Classification: Official
Our ref: <snip>
Dear <tango33>
Thank you for your recent correspondence.
We value people contacting us with information. This helps us to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and protect people and businesses from being disadvantaged by unfair practices.
Please be aware that the CMA has no powers to take action or open a case on behalf of an individual customer or business to intervene or adjudicate in disputes. The CMA cannot provide legal advice or guidance on compliance with the law on an individual basis. We also can’t say whether a specific situation could breach the law.
What happens now?
Our Intelligence Team will now analyse your enquiry using our published prioritisation principles. We prioritise the cases that are most likely to make a real difference for people and the UK economy based on our available resources and the likelihood of a successful outcome.
Can I get an update on my enquiry?
We are unable to give you an update on your enquiry. We find all enquiries useful to inform our current and future work. However, we offer no guarantee as to where or how your enquiry may be used.
Will the CMA investigate my enquiry?
We review all the enquiries that we receive. This helps us to understand:
whether different industries in the UK economy are competitive
if competition law is being broken
if shoppers or businesses are being disadvantaged.
Even if we don’t immediately investigate your enquiry, it may lead to us taking further action in the future.
Do I need to do anything else?
You do not need to do anything. If we need further information, we will contact you.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Carol Sampson (she/her) | Enquiries Admin Officer | Strategy, Communications and Advocacy | Competition and Markets Authority
The Cabot | 25 Cabot Square | London | E14 4QZ
http://www.gov.uk/cma | @CMAgovUK
Another letter from TNC Collections arrived today.
To: consumer@cma.gov.uk
Subject: Complaint under DMCC Act 2024 – POPLA / Flexible Resolution Services (FRS) – Systemic Denial of Consumer Redress
Dear Consumer Protection Team,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 regarding Flexible Resolution Services Ltd (FRS), the regulated ADR provider operating the POPLA appeals process for parking charge notices issued by members of the British Parking Association (BPA).
This complaint concerns a systemic failure of consumer redress and fair process, which I believe falls squarely within the CMA’s expanded remit under the DMCC Act. The issue is not isolated, but a structural problem affecting a significant number of motorists who use POPLA in good faith expecting impartial adjudication.
Summary of Issues
1. POPLA Decisions Are Final and Irrevocable — Even When Legally FlawedFRS admits that its assessors sometimes misinterpret the law (e.g. the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) or misapply the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). However, there is no mechanism to review or reverse a decision, even when a legal or procedural error is acknowledged.
2. No Oversight of POPLA's Conduct or Outcomes2. While FRS is approved as an ADR body by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), CTSI has stated it will not intervene in individual cases, including those where FRS has accepted the presence of error. The BPA, as a trade body, also refuses to act unless an opaque internal complaints process is first exhausted — and has no power to overrule POPLA’s decisions in any event.
3. Consumers Are Misled About the Independence and Authority of the ProcessPOPLA presents itself as an "independent appeals service," and consumers are routinely told that decisions are binding. However, these decisions are only binding on the parking operator (in theory), and are in practice used to justify enforcement — including the escalation of disputed charges to debt recovery or litigation. Consumers are left with no recourse if POPLA's judgment is flawed.
4. Unfair Imbalance of RightsParking operators retain the ability to reject appeals before they reach POPLA, to submit further evidence to POPLA at any time, and to proceed with enforcement if the appeal fails. Consumers, by contrast, have no right to correct assessor error, introduce new evidence post-decision, or escalate their complaint to a neutral regulatory authority.
Breach of Consumer Rights under the DMCC Act 2024
These failures amount to:• Misleading commercial practices (Schedule 18) – especially where POPLA’s authority or independence is overstated;
• Denial of effective redress, which undermines consumer trust and protection;
• An imbalance of power contrary to the consumer protection principles underpinning the DMCC Act;
• Unfair practices by an ADR provider, effectively operating without accountability or oversight, despite formal approval.
Request for CMA Investigation
I respectfully ask the CMA to:• Investigate the structure and practices of Flexible Resolution Services Ltd and its administration of POPLA decisions;
• Assess whether the lack of recourse or review violates the DMCC Act’s provisions on unfair or misleading practices;
• Determine whether consumers are being systematically disadvantaged in this process, particularly when errors are admitted but cannot be corrected;
• Recommend regulatory reforms to ensure genuine oversight of ADR bodies operating in consumer law contexts — especially where civil contract disputes are adjudicated in lieu of court access.
I am willing to provide documentary evidence of a case in which an error was acknowledged by POPLA but no remedy was offered. I also know of other motorists in similar situations and can supply further examples upon request.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Telephone Number (optional)]
Dear <tango33>,
Kindly disregard my previous email.
We contacted FRS regarding your complaint and found that it's outside of our remit. Therefore, we are unable to look into your complaint any further.
In order to escalate your complaint with FRS kindly contact: complaints@popla.co.uk
You could also complain to the British Parking Association: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Contact-Us-Public.
I do apologise for the inconvenience this may cause.
Kind regards,
Jane <snip>
ACS & ADR Coordinator
Email: <snip>@tsi.org.uk
Web: www.tradingstandards.uk
Dear <tango33>,
Thank you for your email regarding Flexible Resolution Services (FRS).
