Private Parking Solutions - Hounslow PCN

Car1980

I'd major on the mess of the road and submit something like this:

There is no marked boundary of the private land and absolutely no demarcation to differentiate it from public highway. It's simply a mish-mash of different tarmac types. There are no restrictions indicated on the ground - the parking company clearly has the option of utilising double lines or hatchings but intentionally chooses not to. Clearly if no parking at any time was the intention, this could be communicated and established quite easily. The onus is on the parking company to make any restrictions clear. Instead the parking company has installed a small, inconspicuous sign that refers to no area in particular and utilises a gentleman who hides in order to take covert photos. It is an entrapment site.

Within the 5 minute mandatory consideration period the small, grubby sign on the building was glimpsed. Despite it being completely unclear what area it referrred to, the car left in order to "play it safe". Whatever contractual offer was allegedly being made was rejected and no contract was formed between the two parties.

intex310

What are those white lines?

Car1980

Some sort of ancient crossing to nowhere by the looks of it

intex310

Can i send it over now?

Appeal re PCN [x] v PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD

Vehicle Registration: [x] 

POPLA Verification code: [x]

Date: 09.06.26

Dear Sir/s,

As a registered keeper of the vehicle, I would like to thank you for allowing me to appeal my case for your consideration.

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 (PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS (LONDON) LTD) evidence dated 13.05.26 on my appeal rejection? “The warden’s photographic evidence confirms that the vehicle was stationary on the roadway.”

There is no marked boundary of the private land and absolutely no demarcation to differentiate it from public highway. It's simply a mish-mash of different tarmac types. There are no restrictions indicated on the ground - the parking company clearly has the option of utilising double lines or hatchings but intentionally chooses not to. Clearly if no parking at any time was the intention, this could be communicated and established quite easily. The onus is on the parking company to make any restrictions clear. Instead the parking company has installed a small, inconspicuous sign that refers to no area in particular and utilises a gentleman who hides in order to take covert photos. It is an entrapment site.

There is no signage facing the driver – please see Fig 5

Within the 5 minute mandatory consideration period the small, grubby sign on the building was glimpsed. Despite it being completely unclear what area it referred to, the car left in order to "play it safe". Whatever contractual offer was allegedly being made was rejected and no contract was formed between the two parties.

This could all have been avoided if the intention of the parking attendant or the company using a covert scheme to photograph evidence and generate revenue but not a bit of initiation to inform the drivers in that area about the road, or the part of the road, as they claimed in my rejected appeal is private and under their control, as well as it benefits treating it as a red route like TFL does.

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.

Pictures from Google map 09.06.26. Fig 1

Pictures from Google map 09.06.26. Fig 2

Pictures from Google map 09.06.26. Fig 3

No boundary markings from public to private.

Pictures from Google map 09.06.26. Fig 4

There seems to be a demarcation between public and private where that red car has parked.

No demarcation between public and private land. You can see the man standing next to the metal separation (Fig 5 below) which is between the parking line where the grey car has parked. If you compare this with the google map Fig 1. Broad lines like zebra crossings disappears.

Picture taken on stie 09.06.26; Fig 5 - There is no signage facing the driver.

Faded white lines. Is that a demarcation between public and private land where that red car has parked?

Picture taken on site 09.06.26; Fig 6

Coupon-mad

Isn't it not so much about just poor signs? It's more about the SURFACE MARKINGS are so old and badly faded that no area for parking - or not parking - is visible at all?

intex310

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030168#Comment_82030168

I don't know what to remove as I just copied it all.

Coupon-mad

I didn't tell you to remove anything.

intex310

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82030336#Comment_82030336

Thnx added that.

intex310

Should I submit it?

Castle

Since this is London, the area from the edge of the carriageway to the boundary would be considered a footway and therefore subject to statutory control.