That response from POPLA is notable for two things:
1. Admission of error – POPLA expressly admits that the assessor misinterpreted PoFA and that the NtK did not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f). This is a rare but significant concession.
2. Denial of recourse or escalation – Despite this admission, they claim there is no mechanism to escalate complaints externally, contradicting their status as a regulated ADR provider under the ADR Regulations 2015.
You should submit a formal regulatory complaint to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which regulates ADR providers such as POPLA under UK law. CTSI is empowered to investigate ADR non-compliance, particularly in cases of:
• Failure to apply the law correctly
• Procedural unfairness
• Lack of independence or transparency
• Inadequate complaints resolution mechanisms
You can email the following to adr@tsi.org.uk and CC in yourself:
Subject: Regulatory Complaint – Non-compliance by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals)
Dear CTSI ADR Team,
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct and operation of POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is operated by TAG Services (formerly Ombudsman Services) and approved as an ADR entity under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.
POPLA recently handled my appeal under verification code [INSERT CODE]. I later submitted a formal complaint regarding serious legal and procedural errors in the decision. The POPLA complaints handler has since admitted that the decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and that the Notice to Keeper in question did not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f).
Despite this, POPLA have stated they refuse to reconsider the outcome, asserting that it is a “one-stage process.” They further state that no external complaints process exists, and that TAG Services (the ADR entity administrator) “have no involvement in our complaints handling procedure.”
This raises several regulatory concerns:
• POPLA admits its decision was incorrect in law, yet refuses to reconsider the outcome or offer any remedy.
• The internal complaints system lacks independence or escalation, directly contradicting the spirit of the ADR Regulations.
• POPLA claims that neither TAG Services nor any external body can investigate complaints, suggesting a complete lack of accountability.
• POPLA assessors appear untrained or improperly supervised, as the admitted legal error concerns one of PoFA's most basic requirements.
• POPLA’s refusal to reassess a clearly flawed decision undermines consumer protection and confidence in the ADR system.
Under the ADR Regulations 2015, ADR entities must:
• Ensure decisions are reached by impartial and legally competent assessors;
• Have a transparent and accessible complaints process;
• Offer effective redress in the event of a serious procedural or legal error;
• Allow complaints about the ADR service to be handled independently.
I request CTSI urgently investigate POPLA’s non-compliance with its statutory duties as an approved ADR provider and advise whether it remains suitable to continue handling parking appeals without an effective external accountability mechanism.
I am happy to supply copies of the original appeal, the rebuttal, and POPLA’s full complaint response, including their admission of legal error.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone – optional]
If further evidence was needed of the utter incompetence of some POPLA assessors, you have it in that response.
Whilst a POPLA decision is not binding on you and you must not pay this, it does warrant a formal complaint to POPLA about such blatant ineptitude, even though they will not reconsider the appeal. It provides a paper trail that they cannot ignore.
Send the following to POPLA as a pdf attachment to an email to info@popla.co.uk and CC in yourself:
To: Lead Adjudicator
POPLA Complaints
To: info@popla.co.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint – Appeal Decision [Insert POPLA Verification Code]
Dear Lead Adjudicator,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the decision issued in appeal verification code [INSERT CODE], assessed by Larenz Gumbs. The decision reflects a total failure to engage with the grounds of appeal or apply even basic principles of contract law, PoFA, or the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The following details each specific error, as demonstrated by a point-by-point review of the assessor's language compared against the content of the appeal and rebuttal.
1. Failure to engage with the core issue of non-receipt of the NtK
"The appellant has stated that there was no notice to keeper received... they have stated that the operator was not compliant with POFA 2012."
The assessor merely summarised this without addressing the legal consequences of non-receipt under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraphs 9(1) and 9(6). There was no recognition that proof of delivery is required to establish Keeper liability. Issuance is not the test; delivery is. This is a basic error in statutory interpretation.
"The operator has provided the landowner agreement... The date of the parking charge incident was on 7th October 2024 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued to the registered keeper on 11th October 2024 which is within the time limit allowed via PoFA."
This statement is misleading. Issuance alone is not sufficient. Under Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given (i.e., delivered or deemed delivered). The assessor treated the issue date as if it alone satisfied compliance, which it does not.
2. Uncritical acceptance of the operator’s assertions
"From the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude the parking charge notice is not compliant with POFA."