ADR has been designed as a way to resolve disputes between a business and a customer. It can be used when things go wrong and when it is not possible for the parties involved to resolve it themselves. It is when a third, independent, party can become involved in the dispute, who looks at both sides of the argument to come to a conclusion.
The aim of ADR is to resolve disputes at a lower cost, although many ADR bodies offer their service free to a consumer. ADR is also quicker and more informal than it would be to pursue legal action through the courts. ADR can be a very successful mechanism for resolving disputes and we can report that several thousand people each year use ADR, although it is not guaranteed to be successful for the consumer in every instance. Those who make use of ADR are still able to pursue their complaint through the courts should they wish to do so.
ADR has been designed with an aim to put the parties back into the position they would have been in should the issue have not occurred. It will usually take into consideration any applicable law and codes of practice that may be relevant. ADR schemes will rarely offer any sort of compensation, but rather offers remedies such as a repair, replacement or refund, as prescribed by the law.
I can confirm that FRS are one of the approved ADR bodies, overseen by CTSI. I understand from your email that you feel the signage at the site did not communicate any contractual terms and consequently, did not constitute an offer. You further assert that the operator's evidence has not successfully rebutted this position. In addition, you believe that FRS has breached Articles 7(1), 9 (2) and 11 of ADR legislation.
Thank you for providing this information and rest assured that we will now address the issues that you have raised with FRS directly and take further action with the body, as necessary. Any non-compliance issues that are identified will be treated as commercially sensitive and, whilst they will be reported to the Department of Business and Trade (DBT), we are unable to share them any further.
In our role as Competent Authority, we oversee CTSI approved ADR bodies to ensure that they are compliant with the requirements which are set out in the legislation. In the event that we were to find an ADR body to be non-compliant with the legislation, our first step would be to work with the ADR body directly to resolve the issues. We would aid them to amend their processes as necessary, in order to reach full compliance. This is also something that would be closely monitored with the body, in order to ensure their maintained compliance. All approved ADR bodies are audited biennially by CTSI, to ensure their continued compliance.
Should you be dissatisfied with the outcome reached by the ADR body, you may wish to seek legal redress through the courts. You can find out more information by clicking https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money.
You can also seek the advice of the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline. You can call them on 0808 223 1133 or view their website by clicking https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/if-you-need-more-help-about-a-consumer-issue/. They will also be able to give you information on your consumer rights.
If we could take this opportunity to thank you for the information you have provided, this is very helpful for our ongoing monitoring of the CTSI approved ADR bodies. We trust this correspondence has explained our role as Competent Authority and that you find the information useful.
Kind regards,
<snip>
ACS & ADR Coordinator
Email: <snip>@tsi.org.uk
Web: www.tradingstandards.uk
<snip>
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your internal complaints policy. Should I not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I will escalate the matter to the BPA's AOS Compliance Team and include the POPLA concession as part of that complaint.
<snip>
Dear <tango33>,
Thank you for your email regarding POPLA.
The Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) is the government-appointed Competent Authority for approving and overseeing approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies in the unregulated sectors, under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. We act as the Competent Authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. We can only assess complaints where there appears to be evidence of a breach of the ADR legislation.
We are unable to consider matters relating to POPLA, as they are not one of our approved ADR bodies. However, POPLA outsources its ADR to Flexible Resolution Services (FRS), which is an approved ADR body under our oversight.
From the attachments you provided, it appears that your complaint was handled by FRS. Could you kindly confirm whether your concern relates specifically to FRS's ADR process?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Jane ....
ACS & ADR Coordinator
Email: ....@tsi.org.uk
Web: www.tradingstandards.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for Cancellation Following POPLA Concession
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Reference]
POPLA Reference: [Insert POPLA Reference]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the above parking charge notice, issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd.
Following my appeal to POPLA, I received a direct response from a senior assessor (Helen, Leader at Flexible Resolution Services) confirming that the appeal decision was incorrect, and that:
1. Acknowledgement of Error:“I agree that we made the wrong decision on this appeal…”
This is a direct admission that the original appeal decision was legally and procedurally flawed.
2. Agreement on Contract Law Principles:“I am not satisfied that the operator rebutted your appeal reason that there was no contract on offer.”
POPLA now accepts that no offer = no contract, and therefore the premise of the original decision (that a contract was formed by the driver's conduct) was unsound.
3. Inappropriate Reliance on Beavis:“I would also agree that… the comparison with Beavis Vs ParkingEye was not appropriate.”
This confirms that Beavis cannot be used to justify charges arising from purely prohibitory signage.
4. Internal Feedback and Training:“Feedback will be provided… to the individual and the wider team.”
This is a clear and unambiguous concession that:• The signage at the site was prohibitory, not contractual;
• There was no valid contract formed between the operator and the motorist;
• he Parking Charge Notice should not have been upheld.
Given that the ADR body has now accepted that the charge has no contractual basis, it would be wholly unreasonable — and arguably in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice — to continue enforcement.
I therefore request:• That this PCN be immediately cancelled, and
• That you provide written confirmation that all recovery action has ceased, including from any third-party debt recovery agents.
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your internal complaints policy. Should I not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I will escalate the matter to the BPA’s AOS Compliance Team and include the POPLA concession as part of that complaint.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Date]
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA’s Failure to Uphold ADR Standards (POPLA Ref: [Insert])
Dear CTSI ADR Monitoring Team,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint about POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is approved as an ADR provider under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.
This complaint concerns both how POPLA handled my appeal and wider issues with their internal procedures and decision-making standards.
I appealed a Parking Charge Notice issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd (PPS). My appeal to POPLA explained that the signage at the site was prohibitory in nature and did not set out any contractual terms. I argued that no contract was offered and that therefore the charge had no legal basis. I also pointed out that the operator’s evidence failed to rebut this, and that ParkingEye v Beavis did not apply to such a situation.
My appeal was rejected by a POPLA assessor who incorrectly concluded that a contract was formed and relied on Beavis, despite the clear differences in context. I later submitted a formal complaint to POPLA.
After escalation, I received a response from a senior assessor, Helen (Leader at Flexible Resolution Services), who acknowledged that:• The operator had not rebutted my argument that there was no contract on offer
• The comparison with Beavis was not appropriate
• The decision was wrong and should not have been made
Despite this admission, POPLA has no system to correct the error, and the flawed decision remains on record. The only reason I received a proper response was because I escalated the complaint beyond the normal process, after POPLA initially dismissed it with a generic reply.
I believe POPLA is not complying with the following parts of the ADR Regulations:• Article 7(1): Their assessors clearly lack the legal knowledge and competence to handle disputes involving contract law or statutory compliance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• Article 9(2): The original appeal decision was not fair or reasoned. It ignored the core argument and applied a legal precedent incorrectly.
• Article 11: The complaints process is not effective. My first complaint was dismissed without any proper consideration. POPLA only admitted the error after escalation, and still offered no redress.
This raises serious concerns about POPLA’s ability to act as a fair and competent ADR body. Consumers rely on their decisions, and when those decisions are wrong, POPLA has no way to correct them. This encourages parking operators to continue enforcement on a flawed legal basis.
I ask that CTSI investigate whether POPLA is meeting its obligations and consider requiring improvements in their complaints process, assessor training, and accountability.
I attach the following documents to support this complaint:• The original POPLA appeal and decision
• My formal complaint to POPLA
• POPLA’s concession that the decision was incorrect
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your email]
[Date]
Dear <tango33>
Thank you for your recent communication, I am sorry that you have been unhappy with our service. I can see that your concerns have not been fully addressed within our previous responses and understand why you have felt the need to escalate further.
You have raised concerns that the parking signs only list actions not permitted and not an offer to park with a corresponding charge if violated. You state that the wording implies that the £100 is a consequence of breaking the rules and not a fee for a parking service.
The signage describes the site as a car park, and the contract between the landowner and parking operator says parking is permitted within marked bays for permit holders. This suggests parking is permitted is designated areas but not in general. However, the signs in the car park do not set out the terms allowing parking, only the parking prohibitions.
From the evidence available, I am not satisfied that the operator rebutted your appeal reason that there was no contract on offer. I would also agree that on this occasion, the comparison with Beavis Vs ParkingEye was not appropriate. Neither the terms nor reference to the amount is relevant to the grounds of appeal.
I agree that we made the wrong decision on this appeal and feedback will be provided both to the individual involved and the wider team.
We consistently review the quality of the decision making through regular quality assessments completed by our most experienced assessors and Coaches. We use the trends and insights from both our assessment and customer feedback to work on continuously improving our knowledge, systems and processes.
I sincerely apologise once again for the error in judgement on this occasion.
I trust that my response answers your concerns and thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns. Your feedback is vital to improving our service.
Kind regards
Helen
Leader
flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk
Hi <tango33>,
Thank you for your contact.
We are sorry that you are unhappy with our service and would like to reassure you that we take all complaints seriously.
The information has been escalated to our complaints team and the details will be reviewed.
You should receive a response within 21 days depending on the complexity of the information provided.
Kind Regards,
Lucy
POPLA
Subject: Request for Senior-Level Review of Unaddressed Formal Complaint – [Your POPLA Case Ref]
Dear POPLA,
Thank you for your recent reply. However, it is wholly unsatisfactory in the context of the formal complaint I submitted.
To be clear, I am not asking for the appeal decision to be revisited. I am requesting a substantive response to the serious procedural and legal concerns I raised regarding:• The assessor’s fundamental misunderstanding of contract law, especially concerning prohibitive signage;
• The incorrect reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis in a context where it does not apply;
• The failure to properly assess keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA);
• The uncritical acceptance of questionable landowner authority evidence;
• POPLA's apparent lack of oversight or accountability where assessors apply legal principles incorrectly.
Your reply simply restated that POPLA does not revisit appeals. That is not the issue at hand. A formal complaint about the competence and training of POPLA’s adjudicators, and the broader implications of flawed legal reasoning, should not be brushed aside with a generic response.
I now ask that this complaint be escalated to a Senior Manager or the Head of POPLA, and that a considered response is issued that addresses each of the points raised in my original complaint.
If POPLA declines to respond substantively to this complaint, I will have no choice but to raise these concerns with the British Parking Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (which oversees ADR bodies), and my MP, given the wider consumer protection implications.
Yours sincerely,
[Your full name]
You can identify the driver at any point up to the issue of a claim. However, in order to do so, you must provide a valid name and a serviceable address. What do you Ean by being able to "trace" the driver?I mean, what if they get no response from the named driver? What if they are from another country and they ignore any correspondence?
