Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Sm86 on February 23, 2026, 12:19:31 am
-
2nd draft - It's good to go so feel free to submit.
Had to re-post in order to edit as I could no longer edit the previous version.
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Natalie Matthews
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about a recent POPLA Appeal assessed by Natalie Matthews.
In her assessment she wrongly established PoFA liability when the Notice to Keeper clearly excludes information which Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) requires.
In my appeal I clearly highlighted the missing information from the parking operators NtK.
I will now run through the mistakes made.
In her assessment, when assessing the NtK for compliance, Natalie runs through each section of paragraph 9(2) in an attempt to demonstrate compliance - the Assessor's appeal response states the following sentence;
"The PCN informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full." - this is, of course, a clear reference to the statutory requirements of 9(2)(b).
However, when examined, the operators NtK deals with the requirements of 9(2)(b) with the following sentence;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."
You will immediately notice that the legislation (correctly quoted in Natalie's sentence) requires that 9(2)(b) set out two specific pieces of information, namely; that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking, and; that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
However, when you examine the operators version of 9(2)(b), you will immediately notice that it only specifies the first requirement of 9(2)(b) - the operators version of 9(2)(b) fails to specify the second part of 9(2)(b), namely; "that the parking charges have not been paid in full."
In her assessment, Natalie clearly states that the second element of 9(2)(b) is present on the NtK when, clearly, it is not - the NtK is not therefore compliant with 9(2)(b) as it does not contain all the elements of information which 9(2)(b) requires and, as such, it therefore fails the PoFA keeper liability test as 50% of the requisite information is not provided to the Keeper in the manner which the legislation demands.
Operator compliance can only be met with a sentence which reflects the two demands of 9(2)(b) connected by the word 'and'.
Therefore the complaint sentence should read something like;
"You are informed under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"
I should point out that I never raised this as a specific appeal point because my appeal points regarding 9(2)(e) are demonstrably stronger given that a whole paragraph is obviously missing from the NtK. However, it was Natalie who choose to raise the subject of step by step compliance and, as such, it is important that she demonstrates an adequate level of competence when dealing with PoFA compliance wording and format.
I do however accept that all Assessors should check each NtK for compliance in each instance where PoFA compliance is raised in an appeal and therefore I accept that Natalie was following a correct process.
In simple terms, the missing element of 9(2)(b) is immediately fatal to the operators reliance of PoFA and this is a serious error on the part of the POPLA assessor given that the wording of paragraph 9(2)(b) is not complex and sets out only two extremely simple drafting requirements.
Furthermore;
Natalie then states the following (when commenting on the NtK);
"It also says that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— to pay the unpaid parking charges; or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."
In simple terms, the NtK does not contain this statement - the wording (paragraph) simply isn't present - if this paragraph is present then feel free to highlight it on the operators Ntk?
Natalie's comments are a reference to the requirements of 9(2)(e) and were the basis of my appeal points.
It is important to note that I invited the parking operator to specifically demonstrate compliance with term 9(2)(e) by highlighting the required paragraph on their own NtK - they were unable to rebut this appeal point - instead they stated that the legislation did not require verbatim replication of mandatory wording - the operator was unable to demonstrate how the requirements of 9(2)(e) were being met by their own NtK.
I would also add, that it is not the POPLA Assessors job to provide a rebuttal on the parking operator's behalf.
The POPLA Assessor appears to have broken with established POPLA procedure in this respect.
It is clear from the operators own evidence that they were unable to rebut my three appeal points.
However, the Assessor appears to take on the case for them in that respect.
If the operator is unable to demonstrate compliance within their own document then how can the NtK possibly be complaint?
When examined, the operators NtK moves directly from the requirements of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of 9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(e) is completely overlooked and it's requirements are never met on the NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies the following;
The Notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
We are therefore looking for a specific paragraph which sets out the mandatory wording immediately followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper which the legislation specifies. Notice the use of the word "and" which joins up the requirements of 9(2)(e) - that the notice must set out the mandatory wording AND invite the keeper to either pay OR nominate another driver - the legislation therefore sets out the format of the paragraph as well as the specific wording - i.e. the mandatory wording followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper.
