Before we move on, I agree with the comments in the post above. What is the name of the POPLA assessor. It is in the public domain so no need to withhold it. I keep a record of POPLA assessors who are quite clearly in need to further education on the law and their use of language.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Misleading and Legally Inaccurate Language in POPLA Decision
Dear POPLA,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the final sentence of the decision issued in my appeal reference [INSERT POPLA REFERENCE], which reads:“This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.”
This statement is legally inaccurate, misleading, and beyond the remit of POPLA’s powers. POPLA is not a court of law and cannot impose a legal requirement to pay. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides a statutory route for a parking operator to pursue a keeper in court, but no legal requirement to pay arises from a POPLA decision. At best, a POPLA rejection simply removes the operator’s obligation to offer the reduced payment amount and leaves them the option to pursue the matter through civil proceedings.
The phrase “required to pay” implies a binding obligation resulting from the POPLA outcome, which grossly misrepresents the legal position and may mislead vulnerable or uninformed appellants into believing they no longer have the right to challenge or dispute the parking charge.
I request that this matter be reviewed, and that:1. The language used in future decisions be corrected to reflect the actual legal implications of a POPLA outcome.
2. POPLA issue clarification on the non-binding nature of its decisions.
3. The assessor responsible for this decision receives appropriate feedback or retraining.
I look forward to your response confirming that this complaint has been logged and investigated.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
QuoteThe operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is not the same thing and is legally incorrect.It might be worth adding at least a sentence in here to set out why it is vague - it doesn't state when the 29 days begins, unlike PoFA's wording, which states exactly when the relevant period begins.
Some POPLA adjudicators take the view that if the same date is communicated but with different wording, that's fine (whether that should be the case is a different matter, but it is what it is) - here, that clearly isn't the case, without an obvious date from when the "29 days" they refer to should begin, it's impossible to know what time period they're referring to.
The operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is not the same thing and is legally incorrect.It might be worth adding at least a sentence in here to set out why it is vague - it doesn't state when the 29 days begins, unlike PoFA's wording, which states exactly when the relevant period begins.
POPLA Rebuttal:
1. The operator claims their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) by stating:
"If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper."
This statement does not comply with the requirements set out in PoFA 9(2)(f)2. PoFA requires strict compliance, and the operator's failure to use the prescribed wording renders the NtK invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper.
What Does PoFA 9(2)(f) Actually Require?
Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the NtK must:
"Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) 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."
This wording is legally significant and must be included in the NtK in its entirety and without alteration. The operator’s paraphrasing fails to meet this requirement.
Why the Operator’s Wording Fails to Comply:
The operator's NtK incorrectly states:
"If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper."
This wording is inadequate for the following reasons:
The operator has incorrectly altered the statutory timeline. PoFA requires the notice to state that liability may be transferred if payment or driver details are not received "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given." The operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is not the same thing and is legally incorrect.
The operator’s wording fails to clearly convey the legal consequences of failing to identify the driver. PoFA requires a clear warning that the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper if the conditions are met. The operator’s statement is vague and fails to adequately communicate this point.
The operator’s wording removes essential context. PoFA specifies that liability only transfers if the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. The operator has omitted this critical information from their NtK.
Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required
PoFA is clear that parking operators must follow its requirements strictly in order to hold a registered keeper liable. The courts have consistently upheld that strict compliance is mandatory. The operator’s failure to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) means they have not met the legal requirements necessary to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
This failure renders the NtK invalid. The operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge when their notice does not comply with the law.
Conclusion
The operator’s NtK does not comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f). The operator’s attempt to paraphrase and simplify the required wording has resulted in a material failure to meet the statutory requirements. As a result, liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.
2. The operator also claims that the NtK is compliant with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it includes a date and time of the alleged contravention and photographs of the vehicle. The operator states:
"The PCN states the location, the date and time of the contravention and also contains images of the vehicle parked at the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The PCN is therefore PoFA compliant."
This is incorrect and misleading. The operator is attempting to brush off a mandatory legal requirement by arguing that a single timestamp is sufficient to meet the requirement to specify the “period of parking.” This is not what PoFA requires.
What Does PoFA 9(2)(a) Actually Require?
PoFA 9(2)(a) clearly states:
"The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The key requirement here is that the NtK must specify the “period of parking” — this refers to a duration of time during which the vehicle was parked.
This is a fundamental requirement under PoFA because the length of time the vehicle was parked is critical to determining whether any contravention actually occurred. A single timestamp (e.g., "12:30 PM") is not the same as a period of parking and does not meet the legal requirement to specify the vehicle’s presence on the land for a defined period of time.
Why a Single Timestamp Fails to Meet the Requirement:
The operator’s NtK only provides a single point in time (the moment their ANPR system captured an image of the vehicle). However, the law requires them to specify a continuous period of time that the vehicle was allegedly parked.
For example:
A compliant NtK would state, "The vehicle was parked from 12:00 PM to 12:45 PM."
A non-compliant NtK (like the one provided by the operator) simply states, "The vehicle was photographed at 12:30 PM."
A single point in time (such as the moment the vehicle was photographed) does not indicate how long the vehicle was parked or whether it was parked at all. The vehicle could have simply been passing through the site, briefly stopping, or momentarily idling.
Without a period of parking being specified, the NtK fails to establish whether a parking contravention occurred at all.
What the Courts Have Said About This:
The requirement to specify a period of parking has been tested in court. In ParkingEye Ltd v Ms X (Altrincham County Court, 2017), the judge confirmed that a single timestamp does not meet the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a). The judge held that:
"A single timestamp does not constitute a 'period of parking.' The law requires a duration of time to be specified in order to transfer liability to the keeper."
The judge further stated that:
"The Protection of Freedoms Act is a statute that must be adhered to strictly by parking operators in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper. Deviating from the requirements, even slightly, renders the notice invalid."
Why This Failure Renders the NtK Invalid:
Because the operator has failed to specify the period of parking as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a), the NtK does not comply with PoFA. As such, the operator cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge.
In the absence of PoFA compliance, the only person liable would be the driver. However, the operator has not identified the driver and therefore cannot pursue the registered keeper.
The Operator’s Attempt to Brush This Off Must Be Rejected:
The operator is trying to gloss over a clear and significant failure in their NtK by claiming that a single timestamp is sufficient. It is not.
They have no basis in law to support this claim, and their interpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(a) is entirely incorrect. PoFA compliance is not a matter of opinion or "close enough" — the law requires strict compliance.
Example of How a Compliant NtK Should Look:
To further illustrate this point to the assessor, here’s an example of what a compliant NtK should specify:
Compliant NtK: "The vehicle was parked from 12:00 PM to 12:45 PM on 21st December 2024."
Non-Compliant NtK (What the operator provided): "The vehicle was photographed at 12:30 PM on 21st December 2024."
As shown, the operator’s NtK only specifies a single moment in time. This does not meet the legal requirement to specify a period of parking as required by PoFA.
POPLA Must Dismiss This Parking Charge
Given the operator’s clear failure to comply with PoFA, this NtK is invalid, and the operator cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper for this charge.
3. One of my original grounds for appeal was that the operator had failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary contractual authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at this site. The operator has not adequately responded to this point.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to have a valid written contract with the landowner or person entitled to grant such authority. This contract must provide clear authorisation to manage parking on the land and issue parking charges. It is also a requirement that this authority must be produced in the event of a dispute.
The operator has not provided any evidence of such a contract. It is not sufficient for the operator to claim that they are authorised by the landowner. They must produce a copy of the contract or agreement, even in a redacted form, to prove they have this authority.
The necessity for the operator to provide this evidence is further supported by case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court confirmed that a parking operator must be able to demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landowner to enforce parking charges. Without this, the parking charge is not valid.
I request that the POPLA assessor requires the operator to submit a copy of their contract with the landowner, redacted only for commercially sensitive information. If the operator is unable to provide this evidence, the appeal must be upheld.