If you don't follow the advice given then don't expect much more. You were advised to send the formal complaint to POPLA. You didn't.I have sent the formal complaint to POPLA and the reply I received is above.
As you have been advised, a POPLA decision is not binding on you. All you can do now is either identify the driver and proverbially throw them under the bus or just ignore everything until if/when they send a Letter of Claim (LoC). You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. They are powerless except to try and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear.At what point does their claim for money increase? And what of those increases might I be legally obliged to pay?
Hi <tango33>
Thank you for your contact.
As POPLA has now reached its final decision our involvement in your appeal ends. There is no further appeals process available to either party.
If your appeal has been unsuccessful; and you wish to continue to dispute the issue of the parking charge notice, there may still be options available however POPLA is not able to be involved.
For confidential and impartial advice, you may wish to contact Citizen’s Advice Bureau on 0800 144 8848 or 0800 702 2020 if you live in Wales or 0800 028 1456 if you live in Scotland.
Kind Regards,
Anthony
POPLA Assessor
Just received the re-issue of the original letter as the POPLA appeal failed, giving me 28 days to pay or name the driver.
However, I hadn't seen the prior posting and have now sent that to POPLA.
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Assessor’s Fundamental Misapplication of Contract Law in Case: [POPLA Reference Number]
Dear Lead Adjudicator,
I am writing to formally complain about the handling of my recent appeal. The decision reached by the assessor demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of contract law, and it is clear that POPLA is failing in its duty to ensure that its assessors are adequately trained in the legal principles governing private parking enforcement.
It is well known that POPLA will not overturn a decision made by one of its assessors, no matter how legally flawed. However, if POPLA wishes to maintain even the pretence of being an independent arbiter, it must ensure that its assessors possess at least a basic level of contract law knowledge. This case highlights a glaring failure in that regard.
1. Prohibitive Signage Does Not Create a Contract
One of my central appeal arguments was that the signage did not form a contractual offer. The signage explicitly prohibited parking, meaning that there was no offer to accept, and thus no contract could be formed. This is an elementary principle of contract law.
The assessor's response was as follows:“In this case the site does not allow motorists to park. As such it is clear that by parking on site a parking charge notice will be issued.”
This statement completely contradicts itself. If parking was not allowed, then no contractual agreement could exist between the motorist and the parking operator. There must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration for a contract to exist—none of which were present. Instead of properly addressing this point, the assessor parroted the parking operator’s position without engaging in any legal analysis whatsoever.
It is shocking that POPLA has assessors making decisions who are evidently unaware of the basic legal requirement for a contract to exist.
2. Gross Misapplication of ParkingEye v Beavis
The assessor attempted to justify the charge by citing ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. This reliance on Beavis is not only misguided but suggests that the assessor does not understand the specific circumstances under which that case was decided.• In Beavis, the Supreme Court ruled that a charge was enforceable because the landowner had granted permission to park, and the charge was necessary to ensure turnover of spaces.
• In my case, there was no permission to park at all—only a prohibition.
By applying Beavis to a case where no contract could exist, the assessor has exposed their complete lack of legal competence.
3. Failing to Recognise That the Charge Can Only Be for Trespass
Since no contract was formed, the only possible legal claim would be for trespass. However, a trespass claim can only be brought by the landowner, not a parking operator. The operator therefore had no legal standing to issue a charge.
The assessor’s failure to even consider this basic legal distinction demonstrates that they are not fit to be making decisions on contract law matters.
4. Incorrectly Justifying the Charge by its Amount
The assessor argued that because the charge was “in the region of £85–100,” it must be enforceable. This is an absurd conclusion.• The amount of the charge is irrelevant if there is no legal basis for issuing it in the first place.
• If no contract exists, any charge issued must be an unenforceable penalty, regardless of its amount.
By focusing solely on the figure and ignoring the fundamental absence of a contract, the assessor has once again demonstrated a complete lack of legal reasoning ability.
5. POPLA’s Responsibility to Employ Competent Assessors
It is abundantly clear that POPLA’s assessor was not qualified to make a decision in this case. Their reasoning was not just flawed—it betrayed a complete ignorance of contract law and legal standing.
POPLA routinely claims to be an “independent” body, yet it is impossible to take that claim seriously when its assessors lack even the most basic grasp of the legal framework governing private parking enforcement. If POPLA wishes to salvage any credibility, it must immediately ensure that its assessors:• Receive proper training in contract law.
• Are instructed not to blindly apply Beavis to cases where no contractual offer exists.
• Are required to demonstrate at least a basic understanding of the legal distinction between a contract and a prohibitive notice before making decisions.
6. The Consequences of Incompetent Decision-Making
While POPLA decisions are not binding on the appellant, they can have serious ramifications for motorists who do not fully understand this. Many people wrongly believe that a rejected POPLA appeal means they are legally obliged to pay the charge. This often results in:• Unnecessary harassment by debt recovery agencies.
• A heightened risk of court claims, despite the legal flaws in the operator’s case.
• Consumers being coerced into paying charges that have no legal basis, simply because POPLA’s flawed decisions embolden parking operators to pursue enforcement.
By allowing poorly trained assessors to make these consequential yet legally flawed decisions, POPLA is failing in its duty to provide a fair and competent appeals process. If this is not addressed, it will further damage POPLA’s already fragile reputation as a truly independent adjudicator.
Requested Actions
Given the seriousness of this matter, I request the following:1. A formal review of my case by a senior adjudicator who understands the distinction between prohibitive signage and contractual agreements.
2. Confirmation that additional training will be provided to assessors to address these glaring legal knowledge gaps.
3. A clear response from POPLA management explaining how it will ensure that future cases are not decided based on such fundamental legal errors.
If POPLA continues to allow obviously unqualified assessors to make legally flawed decisions that embolden private parking companies and mislead motorists, I will escalate this matter to the relevant regulatory bodies and consumer rights organisations as well as my MP.
I expect a substantive response addressing each of these concerns. A generic reply will not be accepted.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Reference Number of Appeal]
Unsuccessful
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The prohibitions do not suggest an offer to allow parking, instead they explicitly state what actions are not permitted which does not form an offer than can be accepted by conduct. • The charge is presented as a penalty. • Wording implies that the £100 charge is a consequence of breaching the prohibitions but does not indicate that the driver is entering into a contract by parking. • The signage as worded are incapable of forming a valid contract. • Under PoFA, Paragraph 7(2)(a) requires that the relevant land where the vehicle was parked is described with enough detail to ensure the keeper is aware of the specific location. The exact location is not listed on the PCN. • They put the operator to strict proof that the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on this land. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1. Photo of the signage. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.
The appellant is appealing as the registered keeper. I have received the PCN, and I am satisfied this meets the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied as stated by the operator that the site name is 'Uxbridge Industrial Estate'. The roads that fall within the Uxbridge Industrial Estate site are Wallingford Road, Salisbury Road and Arundel Road. Which make up ‘Uxbridge Industrial Estate’. As such, I am considering the registered keeper’s liability for the PCN. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant says the prohibitions do not suggest an offer to allow parking, instead they explicitly state what actions are not permitted which does not form an offer than can be accepted by conduct. When parking on private land it is the operators responsibility to display the terms and conditions on the signage. It is then the motorists responsibility to comply with them. In this case the site does no allow motorists to park. As such it is clear that by parking on site a parking charge notice will be issued. As the driver choose to park in a no parking area, they have accepted the consequences of breaching the terms and as such a parking charge notice was issued in response to this. The appellant says the charge is presented as a penalty. The say the wording implies that the £100 charge is a consequence of breaching the prohibitions but does not indicate that the driver is entering into a contract by parking. The appellant has told us in their response that they consider the charge is a contractual penalty and therefore it is unenforceable. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. The appellant explains that the operators evidence to show they have the authority to operate on this land is not sufficient. The British Parking Association Code of Practice sets the standards by which its members must abide by. Section 7.1 of the code confirms that if an operator does not own the land on which it is carrying out parking management, it must have the written authorisation of the landowner or their appointed agent. This must confirm the operator has the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that it is responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner or agent requires the operator to keep to the Code of Practice, the details of the land and that it has the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of the contract, and on reviewing this, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.
POPLA say they aim to respond in 2-4 weeks, but a recent poster reported getting a result after around 7 weeks, so it might take a while.
Dear <tango33>,
We are writing to update you about your appeal.
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue
waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal 6-8
weeks from the point that the appeal was first submitted. The next
communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your
appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
As there is a limit of 10,000 characters for the POPLA response webformI submitted a POPLA appeal a few weeks back and I'm fairly sure the webform for responding to the operator's evidence had a limit of 20,000 rather than 10,000.
4. Landowner Authority
The operator relies on a supposed “landowner contract” to justify their authority to enforce Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this location. However, this document is riddled with flaws, inconsistencies, and missing information that seriously undermine its credibility.
Firstly, the document lacks clarity about who actually authorised it. It contains what appear to be two different signatures purportedly acting on behalf of the landowner or their agent, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that either individual has the legal authority to represent the landowner. The names of the signatories are illegible, no job titles are provided, and there is no supporting documentation (e.g., a power of attorney, agency agreement, or other authorisation). Without proof of their authority, these signatures are meaningless.
Secondly, the contract identifies the client as “Trade Sales”, but provides no further information to confirm who or what this entity is. There is no company registration number, no address, and no evidence that “Trade Sales” is a legitimate entity, let alone one authorised to act on behalf of the landowner. This raises significant doubts about whether the operator has any valid agreement with the actual landowner of the site.
Thirdly, the contract includes no clear reference to the map the operator has provided alongside their evidence. This omission raises several key questions:
(a) Is the map part of the contract? There is no clause in the contract that incorporates or references the map, leaving it unclear whether it is an official part of the agreement or a supplementary document produced later by the operator.
(b) Is the map from the landowner? The operator has provided no evidence to confirm that the map originated from the landowner or an authorised representative. Without such evidence, the map cannot be assumed to reflect the landowner’s intentions.
(c) Has the map been unilaterally modified? Given the lack of reference or chain of custody, there is no way to verify whether the map has been altered by the operator to suit their claims of enforcement authority.
The inconsistencies in the operator’s evidence further undermine the reliability of the map. For example, their response states that the enforcement area includes "Wallingford Road, Salisbury Road, and Arundel Road," yet their own map shows that Arundel Road is only partially within the drawn boundaries. This contradiction raises doubts about whether the operator’s claimed enforcement area aligns with the landowner’s actual instructions.