This shifts the burden of proof wrongly onto the appellant. The operator failed to prove delivery. The appeal explicitly put the operator to strict proof. They did not provide any such proof—no Certificate of Posting, no delivery record—nothing. The assessor’s logic assumes that the absence of evidence is acceptable. That is legally and procedurally incorrect.
"This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they will be liable to pay the Parking Charge."
Wrong. Belief that liability might exist is not the same as legally established liability under statute. Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA only transfers liability if every statutory requirement is fulfilled. The assessor ignored this.
3. Misinterpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA
"Information is also given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle."
This glosses over a central point raised in the rebuttal: the NtK stated liability begins "28 days after the second working day after the date of issue", which is not what PoFA requires. PoFA says liability arises "at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day AFTER that on which the notice is given." The operator's calculation is wrong and inconsistent with the law. The assessor completely ignored this fundamental defect.
4. Dismissal of the rebuttal evidence
"The appellant has stated that they had a call with the operator which discusses the parking charge notice not being received and being lost within the post. I am unable to comment on this further as I was not privy to this conversation."
This is unacceptable. The operator's own staff reportedly stated the NtK was "probably lost in the post"—a clear admission that delivery did not occur. It was not denied or countered. Rather than treating it as evidence, the assessor dismissed it with a blanket disclaimer. This shows a complete failure to weigh probative value of uncontested admissions.
5. Superficial treatment of landowner authority
"The operator has provided the landowner agreement to manage the car park. This shows that the operator has a legitimate interest in the parking incident."
This is a superficial and legally insufficient assessment. The appeal rebuttal pointed out that:
• The agreement was heavily redacted;
• It lacked site specificity;
• It omitted boundary plans;
• It contained no visible execution dates or signatures.
The assessor did not address these at all. They accepted a redacted, generic document without examining whether it met PPSCoP standards for valid landowner authority.
6. Misapplication of POPLA’s role
"Our role at POPLA is to consider if the PCN has been issued correctly..."
That is an unacceptably narrow definition. POPLA’s role is to assess if the charge is enforceable, which includes checking compliance with PoFA, the Code of Practice, and fairness under contract principles. Issuing a PCN does not equate to establishing liability. This statement reveals either a misunderstanding of POPLA’s remit or an intentional mischaracterisation to sidestep the need to assess enforceability.
Summary
This decision reflects a complete failure in competence, judgment, and legal understanding. Larenz Gumbs either lacks the training to assess PoFA-based cases or did not read the appeal properly. I am aware that POPLA does not rescind adjudications, but this matter must be escalated to senior level.
I expect:
• A formal review of this decision;
• Clarification of POPLA’s official position on Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA;
• Confirmation of retraining or disciplinary action for the assessor involved;
• Written assurance that cases involving disputed PoFA compliance will be assessed by trained staff with working knowledge of the legislation and Code of Practice.
If this is not addressed meaningfully, I will escalate the matter to Ombudsman Services, as POPLA’s administrator, and to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which is the designated competent authority responsible for regulating ADR bodies under the ADR Regulations 2015. This is not just about one bad decision—it is about systemic failure within POPLA to ensure its assessors are competent, impartial, and capable of applying statutory consumer law, particularly the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I will also be raising these concerns with the DVLA, given the potential misuse of Keeper data based on decisions that fail to assess the legal validity of liability transfer.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Contact details]
Apart from that, you now wait for the inevitable debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Never, ever communicate with a debt collector. They re powerless except to try and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. They are powerless. Ignore them.
Come back when you get a response to your POPLA complaint and when you receive a Letter of Claim (loC). You won't be paying a penny to Horizon.
OK. So you need to use the following points in your POPLA appeal:
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required
3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance
4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice
5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Received
The Company, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, did not receive the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Upon receiving a reminder letter, the Company contacted the operator to complain that the original NtK had not been received. During this telephone conversation, the operator’s representative admitted that the NtK was “probably lost in the post” and advised that the Company could either pay the charge or appeal using the reminder letter. This statement demonstrates that no NtK was received.
The operator is attempting to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability from the driver to the Keeper. For this transfer of liability to be valid, the operator must comply with the strict statutory requirements of PoFA, which include the timely delivery of a compliant NtK to the Keeper. The failure to deliver the NtK undermines the operator's case.
2. