Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Karl31 on March 24, 2026, 07:20:01 pm
-
Sent! Appreciate your speed, you put POPLA to shame.
-
POPLA Complaint.
POPLA Code -
POPLA Assessor - Mohsin Hussain.
Dear Lead Assessor,
I am writing to formally complain about the incorrect assessment carried out by Mohsin Hussain.
In his assessment, Mohsin clearly attempts to establish PoFA 'keeper liability' in a circumstance where such liability can never occur.
This complaint purely relates to the keeper liability issue and not the final outcome - I say this as the final outcome is not binding on myself.
Background-
The basis of my original appeal was that the NtK issued by the operator was not PoFA complaint since is omitted a significant section of mandatory information required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).
POPLA Assessor's have consistently stated that total compliance with all conditions relating to paragraph 9(2) is required in order to invoke keeper liability.
Mistakes-
In his assessment, Mohsin Hussain makes a number of critical errors which demonstrate they he does not correctly understand the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4.
In my appeal I pointed out that the required mandatory wording and two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' was not set out - this is the specific requirement of 9(2)(e).
The parking operator was not able to rebut my appeal because the wording is simply not present.
However, Mohsin steps in and immediately starts to advocate on the parking operators behalf.
Mohsin states, "While the appellant submits that the notice does not reproduce the wording of Paragraph 9(2)(e) exactly, PoFA does not require the statutory wording to be reproduced verbatim." - I should point out that I have never suggested that 'exact' verbatim replication was required - I have simply specified (in my appeal) exactly what the legislation states word for word - it is Mohsin who has jumped to the conclusion that the legislation is demanding 'verbatim wording' in terms of 9(2)(e).
I accept that verbatim wording is not required.
However, what is legally required is what is known as 'correct construction' - Correct construction is the construction of a sentence which exactly replicates the requirements of the sentence set out in the legislation - it is notable that Mohsin never attempts to convey the requirements of 'correct construction' in his assessment since conveying this information would be damaging to the parking operators position.
The parking operators NtK contains no wording which meets the requirements of 9(2)(e) verbatim or otherwise - their NtK simply skips over the requirements of 9(2)(e).
As such, the verbatim wording argument put forward by Mohsin Hussain is irrelevant since no alternative wording is present on the NtK.
It is therefore obvious that Mohsin is attempting to use the verbatim wording argument to imply that the operator does not have to meet the requirements of 9(2)(e).
This is a massive error since the verbatim wording argument does not invalidate the requirement that any alternative wording must meet the rules of correct construction - most critically, no alternative wording is mentioned by Mohsin as no alternative wording is present on the NtK.
Secondly, having stated that verbatim wording is not required, Mohsin states, "The relevant consideration is whether the notice substantially conveys the information required by Schedule 4" - this is a blatant misrepresentation of the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 since the legislation specifies that compliance is required with ALL conditions of the Schedule.
Paragraph 9(1) specifies;
A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met - condition 9(2)(e) is one of those requirements.
This is then reinforced by Paragraph 9(2)(f) which specifies;
the creditor will (IF ALL APPLICABLE CONDITIONS UNDER THIS SHEDULE ARE MET) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid - the key word there is "ALL" - partial or even substantial compliance is clearly not compliance with ALL CONDITIONS.
In very simple terms, it is entirely obvious that Mohsin is attempting to apply a reasoning which introduces considerable subjectivity to the requirements of the Schedule in a circumstance where he recognises that his Client's NtK is not complaint - Mohsin introduces his subjective wording because he recognises that the wording of the Schedule is totally objective and would leave no such room to manoeuvre.
Thirdly, Mohsin then runs through just a few of the conditions set out in paragraph 9(2) - he ticks several of the conditions off - however, and most notably, he deliberately avoids a demonstration of compliance with my specific appeal condition, namely; 9(2)(e) - this is because he still cannot meet the condition of 9(2)(e) - the wording and two limbed invitation to the keeper is simply not present in any guise.
At the end of the day, it is clear from the outset that the Assessor recognised that the NtK was not totally compliant - if it was in fact compliant he would have simply quoted the required wording directly from the NtK. However, instead of simply acknowledging its non-complaint nature, Mohsin took it on himself to bend or ignore as many requirements as needed in order to make his Client's NtK seem compliant.
The NtK does not meet the requirement of condition 9(2)(e) and there for it cannot be said that 'all the applicable conditions under this section have been met' - keeper liability cannot therefore occur.
I would also point out that Mohsin's comments on 'substantial compliance' completely contradict hundreds of POPLA assessments which are posted online where POPLA Assessors consistently state that 'total compliance is required'.
I look forward to your considered response.
Many thanks,
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
-
Nonsense from Mohsin Hussain.
He basically alters the meaning of the legislation in order to accommodate the operators PCN.
Mohsin Hussain states "The relevant consideration is whether the notice substantially conveys the information required by Schedule 4" - That's completely untrue - the relevant consideration is whether the notice meets ALL THE APPLICABLE CONDITIONS UNDER SHEDULE 4 (that's the actual wording from the statute.)
He changes the requirement of the legislation because the operators NtK does not meet the requirements if the correct wording is quoted - he is therefore circumventing the true requirements with what amounts to a substitute wording - the substitute wording is designed to introduce subjectivity in a circumstance where objectivity (provided by the true wording) would defeat the Assessor's proposed findings.