The contract also outlines a series of “restrictions” (e.g., the requirement to display a valid permit, park within marked bays, and not park on yellow lines). However, as discussed in Section 1, the on-site signage does not communicate these restrictions. Instead, the signage is entirely prohibitory, stating only that parking, waiting, loading, and unloading are not allowed on roads and footpaths. This discrepancy between the contract terms and the signage raises serious concerns about whether the operator is enforcing the landowner’s instructions—or their own arbitrary rules.
Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, operators must provide clear, written evidence of their authority from the landowner, and this evidence must withstand scrutiny. In this case, the contract fails to demonstrate:
(a) That the signatories are authorised to act on behalf of the landowner.
(b) That “Trade Sales” is a valid and authorised entity.
(c) That the landowner consented to the specific terms the operator claims to enforce.
(d) That the contract was valid at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
(e) That the provided map is authentic, authorised by the landowner, and reflects the true scope of the enforcement area.
Without these critical elements, the contract cannot be relied upon as evidence of landowner authority. The lack of clarity regarding the map and its inconsistencies only add to the doubts surrounding the operator’s claims. POPLA must demand robust proof that the operator has the authority they claim. If the operator cannot provide clear, unredacted evidence of a valid and current landowner agreement, this appeal must succeed.
Summary
The operator’s response fails to address the points raised in the appeal, instead relying on generic statements, irrelevant case law, and unsupported assertions. Their inability to engage with the appeal’s key arguments shows they do not have a valid case.
The appeal must succeed because:
(a) The signage is prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract. It offers no terms for parking and does not reflect the restrictions in the supposed landowner contract. A prohibitory notice cannot form a contractual agreement.
(b) The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA non-compliant. It fails to specify the location of the alleged contravention and does not establish keeper liability.
(c) The operator has not proven landowner authority. The landowner contract is riddled with inconsistencies, including illegible signatories, the unclear status of "Trade Sales," and no evidence linking the provided map to the landowner.
(d) The charge is punitive and unjustified under Beavis. The operator has not shown the charge serves a legitimate interest.
(e) The operator’s response is inadequate. It relies on vague assertions and contradictory evidence, failing to meet the burden of proof.
POPLA should uphold the appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
Response to Operator’s Submission
It is striking how little of the operator's response actually addresses the points raised in the appeal. Instead of tackling the substantive issues, the operator has opted for the “copy-paste and hope for the best” approach, regurgitating generic statements about signage and Beavis. This is disappointing, albeit unsurprising, given the lack of substance in their claim.
1. Signage is Prohibitory, Not Contractual
The operator claims that their signage forms a contractual agreement with the driver, but this assertion falls flat upon even the most basic scrutiny. The signs on-site are entirely prohibitory, stating only:
(a) “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time.”
(b) “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the footpaths at any time.”
(c) “No causing obstructions at any time.”
These statements are not terms and conditions—they are outright prohibitions. A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contract, as it does not offer anything to the driver. For a contract by conduct to be formed, there must be an offer that the driver can choose to accept by their actions. Here, no such offer exists. Instead, the signs impose blanket bans on certain activities, making it clear that parking is not permitted under any circumstances. How can a driver breach a contract that was never on offer in the first place?
If the landowner truly wished to enforce such prohibitory restrictions, the appropriate course of action would be to pursue trespass claims under common law, which only the landowner—not the operator—has the standing to prosecute. The operator cannot stretch the limits of contract law to enforce prohibitions that fall outside its remit.
The operator’s own “evidence” further undermines their case. Their signage does not communicate any of the terms listed in their supposed landowner contract (See section 4). There is no mention of the requirement to display a permit, park within marked bays, or avoid yellow lines—restrictions they claim are central to their enforcement. Instead, the signs prohibit all parking, waiting, loading, or unloading, and offer no alternative under which parking might be allowed.
The operator has attempted to sidestep this issue by simply stating, without explanation, that “the signage forms a contract.” But how does a blanket prohibition magically transform into a contractual offer? The operator has failed to address this fundamental flaw in their argument, choosing instead to rely on vague, unsupported assertions. Are we supposed to just take their word for it? Perhaps they’re hoping POPLA will.
POPLA must recognise that prohibitory signage does not create a contract. The operator cannot rely on signs that categorically ban parking to claim that a driver agreed to pay a charge for doing so. If there is no offer, there is no contract. If there is no contract, there can be no breach. This is not a minor technicality—it is the foundation of contract law. The operator’s case fails at the first hurdle, and this appeal must therefore succeed.
2. Misplaced Reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis
It’s almost amusing how the operator clings to ParkingEye v Beavis as if it’s a magic wand to justify every parking charge ever issued. However, the Beavis case involved signage that clearly offered terms—free parking for two hours, with charges for overstaying. Here, the signage does no such thing. Instead, it prohibits parking altogether. How can a driver agree to terms when the sign explicitly forbids the very act required to accept those terms?
Of course, the operator doesn’t bother to explain this glaring inconsistency. They just drop the Beavis name and hope no one notices it doesn’t apply.
3. Ambiguity of Location
The appeal pointed out that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to identify the location of the alleged contravention with sufficient clarity, as required by Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA. Listing an entire industrial estate and three different roads is not specific enough to identify where the vehicle was supposedly parked.
