit parking company cannot force a charge under a non-existent contract.

The car was not parked so any breach is denied. The Keeper will rely upon the persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E and cases of similar fact.

You have not mentioned about actual grace period agreed by the landowner. You have chosen to operate using a tactic of covert surveillance on foot from metres away! The person was clearly lurking & hiding purely to penalise people. Zone A+B, Matisse Road , Hounslow, TW3 1AA – Your alleged signs do not make the boundaries clear – this is an entrapment area you are taking an advantage with an agenda to profit from the road users.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do. More detail will be needed at POPLA stage.

intex310

These platforms are getting clever lol. One mistake in choosing the drop down menu, whole saga can flip.

intex310

Received my rejection today:

Dear Appellant,
Thank you for your correspondence.
Your appeal has now been fully reviewed and investigated, and a decision has been reached.
Please find attached the appeal decision letter for your reference PCNxxxx. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you have declined to accept liability for the Parking Charge Notice and have not identified the driver at the time of the parking event. Please be advised that, in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, where the driver has not been identified, liability for an unpaid parking charge may be transferred to the registered keeper, provided that the statutory requirements set out within the Act have been fully complied with.
We confirm that the necessary conditions under Schedule 4 have been satisfied in this instance, including the issue and service of a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the prescribed timescales and mandatory wording requirements.
Accordingly, liability for the outstanding charge now rests with you as the registered keeper. We will therefore continue to pursue recovery of the amount due.We note your assertion that no contract was formed; however, this position is not accepted.
Clear, prominent, and adequately positioned signage is displayed throughout the site, setting out the terms and conditions of parking. These terms are provided in accordance with the requirements of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which governs signage clarity, visibility, and contractual information on private land.
By entering, parking, and remaining on the site, the driver is deemed to have had sufficient opportunity to read, understand, and accept the displayed terms. In doing so, a legally binding contract is formed between the driver and the landholder/operator.
As the vehicle was observed to be in breach of these terms and conditions, the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and remains payable. Accordingly, your appeal has been unsuccessful and the parking charge remains payable.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals process, and we will not enter into any further correspondence regarding this matter.
If you are not satisfied with the outcome, you may appeal to the independent appeals service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), using the verification code provided in your appeal decision letter. Appeals must be submitted online at www.popla.co.uk within 28 days.
Photographic evidence and further information relating to your Parking Charge Notice are available on our website at www.paypps.co.uk.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,---
Appeal team
PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD

Coupon-mad

OK, like I said:

Appeal and try POPLA based on no consideration period. No contract was seen, read or agreed in and the car left within the 5 minute mandatory consideration period, to avoid a charge when a dirty sign in a corner was glimpsed.

intex310

Here's my POPLA appeal:

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Smart Parking Ltd 

Vehicle Registration: [XXX] 

POPLA ref: [XXX] 

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD – was submitted and acknowledged on [12.05.26] but subsequently rejected by an email dated [14.05.26]. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds: 

1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance. No consideration period applied.

2) Signs do not make the boundaries clear.

There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car  park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.  Furthermore, there is no boundary of the venue. Starting or entering the site claimed is not clear.

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict  proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice– 

non-compliance 

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the  end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start. 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that: 

“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not  normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and  conditions before they enter into the ‘parking 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, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.” 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:  

“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow  the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a  minimum of 10 minutes.” 

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:  

“You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park  after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the  location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end  of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” 

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) and (13.4) clearly state that the Grace Period to  enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst (13.2) and  (13.4) do not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never  entered in to), it is reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace  period each should apply to (13.1) BPA’s Code of Practice. 

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association  (BPA):

“The BPA’s guidance specifically says that 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.”  

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but  another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”  

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD claim was [less than 5 mins]) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:  

a) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage  throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice  18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract. 

b) There is no marked boundary of the private land throughout the venue which causes confusion to the applicability of the PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD Solutions Ltd’s contract, that was never  entered into in the first place. Installations of the signage only on the building adjacent to the site made it confused. No contract was seen, read or agreed in and the car left within the 5 minute mandatory consideration period, to avoid a charge when a dirty sign in a corner was glimpsed.

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:  ● Locate a sign indicating entrance 

● Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions 

● Decipher the confusing information being presented 

● Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract 

● Return to car and safely leave the car park 

c) How can it be no parking if it's a bay?  You need to think a bit deeper about this scam and your POPLA appeal first point must deal with the allegation on the PCN, and it is NOT about any permit.

2. Signs do not make the boundaries clear:

There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car  park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.  Furthermore, there is no boundary of the venue. Starting or entering the site claimed is not clear.

Appeal was rejected claiming PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD’s signage controls roadways and footpaths. Please see below:

“While we acknowledge your explanation, the restrictions displayed on site apply at all times and do not provide exemptions for parking and short duration parking on roadways or footpaths. These restrictions are in place to ensure safety, maintain access, and prevent obstruction to other users of the site. The warden’s photographic evidence confirms that the vehicle was stationary on the roadway. On private land, parking and stopping are permitted strictly in accordance with the displayed contractual terms. Vehicles stopped in restricted areas are considered unauthorised regardless of duration.”

Was the vehicle stopped on the roadway as claimed by their evidence or private land?

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict  proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

The boundaries of the site are not clear and what area the signs relate to. After trying to understand the signage, the vehicle left the site within 5 mins. Therefore, if the site map of the area monitored by the PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD was clear this would not have created any confusion to the road users.

Coupon-mad

Your case isn't about Smart Parking Ltd