Mohsin Hussain states "PoFA does not require the statutory wording to be reproduced verbatim" - your appeal never suggested that it did - all your appeal did was to present the exact wording of the legislation - it's not the appellant's fault that the legislation is written that way - the Assessor is using a 'verbatim wording' argument to excuse the non-presence of a whole paragraph - the NtK presents no alternative wording to that required by 9(2)(e) and therefore the verbatim wording argument is irrelevant - the Assessor is therefore directly challenging the actual requirements of the legislation - the legislation specifies that "The notice must state blah blah blah" but the Assessor is claiming that the wording "must state" does not really mean "must state" etc - in other words, the Assessor is claiming the complete opposite of what the legislation specifies.
Moshsin Hussaind sets out other requirements of 9(2) and specifies that the NtK meets those requirements but this is just a 'deflection technique' which attempts to move attention away from your appeal points relating to the missing requirements of 9(2)(e) - notice how Mohsin is very careful to tiptoe around the missing requirements of 9(2)(e) when trying to demonstrate compliance?
I can try and come up with a complaint for POPLA - this is quite a rare response from POPLA as they normally acknowledge that total compliance with 9(2) is needed in order to invoke keeper liability - this is also the first time I've seen an Assessor acknowledge missing wording.
-
POPLA appeal rejected. Please advise.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CKBq4pSD/Screenshot-2026-07-08-115411-(1).png)
-
This is excellent. Much appreciated.
-
Feel free;
Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
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 PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK 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.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) 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.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out 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.
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 is understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'a warning' 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.
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,
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording required by 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 around 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 - just the orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the mandatory two legged 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 legged legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the 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).
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.
-
I’ve now received the rejection email from ECP and a POPLA reference.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kF0hc4g/page-0001.jpg)
I have been developing a ECP appeal for POPLA which I feel POPLA will find hard to refute.
Is this ready to go please?
-
I’ll go ahead and submit an appeal to ECP. If (or more likely when by the sounds of it) they reject it, I’ll come back here and we can put together the POPLA appeal you mentioned. I work from home most of the time, so I’ve got plenty of time to waste arguing with parking companies instead of doing anything productive.
Appreciate the guidance.
-
Given what was said about it not being PoFA compliant, should I just challenge ECP purely on no keeper liability under PoFA, and leave it at that for now? If it’s genuinely unlikely to be successfully challenged then of course I’d rather take the discount than risk paying the full amount.
There's no way they will accept it's not POFA compliant, and it's very unlikely POPLA will either. It keeps getting trotted out that these PCNs are not POFA compliant so the keeper can't be held liable, it's a theory, a lay opinion, not hard fact, and should not be framed in that way. Until we actually see a court case which is thrown out based solely on the alleged POFA non-compliance argument we don't know whether the argument has legs or not. Even if a judge did reject the claim it's not binding on other cases. What I can't get my head around is why so many of the big companies would issue POFA non-compliant PCNs if tweaking a few words which costs nothing would make them compliant. So if your two options are get it cancelled on appeal or pay the discounted amount now you really only have one option.
If you really want to avoid paying it you probably can, doesn't really matter what you appeal on, you're just going through the motions. You then have months of debt collectors letters probably followed by a court claim which you will need to engage with and file a defence. It's likely but not guaranteed they will drop a defended case just before they need to pay the court fee. How much is your time worth to you?
-
I feel POPLA will find hard to refute.
They like a challenge...
-
Given what was said about it not being PoFA compliant, should I just challenge ECP purely on no keeper liability under PoFA, and leave it at that for now? If it’s genuinely unlikely to be successfully challenged then of course I’d rather take the discount than risk paying the full amount.
Yes, I would do exactly that.
We can then use a more powerful appeal with POPLA.
I have been developing a ECP appeal for POPLA which I feel POPLA will find hard to refute.
-
With ECP it will be a long drawn out process before it got to a court claim.
The advice normally is that they will discontinue the claim before paying the court fee.
-
Given what was said about it not being PoFA compliant, should I just challenge ECP purely on no keeper liability under PoFA, and leave it at that for now? If it’s genuinely unlikely to be successfully challenged then of course I’d rather take the discount than risk paying the full amount.
-
I am even less local, but there is information on the internet that it’s 1 hour of free parking for McDonalds’ customers by parking in specifically marked spaces and providing the car’s registration registration on a terminal in McDonalds.
-
The driver parked near to the McDonald's to meet a mate for some food. The driver doesn't live locally, it’s about an hour away, so they only head over that way every now and then. A year or so ago, parking was free for an hour so they just assumed that was still the case. They did end up staying a bit longer than that anyway. Not sure if that actually makes much difference. If it’s still the one hour free parking, then the driver is only looking at about a 30 minute overstay, which might be easier to argue. If it’s changed to pay and display though, it could be a bit harder to fight. Please advise.
Driver did not pay and only received a notice to keeper.
-
Give us some background?
Did the driver pay?
Any receipt or ticket etc?
The notice is not PoFA compliant so there cannot be any keeper liability.
-
Hello
I have received a PCN from ECP in Cardinal Park Ipswich. Is this worth challenging please?
Let me know if you need anything further.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzKd1Gw7/FRONT_PCN.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGfFF7Q2/BACK_PCN.jpg)
Many thanks.