It is important to note that the operator has not even claimed to have provided such evidence. This is a critical omission. Their failure to demonstrate landowner authority must be taken seriously, as it calls into question the legality of the entire parking charge.
In summary, the operator’s failure to provide evidence of landowner authority is a fundamental failure. I request that the appeal be upheld on this point alone.
Continue to only appeal as the Registered Keeper (RK). They have no idea who the driver is and you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
If we put it together, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) states:Quote9 (1) 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.
(2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
So, is there anything in the NtK you received that "specifies" the "period of parking"? You tell me.
Unless ALL the requirements of PoFA are fully complied with, then they cannot hold the Keeper liable. So, don't identify the driver.
"Posting"??? I hope you mean sending through the POPLA website. You can just save it as a PDF and upload it. Make sure you don't select anything that gives away the drivers identity. The appellant is the Keeper or "other" only.
The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
The back of the PCN pl.
There's no BPA Code of Practice as such, there's the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice if the event took place on or after 1 Oct.
So I suggest you re-read your draft and remove references to an out of date CoP, I also suggest you remove reference to TSRGD which has nothing whatsoever to do with contracts for parking on private land(it applies to traffic authorities), I also suggest you aggregate and don't repeat points under PoFA and CoP breaches, and remove the double negative here:
I contest that the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd does not specify the "period of parking" as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the PoFA.
The time and date of the breach? (you've obscured this).
The back of the PCN pl.
[/i]
9 (1) 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.
(2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
https://privateparkingsolutions.com/contact-us.html (https://privateparkingsolutions.com/contact-us.html)
Whereabouts are you looking where they are demanding a fee? That seems like the sort of information that wound ordinarily be available for free, either already published, or via an FOI request.
No. The appeal is going to be rejected no matter what you put in it.Right. I suppose I mean based on the fact I can't find any controls, should I still appeal? Or am I still good to fight?
If it is an unadopted highway, that only means that it is privately maintained, but it may or may not be subject to statutory control. Check for any Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) or other regulations governing the road, as these would indicate statutory control. If such controls exist, the road would not qualify as "relevant land" under PoFA. If no such controls are in place, the road should be considered private land under PoFA, and keeper liability could apply.
Can you show us that document or a link to it please?
No benefit to including anything about not issuing a physical ticket or the application to DVLA for unpaid fines when at that point nothing was overdue?No, neither of those things are reasons the charge is not owed. Parking companies are not required to issue a physical ticket on the car windscreen. PPS' position is that the signage states that breaching the terms of parking mean that the driver agrees to pay £100 - at the time they contacted DVLA that £100 had not been paid and therefore that balance is outstanding, so there's not much mileage in that argument.
A couple of points for when we get to POPLA:
- That signage is rubbish! If you're able to get some more photos of its layout and contents that could be handy - also photos of the signage at the entrance to the private road
- As this is a private road case, it's always worth checking with the relevant local council that it is indeed a private road, and not an adopted highway
No benefit to including anything about not issuing a physical ticket or the application to DVLA for unpaid fines when at that point nothing was overdue?No, neither of those things are reasons the charge is not owed. Parking companies are not required to issue a physical ticket on the car windscreen. PPS' position is that the signage states that breaching the terms of parking mean that the driver agrees to pay £100 - at the time they contacted DVLA that £100 had not been paid and therefore that balance is outstanding, so there's not much mileage in that argument.
For the time being, appeal to PPS as the Keeper (not the driver) with the following, verbatim:QuoteI 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.
It will be rejected but they will issue a POPLA code where there is more chance of a successful appeal. Even if POPLA appeal fails, there is no obligation to pay the speculative invoice. It may go as far asa court claim which is easily defended if it ever went that far. That is a bridge to cross if we ever come to it, suffice it to say that we have a 99% success rate.
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.
What about asking the management company/landowner to get it cancelled?They acknowledge there was a lifting for the event, but refused to get involved as above!
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.