The operator’s response? They casually brush this off, claiming the “post code” is sufficient. Really? A post code that covers multiple roads and areas is supposed to pinpoint the exact location of a parking contravention? This lack of precision violates PoFA, and the operator’s dismissal of this point is, frankly, an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
4. Landowner Authority
The operator relies on a supposed “landowner contract” to justify their authority to enforce Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this location. However, this document is riddled with flaws, inconsistencies, and missing information that seriously undermine its credibility.
Firstly, the document lacks clarity about who actually authorised it. It contains what appear to be two different signatures purportedly acting on behalf of the landowner or their agent, but no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that either individual has the legal authority to represent the landowner. The names of the signatories are illegible, no job titles are provided, and there is no supporting documentation (e.g., a power of attorney, agency agreement, or other authorisation). Without proof of their authority, these signatures are meaningless.
Secondly, the contract identifies the client as “Trade Sales”, but provides no further information to confirm who or what this entity is. There is no company registration number, no address, and no evidence that “Trade Sales” is a legitimate entity, let alone one authorised to act on behalf of the landowner. This raises significant doubts about whether the operator has any valid agreement with the actual landowner of the site.
The contract also fails to provide a clear and complete map of the premises, which is a requirement under the BPA Code of Practice. The document vaguely refers to site boundaries but does not include any specific details or supporting evidence to define where the operator’s authority applies. This is particularly problematic for a large industrial estate spanning multiple roads, as it is impossible to determine which areas are covered under the supposed agreement.
Finally, while the “Restrictions” section of the contract outlines specific terms (e.g., the requirement to display a valid permit, park within marked bays, and not park on yellow lines), there is no evidence that these restrictions are communicated on-site. In fact, as discussed in Section 1, the signage on-site contains entirely different wording that is prohibitory in nature and does not reflect the terms in the landowner contract. This discrepancy raises serious concerns about whether the operator is complying with the landowner’s instructions—or if the operator is simply enforcing arbitrary rules.
Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, operators must provide clear, written evidence of their authority from the landowner, and this evidence must withstand scrutiny. In this case, the contract fails to demonstrate:
(a) That the signatories are authorised to act on behalf of the landowner.
(b) That “Trade Sales” is a valid and authorised entity.
(c) That the landowner consented to the specific terms the operator claims to enforce.
(d) That the contract was valid at the time of the alleged parking contravention.
Without these critical elements, the contract cannot be relied upon as evidence of landowner authority. POPLA must demand robust proof that the operator has the authority they claim. If the operator cannot provide clear, unredacted evidence of a valid and current landowner agreement, this appeal must succeed.
Summary
The operator’s response fails to address the points raised in the appeal. Instead, they rely on generic statements, irrelevant case law, and a complete lack of evidence. Their inability to engage with the appeal’s key arguments is telling... they don’t have a case.
The appeal must succeed for the following reasons:
(a) The signage is prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract.
(b) The NtK fails to comply with PoFA requirements, particularly regarding location and keeper liability.
(c) The operator has not provided proof of landowner authority.
(d) The charge is punitive and lacks justification under Beavis.
(e) The operator’s response is, at best, inadequate and, at worst, an insult to the intelligence of everyone involved. POPLA should uphold the appeal.
Response to Operator’s Submission
It is striking how little of the operator's response actually addresses the points raised in the appeal. Instead of tackling the substantive issues, the operator has opted for the “copy-paste and hope for the best” approach, regurgitating generic statements about signage and Beavis. This is disappointing, albeit unsurprising, given the lack of substance in their claim.
1. Signage is Prohibitory, Not Contractual
The appeal made a clear, detailed argument about why the signage cannot form a contractual agreement.
The signage is purely prohibitory, stating what is not allowed: “No parking, waiting, loading or unloading”. There is no clear offer to park under specific conditions, and the charge is presented as a penalty for breaching prohibitions, not as part of a contract.
The operator’s response? Silence. Instead of addressing this fundamental flaw in their case, they parrot the phrase “the signage forms a contract” without even attempting to explain how a prohibition can magically transform into an offer. Are we supposed to take their word for it? Perhaps they’re hoping POPLA will.
2. Misplaced Reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis
It’s almost amusing how the operator clings to ParkingEye v Beavis as if it’s a magic wand to justify every parking charge ever issued. However, the Beavis case involved signage that clearly offered terms—free parking for two hours, with charges for overstaying. Here, the signage does no such thing. Instead, it prohibits parking altogether. How can a driver agree to terms when the sign explicitly forbids the very act required to accept those terms?
Of course, the operator doesn’t bother to explain this glaring inconsistency. They just drop the Beavis name and hope no one notices it doesn’t apply.
3. Ambiguity of Location
The appeal pointed out that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to identify the location of the alleged contravention with sufficient clarity, as required by Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA. Listing an entire industrial estate and three different roads is not specific enough to identify where the vehicle was supposedly parked.
The operator’s response? They casually brush this off, claiming the “post code” is sufficient. Really? A post code that covers multiple roads and areas is supposed to pinpoint the exact location of a parking contravention? This lack of precision violates PoFA, and the operator’s dismissal of this point is, frankly, an insult to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
4. Landowner Authority
The operator claims to have a contract with the landowner authorising them to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at this location. But where is this contract? Apparently, we are simply meant to take their word for it. Under Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, operators are required to have clear, written authorisation from the landowner, and when challenged, they must actually produce it. Saying “we have a contract” isn’t evidence—it’s just wishful thinking.
