Contestor Legal Services

12/06/2026

Parking Claim Dismissed Following Successful POFA Defence

I represented a client today in a small claims hearing before District Judge Lindsay in the County Court at Leeds.

The claim was brought by Napier Parking Limited and was represented by BW Legal Ltd. The claimant sought to recover an alleged parking charge by relying upon the keeper liability provisions contained in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

The defence focused principally on the claimant’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 POFA. The Notice to Keeper failed to contain the statutory warning required by Parliament, namely that any right to recover from the keeper arises only “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met.”

Despite BW Legal advancing several arguments in support of the claim and making the serious allegation that the defendant’s submissions were “misleading”, the claimant was unable to establish keeper liability. The court accepted the defendant’s position on the POFA point, with the result that the claim was dismissed.

Perhaps most surprisingly, despite having lost the claim, the claimant nevertheless sought an order for costs. The application appeared to take the court by surprise.

The case is a reminder that compliance with Schedule 4 POFA is mandatory. Where a parking operator seeks to pursue a registered keeper rather than an identified driver, strict adherence to the statutory requirements is essential. Failure to do so may prove fatal to the claim.

11/06/2026

Private Parking Companies Just Lost a Major Legal Battle
The Story

Moroslaw Ozog drove into Leeds Bradford Airport on 5 August 2023. At two separate barriers, he couldn't move — one was malfunctioning, the other blocked by traffic. Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) hit him with £100 "No Stopping" charges for each.

He didn't pay. They sued him.
He won at trial.

VCS appealed to the County Court at Wakefield, arguing the signs clearly created a contract and that the judge had been "too lenient" because Mr Ozog , a Polish national with limited English was unrepresented.

They lost again.
Why This Judgment Matters
HHJ D. Walsh's ruling delivered three major blows to the private parking industry:

No Stopping" Has Real Limits 🚫

The court ruled that "No Stopping" does not mean "no stopping for any reason whatsoever." If you're forced to stop, broken barrier, traffic gridlock, breakdown, medical emergency; that is not a breach of contract.

As the judge put it:

"The stoppage cannot be described as a matter of choice, and can only be regarded as a matter of compulsion, and thus not within the 'no stopping' term."

Signage Must Be Proven 📋

The parking company must prove you actually passed a sign. Just showing a photo of your car stationary on the road isn't enough — VCS failed to establish this for the second alleged contravention, and the claim was thrown out.

What This Means

This judgment is a significant check on aggressive private parking enforcement. The court has drawn a clear line: business models that rely on automated fines from captive motorists must respect the realities of driving.
The parking industry has been warned — your signs aren't magic, and the law still applies.

05/02/2026

Mr Jackson Yamba Secures Landmark Parking Enforcement Decision

A Watershed Moment for Motorists Across England and Wales

Mr Jackson Yamba has secured an important and consequential appeal judgment that will fundamentally impact the parking enforcement industry. The decision in Euro Parking Services Ltd v Mr Nicholas Bryant before HHJ Brownhill establishes critical legal principles regarding statutory compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Core Issue: Issue Date vs. Posting Date

The judgment clarifies a fundamental distinction that parking companies have systematically misunderstood: the posting date and the issue date are not the same thing for statutory purposes .

Under Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to Keeper is statutorily required to specify the date on which the notice is sent—whether posted or delivered by hand.

The Act further provides that when a notice is sent by post, it is presumed to be given (delivered) on the second working day after posting , not on the date of posting itself.

Euro Parking failed this requirement. By referencing the "issue date" (the posting date of 23 March) rather than the date the notice was deemed given (27 March), the Notice to Keeper did not comply with the mandatory statutory framework.

The Compliance Failure: Incorrect Payment Deadline

Beyond the dating error, Euro Parking's notice contained an additional statutory violation

The Notice stated: "Payment is required within 28 days of the issue date" (i.e., by 20 April 2023)

The statute requires: "Payment must be made after 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given"** (i.e., by 24 April 2023)

This is not merely a semantic difference. The notice gave motorists an incorrect and earlier deadline than the law permits .

HHJ Brownhill concluded:
"The explanation given on the face of the notice as to how to calculate that deadline was also wrong. It referred to the 28 days from the issue of the notice. It did not refer to the wording of paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4. On that basis, it seems to me the notice was invalid ."

Why This Matters: Mandatory Compliance is Non-Negotiable

The Notice to Keeper is a statutory notice . The provisions of Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2) are mandatory , not discretionary. As HHJ Brownhill found:

"Given its purpose and effect, the provision of the correct date is clearly important ."

A reasonable recipient cannot be expected to calculate a deadline when the notice provides an incorrect date and explanation. The notice must be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to leave no doubt about when payment is actually due.

Euro Parking's notice failed this test. The result: the Notice to Keeper was invalid, and the entire claim was dismissed .

A Victory for Motorists

This judgment represents a watershed moment for motorists. It establishes that parking companies cannot rely on technical shortcuts or sloppy administrative procedures. Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is absolute and enforceable .

If you have received a parking charge notice with an incorrect or unclear payment deadline, you now have legal grounds to challenge it.

Justice served.

03/01/2026

📣 Announcement 📣

We're thrilled to announce that starting this year, we'll be offering FREE legal guidance on parking matters on our TikTok channel! Join us today at 3 PM to get your legal questions answered live. Don’t miss this opportunity!


You can find us here:
www.tiktok.com/
We look forward to seeing you there!

69 Followers, 24 Following, 150 Likes - Watch awesome short videos created by MyLawyer