Private Parking Solutions - Hounslow PCN

1505grandad

You are also using/quoting the wrong CoP - the The private parking sector single Code of Practice dated 17.2.2025 is the current doc.

intex310

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82023992#Comment_82023992

Grace period 5.1 and 5.2; thank you. what about signage code please?

intex310

Here's edited one. Also please help with BPA code 18.2 and 18.3 are correct.

Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) 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 – 

The BPA’s Code of Practice 05 under Duration of parking period states:

As a matter of contract law, drivers need to be given an appropriate opportunity to understand and decide whether to accept the terms and conditions that apply should they choose to park a vehicle on controlled land. The amount of time needed varies according to the nature and size of the premises, and in car parks open to the public includes the time needed to find and access a vacant parking bay, or to leave the premises should the driver decide not to park, hence the need for a consideration period before the contract between the driver and the parking operator is made. It is also a requirement to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period where parking is permitted, and all terms and conditions have been complied with.

5.1. Consideration period Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B. The following factors should be taken into account: a) the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs;

In this case, the driver found the signage stuck on one side of the building only.

5.2 states

“A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace Period.”

The driver located the signage on the side of the building tried to interpret the understanding of No Parking in a parked bays, within 5 mins, left the site.

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? 

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 or private land as claimed by their evidence?

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.

James_Poisson

You cannot just state there are no entrance signs you need to prove it otherwise the idiots will take an office master copy as evidence from the PPC.

Quite clearly this does not conform to the COP on entrance signage (if still current) it just looks like a normal road and the whole place is a lucrative honeytrap:

Where are the boundaries markings etc. and if there is no parking or stopping in the area you briefly stopped you would expect clear road markings, and in your face signage:

Coupon-mad

Remove this awful intro somebody wrote once (it was awful then too!) because it's unnecessary and ungrammatical:

"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,"

intex310

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82025146#Comment_82025146

Can I post it after that edit please? Is BPA Code of Practice  18.2 and 18.3 quoted still valid?

Coupon-mad

Don't know, you'd have to Google it and my phone blocks the BPA document link!

intex310

Ok thanks @Coupon-mad.

Looks like 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 for signages.

It is almost 26th day today and coming up to my deadline for POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Nope. POPLA Codes last till day 33. Please don't tell us otherwise nor quote from the rejection letter or the daft POPLA website where it says 28 days, thanks!

We know what we are doing…

intex310

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82028174#Comment_82028174

Apologies if I have ever undermined yours or any other's advice. Could have never been able to fight back with PCNs without this forum.

Yes, it did say 28 days from the date of rejection. Once again, apologies.