The presence of signage does not prove anything either. Signs can be put up by anyone. Without an unredacted landowner agreement, how can we verify:
(a) That the operator is even authorised to issue PCNs at this specific site.
(b) That they are permitted to pursue charges in their own name, as opposed to acting as a mere agent.
(c) That the terms on the signage comply with the landowner’s instructions.
(d) That the contract was still valid at the time of the alleged breach (a crucial point they often “forget” to clarify).
The BPA Code of Practice does not allow operators to rely on vague assurances or witness statements. It is clear... they must provide proof when asked. However, here we are with no contract, no transparency, and just a lot of hand-waving about landowner authority. If a valid, current contract exists, what possible reason could they have for withholding it? The lack of evidence speaks volumes.
Let us be clear... POPLA cannot and should not assume that the operator has authority simply because there are signs on-site. Assuming authority from signage alone would render the BPA Code of Practice pointless, as it would allow any operator to bypass their obligations by sticking up a few signs. The absence of an unredacted contract raises serious questions about whether the operator even has the legal standing to issue or enforce PCNs at all.
This is a fundamental issue. Without proof of landowner authority, the operator’s case collapses. POPLA must demand to see the actual contract to verify that the operator is acting lawfully. If the operator refuses or fails to provide this evidence, the appeal must succeed.
5. PoFA Non-Compliance
The appeal highlighted several failings in the NtK, including:
(a) Ambiguous location (already covered).
(b) No invitation for the keeper to pay, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
The operator’s response? Nothing. Instead, they pivot to the tired refrain about “keeper liability” as though merely repeating the words “keeper liable” makes it true. PoFA’s requirements are strict, and partial compliance cannot be acceptable. The operator’s silence on these specific points is as good as an admission.
6. Signage Clarity
The operator claims the signage is “clearly located” and that the driver parked “a few feet away” from a sign. They provide no meaningful evidence that the signage is:
(a) Legible from a driver’s perspective.
(b) Visible under all conditions.
(c) Clear enough to communicate a contractual offer.
Instead, they expect everyone to simply accept their assertion. Unfortunately for them, assertions are not evidence.
7. Charge is Disproportionate
The operator attempts to justify the £100 charge by calling it “reasonable” and pointing to Beavis. Once again, they ignore the fundamental difference... in Beavis, the charge was commercially justified due to the management of free parking. Here, the charge is nothing more than a penalty for breaching prohibitions. It is punitive, not contractual, and lacks any commercial justification.
If the operator has a reasoned explanation for why this charge is “reasonable,” they have chosen not to share it. Presumably, because they do not have one.
Summary
The operator’s response fails to address the points raised in the appeal. Instead, they rely on generic statements, irrelevant case law, and a complete lack of evidence. Their inability to engage with the appeal’s key arguments is telling... they don’t have a case.
The appeal must succeed for the following reasons:
(a) The signage is prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract.
(b) The NtK fails to comply with PoFA requirements, particularly regarding location and keeper liability.
(c) The operator has not provided proof of landowner authority.
(d) The charge is punitive and lacks justification under Beavis.
(e) The operator’s response is, at best, inadequate and, at worst, an insult to the intelligence of everyone involved. POPLA should uphold the appeal.
That signage also doesn't appear to be offering a contract - what consideration is offered by a sign that simply prohibits parking rather than inviting parking on certain terms?
Will prepare a POPLA appeal for you.Did you manage to prepare an appeal for me?
However, is there any chance you can get some photos of the general layout of the are and any signs that they purport form the contract?Sorry, I'm not local to the area.
If you are not from the area, I live near here and can pass by after work one day and take some pics.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Yes. But is the car on the side of the road, in a parking space or bay or is it simply stopped at the side of the road. Are there any signs nearby or are there any markings of any sort where the vehicle was stopped?At the side of the road, no markings on the road.
What about the "further images" on their website?There is a picture of a parking sign that would seem to be approx. 30 metres north of the car. It is attached about 2 metres up a street lamp.
Again, the photos in your image have completely redacted the evidential image and we cannot see exactly where the vehicle is alleged to have "parked". Is in a parking space? Is it on the road? We want to assist but overly redacting what we have to work on isn't helping.Sorry, I didn't make it obvious but the Google maps link marks the position of the car (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Az7a8r2rboZ68dqC9) on the road, parked facing south, no "parking space" as such and no double yellow lines.
On the entrance to Wallingford Road, GSV has a more up to date image from June 2024 showing some signage from PPS. But unless there is signage visible all the way down the roads they claim to cover, they'll be hard pushed to enforce.The driver looked for signs but did not identify any and didn't see the small sign at the site entrance.
The driver has no photos of any signage. Google street view (dated Jun 2023) does not seem to show any relevant signs.On the entrance to Wallingford Road, GSV has a more up to date image from June 2024 showing some signage from PPS. But unless there is signage visible all the way down the roads they claim to cover, they'll be hard pushed to enforce.
We need to see all dates and times on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Please resubmit.Updated the image.
Also, are the redacted evidential photos taken by ANPR or are they taken manually by an operative?Timestamp says 4 seconds apart and it looks like they were taken from slightly different positions so I guess an operative in a vehicle?