In her assessment, Natalie totally ignores the specific objective requirements of 9(2)(e) and implies that compliance can be achieved subjectively by implying that the notice does, at certain points, meet the requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) - this suggestion is clearly incorrect and totally ignores the specific wording and structure of the legislation - Natalie appears to pay no regard to the format which the legislation requires when presenting the wording and the two limbed choice - this gives the impression that she is skipping over awkward appeal points which demonstrate non-compliance.
Irrespective of Natalie's comments on 9(2)(e), the notice never states, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" and the notice never sets out the two limbed invitation to the keeper which 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
As I said previously, the operators notice clearly moves from 9(2)(b) to 9(2)(f) without satisfying 9(2)(e).
In order to be compliant, the operator would need to insert a paragraph (in their NtK) between 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(f) which sets out the following;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver - the keeper is therefore invited (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or, (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."
I am happy that the operators version of 9(2)(f) does meet the statutory requirements but this is irrelevant in the absence of the paragraph required by 9(2)(e) - the presence of 9(2)(f) does not negate the requirements of other paragraph since each paragraph has it's own specific requirements / wording / choices etc.
In the instance of 9(2)(e), the POPLA Assessor has ignored both the absent statutory wording and the missing two limbed choice, separated by the word 'or' which must be presented to the keeper - this is a further serious error by Natalie.
I should also additionally point out that I did not raise the issue of 'verbatim wording' - this subject was brought up by the parking operator in response to my quoting of the legislative requirement of 9(2)(e) in my initial appeal.
The legislation clearly specifies that, "The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."
It appears that the operator realised that their notice did not contain the wording required by the legislation and therefore had to make an excuse for its absence - that excuse was 'that the legislation does not require verbatim wording' - the operator was unable to support their assertion and I drew the Assessors attention to that fact - under POPLA rules the appellant and the operator are both required to provide evidence to support legal assertions in each appeal - in this instance the operator made an assertion but provided no evidence for the Assessor to review in order to support that assertion.
I should also point out that the operator was also unable to demonstrate any alternative wording which satisfied the requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, my appeal point was left un-rebutted.
The Assessor then also specified that verbatim wording was not required but she also provided no evidence to support her assertion and I'm struggling to find any legal precedent to support her position.
However, this is an irrelevant argument since the legislation is so objectively clear in it's wording that there can be no other interpretation of the requirements which can be applied to the term, "The notice MUST STATE blah blah blah" - the notice either 'STATES' the required sentence or it does not - in this instance, the notice does not state the information which paragraph 9(2)(e) requires and as such the notice can never be PoFA compliant.
If the notice states that, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" then please highlight that statement - I think that it is pretty obvious by now that if that statement were present, followed by the two limbed choice, then someone would have pointed it out by now!
Ultimately, the operators NtK fails to provide the information required by 9(2)(b) and completely skips over the entire requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) relating to both wording and format.
Irrespective of the verbatim wording argument, what this case demonstrates is the problems which an operator can find themselves in when they vary their wording and format away from the wording and format set out in the statute.
In this instance, that variation has left areas of the legislation uncovered and made the notice non-compliant.
I look forward to your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
You could send the following to POPLA;
****** Actually ***** STOP PRESS ***** Don't send yet. I was in a hurry earlier - I have a few tweaks to make.
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Natalie Matthews
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about a recent POPLA Appeal assessed by Natalie Matthews.
In her assessment she wrongly established PoFA liability when the Notice to Keeper clearly excludes information which Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) requires.
In my appeal I clearly highlighted the missing information from the parking operators NtK.
I will now run through the mistakes made.
In her assessment, when assessing the NtK for compliance, Natalie runs through each section of paragraph 9(2) in an attempt to demonstrate compliance - the Assessor's appeal response states the following sentence;
"The PCN informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full." - this is, of course, a clear reference to the statutory requirements of 9(2)(b).
However, when examined, the operators NtK clearly deals with the requirements of 9(2)(b) with the following sentence;
"You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."
You will immediately notice that the legislation (correctly quoted in Natalie's sentence) requires that 9(2)(b) set out two specific pieces of information, namely; that the driver is required to pay the parking charges, and; that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
However, when you examine the operators version of 9(2)(b), you will immediately notice that it only specifies the first requirement of 9(2)(b) - the operators version of 9(2)(b) fails to specify the second part of 9(2)(b), namely; "that the parking charges have not been paid in full."
In her assessment, Natalie clearly states that the second element of 9(2)(b) is present on the NtK when, clearly, it is not - the NtK is not therefore compliant with 9(2)(b) as it does not contain all the elements of information which 9(2)(b) requires and, as such, it therefore fails the PoFA keeper liability test as the requisite information is not provided to the Keeper in the manner which the legislation demands.
I should point out that I never raised this as a specific appeal point because my appeal points regarding 9(2)(e) are demonstrably strong. However, it was Natalie who choose to raise the subject of step by step compliance and, as such, it is important that she demonstrates an adequate level of competence when dealing with PoFA compliance.
In simple terms, the missing element of 9(2)(b) is immediately fatal to the operators reliance of PoFA and this is a serious error on the part of the POPLA assessor given that the wording of paragraph 9(2)(b) is not complex and sets out only two extremely simple drafting requirements.
Furthermore;
Natalie then states the following (when commenting on the NtK);
"It also says that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— to pay the unpaid parking charges; or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."
In simple terms, the NtK does not contain this statement - the wording (paragraph) simply isn't present - if this paragraph is present then feel free to highlight it on the operators Ntk?
Natalie's comments are a reference to the requirements of 9(2)(e) and were the basis of my appeal points.
It is important to note that I invited the parking operator to specifically demonstrate compliance with term 9(2)(e) by highlighting the required paragraph on their own NtK - they were unable to rebut this appeal point - instead they stated that the legislation did not require verbatim replication of mandatory wording - the operator was unable to demonstrate how the requirements of 9(2)(e) were being met by their own NtK.
It is not the POPLA Assessors job to provide a rebuttal on the parking operator's behalf.
The POPLA Assessor appears to have broken with established POPLA procedure in this respect.
It is clear from the operators own evidence that they were unable to rebut my three appeal points.
However, the Assessor appears to take on the case for them in that respect.
If the operator is unable to demonstrate compliance within their own document then how can the NtK possibly be complaint?
When examined, the operators NtK moves directly from the requirements of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of 9(2)(f).
Paragraph 9(2)(e) is completely overlooked and it's requirements are never met on the NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies the following;
The Notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
We are therefore looking for a specific paragraph which sets out the mandatory wording immediately followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper which the legislation specifies. Notice the use of the word "and" which joins up the requirements of 9(2)(e) - that the notice must set out the mandatory wording AND invite the keeper to either pay OR nominate another driver - the legislation therefore sets out the format of the paragraph as well as the specific wording - i.e. the mandatory wording followed by the two limbed invitation to the keeper.
In her assessment, Natalie totally ignores the specific requirements of 9(2)(e) and implies that compliance can be achieved subjectively by implying that the notice does, at certain points, meet the requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) - this suggestion is clearly incorrect and totally ignores the specific wording of the legislation.
Irrespective of Natalie's comments on 9(2)(e), the notice never states, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" and the notice never sets out the two limbed invitation to the keeper which 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.
As I said previously, the operators notice clearly moves from 9(2)(b) to 9(2)(f) without satisfying 9(2)(e).
It is also worth pointing out, that whilst 9(2)(f) does also specify similar mandatory wording (set out as a warning to the keeper), the wording of 9(2)(f) does not satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, the requirements of 9(2)(e) are completely separate to 9(2)(f) - if parliament meant for 9(2)(f) to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) then they would have simply removed 9(2)(e) from the statute - the fact that 9(2)(e) exists demonstrates that it has it's own requirements.
In this instance the POPLA Assessor has ignored both the absent statutory wording and the missing two limbed choice, separated by the word 'or' which must be presented to the keeper - this is a further serious error by Natalie.
I should also point out that I did not raise the issue of 'verbatim wording' - this subject was brought up by the parking operator in response to my quoting of the legislative requirement of 9(2)(e)
The legislation clearly specifies that, "The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."
It appears that the operator realised that their notice did not contain the wording required by the legislation and therefore had to make an excuse for its absence - that excuse was 'that the legislation does not require verbatim wording' - the operator was unable to support their assertion and I drew the Assessors attention to that fact - the operator was also unable to demonstrate any alternative wording which satisfied the requirements of 9(2)(e) and, as such, my appeal point was left un-rebutted.
The Assessor then also specified that verbatim wording was not required but this is an irrelevant argument since the legislation is so objectively clear in it's wording that there can be no other interpretation of the requirements which can be applied to the term, "The notice MUST STATE blah blah blah" - the notice either 'STATES' something or it does not - in this instance, the notice does not state the information which paragraph 9(2)(e) requires and as such the notice can never be PoFA compliant.
If the notice states that, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" then please highlight that statement - I think that it is pretty obvious by now that if that statement were present, followed by the two limbed choice, then someone would have pointed it out by now.
Ultimately, the operators NtK fails to provide the information required by 9(2)(b) and completely skips over the entire requirements of 9(2)(e) / 9(2)(e)(i) / 9(2)(e)(ii) relating to both wording and format.
I look forward to your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
👍🏻
-
Ignore debt collectors. As you will probably be aware from your time in that sector, debt collectors are not interested in any communication that doesn't involve you paying up, and won't do anything other than send threatening letters.
At some point they'll get bored and refer back to their client, who'll have the choice to either give up or instruct solicitors.
-
Is the best approach to totally ignore them if they begin debt collection?
Or send a letter objecting and invite court action if they disagree?
I used to work in the debt sector and would do this for statue barred debt. Not sure if this is a good approach here
-
I'll come up with a complaint email.
I've noticed another area of non-compliance on the operators NtK which the assessor seems not to flag.
In my opinion there is little chance of this case ever being successful at Court but that won't stop them pressuring you.
-
That's good to know. Let's keep going 🤷🏻♂️
Am I waiting for a debt collection letter now before we take our next steps?
And is it worth lodging a complaint with Popla about our friend Natalie?
-
Small Claims track means virtually no costs. Definitely not legal costs even if you lose.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14
Costs on the small claims track
27.14
(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies
(Rule 46.13 makes provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)
(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –
(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim, calculated in accordance with Table 2 in Practice Direction 45;
(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27A for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;
(c) any court fees paid by that other party;
(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27A for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;
(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27A for an expert’s fees;
(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably; and
(h) the applicable Stage 1 and, where relevant, the Stage 2 fixed costs in Table 10 and Table 11 in Practice Direction 45 where –
(i) the claim was within the scope of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (‘the RTA Protocol’) or the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims (‘the EL/PL Protocol’);
(ii) the claimant reasonably believed that the claim was valued at more than the small claims track limit in accordance with paragraph 4.1(4) of the relevant Protocol; and
(iii) the defendant admitted liability under the process set out in the relevant Protocol; but
(iv) the defendant did not pay those Stage 1 and, where relevant, Stage 2 fixed costs; and
(i) in an appeal, the cost of any approved transcript reasonably incurred.
(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.
(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901(a lay representative).
-
Ok. Is it ultimately a civil case that could end up in court?
What's your experience with cases like mine? Obviously we hoped Popla would handle it properly but that hasn't happened. Once a Popla decision hasn't gone in your favour, would that essentially weaken the case if it ended up in front of a judge?
I assume I would be responsible for legal costs too should that happen?
-
Is the Popla process exhausted?
Yes.
Do I pay the fine?
It is your money and therefore your choice. If you wish to continue to fight, ignore the debt collector's letters that they will send, and return here for advice if you receive a Letter of Claim from Secure Parking's solicitors.
-
Where do we stand now?
Is the Popla process exhausted?
Do I pay the fine?
-
I thought so. Seems to totally ignore the grounds for challenging.
Her name is Natalie Matthews
https://ibb.co/67TD849m
Yes, I agree.
And Natalie Matthews has form for this.
Notice in particular how she avoids any demonstration of compliance in the manner which we asked for.
She states, (when discussing the wording of the NtK) that, "It also says that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - is does not - there is no such wording present on the NtK - she has basically made this up in order to verbally imply compliance in a scenario where the operator has not been able to rebut your appeal point.
-
I thought so. Seems to totally ignore the grounds for challenging.
Her name is Natalie Matthews
https://ibb.co/67TD849m
-
What was the assessors name?
There's a clear error in the assessment.
We can formulate a complaint.
-
Some bad news arrived today. Popla rejected the appeal.
This was their response -
Decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which details the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise that the car park is an authorised users only car park. The signage goes on to state that failure to meet the above terms will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) is a law that allows parking operators to transfer liability to the registered keeper in the event the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. Furthermore, I acknowledge their comments about the words on POFA being verbatim, however, this is not the case. The requirements of 9(2)(a) to (i) must state the various requirements. Whilst I concede that they have not followed the exact format from (a) to (i), and possibly not the words to the letter, they have covered all the requirements of POFA. The PCN is issued within 14 days of the parking event. The PCN stipulates the reason for the PCN and includes images of the offending vehicle. The PCN informs the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; and describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable. It goes on to specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is specified in the notice; and no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)). It also says that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— to pay the unpaid parking charges; or if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver. The PCN also makes it clear that Secure Parking Solutions LTD is the creditor. The PCN warns the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid. The PCN also goes on to inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available, identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). Therefore, I am satisfied that the PCN meets POFA. I acknowledge they feel the never rebutted their appeal points during the initial appeal. If the appellant has any issues surrounding the operator’s appeal process, they will need to take this up with the operator directly. POPLA is an appeals service; we are unable to comment on the operator’s appeal process. Customer service issues should be directed to the operator. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the car park. In this instance, as the driver was not a authorised to use the car park, they were not permitted to park in the car park. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
-
Unfortunately not. It says once submitted that's it.
-
I'm fairly sure you can't once submitted.
-
Quick question; is it possible to either amend or add further comments on the operators evidence?
I've noticed a couple of extra points which may add weight to the non-compliant NtK.
-
I submitted this today. Thanks so much for all your help, it really is appreciated. I will keep you updated on the outcome.
-
Comments on operator's evidence.
In the first instance, the operator has not rebutted any of my appeal points using their provided NtK - this is because the NtK is not compliant - providing their NtK would only prove non-compliance and, as such, they have avoided this situation.
The parking operator states, "The NtK substantially complies with PoFA requirements" - 'substantial compliance' is NOT sufficient for PoFA Schedule 4 since the legislation states that compliance occurs, "if ALL the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met" - an admission of substantial compliance is an admission that the notice is not totally compliant.
The operator states, "The legislation does not require verbatim replication of statutory wording, but rather that the notice conveys the required information clearly " - this is a totally unsupported legal assertion - the wording used in the legislation is totally objective in nature and the operator has provided no legal evidence to support their claim - the operator is deliberately trying to introduce subjectivity to term 9(2)(e) when the wording is legally tight.
The operator attempts to show compliance with 9(2)(e) where they state, "The NtK confirms that liability may be transferred to the keeper in the absence of driver details, thereby fulfilling the statutory intent" - This is not a correct interpretation of 9(2)(e) - The operator has fallen into the trap which I mentioned in my initial appeal; namely, they are attempting to use the wording from 9(2)(f) (the transfer of liability after 28 days) to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) - the warning that liability could be transferred bears no relevance to the requirement set out in 9(2)(e) which specifies 'that the notice must state that the creditor does not know the name and address of the driver' - the 'statutory intent' is not therefore met since the two sentences have totally different and unrelated meanings - ultimately, the operator could easily show compliance with 9(2)(e) by providing their NtK and marking the relevant statement with an orange rectangle as I requested in my appeal point - they avoid this request because the specific wording is not present on their NtK.
9(2)(e) specifies;
The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
In this instance, the words MUST STATE can have no other interpretation - importantly, the legislation does not say MUST IMPLY or MUST SUGGEST - the wording couldn't be legally tighter - in simple terms, the notice does not contain any sentence of wording which reflects the requirements of 9(2)(e) and therefore the notice is not compliant with Schedule 4.
Furthermore, there is no two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver' - the suggestion that other parts of the notice loosely satisfy those requirements is nonsense since the legislation requires that the invitation is presented in a clear fashion with the two limbed choice directed at the keeper and that this two limbed invitation must be given immediately after the statutory wording specified by 9(2)(e).
The operator makes NO ATTEMPT to demonstrate the correct presentation of the two limbed invitation and the method of suggested compliance is demonstrably chaotic.
If both the sentence and two limbed choice is in fact present on the NtK then I now invite the POPLA Assessor to clearly set out the sentence and two limbed invitation? PLEASE DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS POINT - Please use the numbered appeal points in my original appeal as to ensure that all appeal points are addressed.
Compliance is actually achieved with the following paragraph;
>>>>>>>>>>
At the present time the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
The Keeper is therefore invited to;
i) Pay the unpaid parking charges;
Or
ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
>>>>>>>>>>
Many thanks.
-
I can come up with something.
They're on the ropes with the PoFA compliance issue - we can now exploit this.
-
To be honest it's all a bit confusing to me and I have just been following @InterCity125 guidance
Hopefully he will see me through this 🙏🏻
-
You need to rebut any of the points they make with which you disagree, otherwise they will claim that you agree with them.
If you post your draft response here before sending it, you will get input.
-
They have given me 7 days to respond.
-
They responded with the following -
Summary
1. Introduction Secure Parking Solutions Ltd (the “Operator”) respectfully submits this response to the appeal made by the registered keeper. The Parking Charge has been issued correctly following a clear breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions at the site. The site operates as a private land customer-only parking facility, strictly limited to patrons whilst they are physically present on the premises. The contravention occurred when the vehicle remained on site without meeting this requirement. 2. Keeper Liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) The appellant’s primary argument relates to alleged non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Paragraph 9(2)(e). The Operator confirms: A Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 04/02/2026, within the statutory timeframe required under PoFA. The NtK includes all mandatory statutory elements, including: Identification of the creditor; Details of the parking event; The outstanding Parking Charge; The period of parking; The circumstances under which the charge became payable. Response to Appellant’s Specific PoFA Arguments: Appeal Point 1 – “NtK does not state the creditor does not know the driver details” The NtK substantially complies with PoFA requirements. The legislation does not require verbatim replication of statutory wording, but rather that the notice conveys the required information clearly. The NtK confirms that liability may be transferred to the keeper in the absence of driver details, thereby fulfilling the statutory intent. Appeal Point 2 – “No valid invitation to keeper” The NtK provides the keeper with: The option to pay the outstanding Parking Charge, or The ability to identify the driver and provide a serviceable address This satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(e)(ii). Appeal Point 3 – “No invitation to pay” The NtK clearly states that the Parking Charge is payable and provides instructions on how to make payment. This constitutes a valid and compliant invitation to the keeper. Accordingly, full compliance with PoFA has been achieved, and keeper liability has been correctly established. 3. Nature of the Site and Contractual Position This is not a pay & display or public parking facility. The signage clearly states: “Patrons only whilst on the premises.” This constitutes a conditional licence to park, forming a legally binding contract when a driver enters and remains on the land. The driver is permitted to park only if they are a genuine customer and remain on-site. Any deviation from this condition results in a contractual breach. By leaving the premises or failing to meet the patron requirement, the driver breaches the contractual terms, thereby triggering the Parking Charge. This position is supported by established case law, including: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – confirming that parking charges on private land are enforceable where terms are clear and prominently displayed. 4. BPA Code of Practice Compliance The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and fully complies with the BPA Code of Practice. Signage (Section 19 & 21 of BPA Code) The site has: 1 entrance sign 2 Terms and Conditions signs Signage is: Clearly visible upon entry; Positioned to be readable before parking; Written in clear and intelligible language. The signage explicitly states the restriction to patrons only, ensuring transparency and compliance with: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness and transparency of terms) Grace Periods (Section 13 of BPA Code) The appellant has not raised grace periods, however for completeness: Grace periods apply only where a permitted parking session exists (e.g., paid parking or maximum stay). In this case: The vehicle was not authorised to park at all, as the driver was not a patron. Therefore, no grace period applies. 5. Evidence of Breach The Operator relies on: MNPR camera evidence, confirming: Entry time: 13:31:03 Exit time: 13:37:10 Duration: 6 minutes 7 seconds No evidence of patron activity or authorisation. The duration is sufficient to establish that: The driver entered, Parked, And remained without complying with site conditions. 6. On the Appellant’s Interpretation of Contract Law The appellant attempts to argue technical deficiencies in statutory wording. However: POPLA assesses substantive compliance, not hyper-technical drafting arguments. The Operator has met: Statutory requirements under PoFA Contractual transparency requirements under Consumer Rights Act 2015 Operational standards under BPA Code of Practice The contractual terms were: Clearly displayed, Reasonable, And enforceable. 7. Conclusion The vehicle was parked in breach of clearly displayed Terms and Conditions. The Parking Charge was issued in accordance with: Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 BPA Code of Practice Established case law (ParkingEye v Beavis) Keeper liability has been correctly established. The appellant’s arguments regarding PoFA non-compliance are unfounded. 8. Request to POPLA In light of the above, Secure Parking Solutions Ltd respectfully requests that POPLA: Reject the appeal, and Uphold the Parking Charge in full.
-
Thank you so much. Will send it now.
-
POPLA Appeal.
POPLA CODE -
Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my representations purely as keeper.
I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal points and the parking operator must rebut them?
Non compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK clearly fails to comply with PoFA and, as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.
In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
The operator claims, in their initial appeal response, that their NtK is a, "POFA-compliant parking charge notice" - simply stating that does not automatically make it compliant and close examination is required - this is ignored in their appeal response.
PoFA (2012) Schedule 4;
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) of the statute sets out the following;
THE NOTICE MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the operators NtK.
A precise examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the STATING of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e) itself.
The legislation specifies that THE NOTICE MUST STATE, "that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver"
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present and therefore it cannot be said that the NtK 'STATES' the specified wording.
The wording, "THE NOTICE MUST STATE", is clearly and deliberately 100% objective, legally very specific and uninterpretable in any other fashion - there can be no argument that subjectivity can be introduced in order to imply compliance - the words "MUST STATE" cannot mean anything other than 'must state'.
This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver'
Please again note the exact wording of the statute;
That the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND invite the keeper— blah blah blah
I have capitalised the word AND for good reason since the word AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic have been satisfied.
Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different meanings and it is important that the correct wording in understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'warnings to the keeper' be set out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an invite and an invite is not a warning.
So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.
Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).
So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance issues on the operators NtK.
So, back to the formal approach which POPLA demands;
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording set out by term 9(2)(e), namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle outlining the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the legally required two limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two limbed legal invitation to the keeper which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently the sub-term 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again, I ask the parking operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f) - additionally, please do not confuse this 'invitation to the keeper to paid the unpaid charges' with the statement required by 9(2)(b) which states that the DRIVER is required to pay the parking charges.
If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure that all appeal points are correctly addressed / rebutted / left unchallenged.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
Thanks
-
Hi
Any luck with this?
Thanks
Will try and come up with something in the next 24 hours.
-
Hi
Any luck with this?
Thanks
-
Thanks so much.
-
No problem.
We expected this.
We'll come up with a POPLA appeal.
-
No!
I'd simply send the text that was suggested earlier.
DO NOT USE AI
Obviously you will add the PCN number etc.
Hi,
So they responded today and delcined unfortunately.
I have attached photos of the letter they sent.
Any help would be great.
Thanks
https://ibb.co/GQt8RcDp
https://ibb.co/DH3y8dSs
https://ibb.co/b5hQFkkb
-
Ok, thanks.
-
No!
I'd simply send the text that was suggested earlier.
DO NOT USE AI
Obviously you will add the PCN number etc.
-
A little help from ChatGPT. Does this look ok?
Subject: PCN [number] – Formal Keeper Appeal
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM].
I dispute your Parking Charge Notice.
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore you have not established keeper liability.
In particular (but not limited to):
You have failed to specify the required period of parking as required by Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a). Merely stating observation times is insufficient.
Your notice does not contain fully compliant keeper liability wording required by the Act.
The alleged observation period of approximately six minutes also fails to allow the mandatory grace periods required under the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
As you have not met the strict statutory conditions, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.
For the avoidance of doubt:
The driver has not been identified.
I am under no obligation to name the driver and will not be doing so.
Please now either:
Cancel the Parking Charge Notice, or
Provide a POPLA verification code so that I may refer the matter to Parking on Private Land Appeals.
I do not consent to debt recovery action while this charge is in dispute.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Registered Keeper
-
Thank you, very much appreciated.
I will send this tomorrow.
-
You could reply to them with the following;
I am the registered keeper.
As your notice is not PoFA compliant I will not be accepting any liability for the outstanding parking charges.
The driver is not known to you and I will not be providing any driver details.
Your options are;
Cancel the notice
OR
Waste further money by providing a POPLA code.
Many thanks,
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
-
As suspected, the notice does not meet the requirements of PoFA.
Hi,
Could you point me in the right direction/advise me on how I should challenge this?
Thank you
-
As suspected, the notice does not meet the requirements of PoFA.
-
Thanks for the response.
The letter is dated 04 February 2026.
It was recieved 13 February 2026.
Here are the other photos.
https://ibb.co/pBHHjht3
https://ibb.co/5WZ7Y3rM
-
Sm86, you need to also post a copy of the back of the Parking Charge Notice you received. The wording is probably defective given what's written on the front, but the text on the back is just as important.
What date did you receive the parking charge notice?
-
Advice required please -
Driver parked the vehicle on a pavement in front of the shop, in between cars, and visited a neighbouring shop for around 10 mins.
Did not notice the signage as it was placed in window and could have been obstructed by another vehicle/bins. No bays, no signage on post when entering etc. Signage on a cluttered wall.
Letter also arrived late.
Any help is much appreciated.
Will upload photos.
https://ibb.co/dsGpSzWt
https://ibb.co/q3rF2F8r
https://ibb.co/C3TVjY1B
(https://ibb.co/dsGpSzWt)
(https://ibb.co/q3rF2F8r)
(https://ibb.co/C3TVjY1B)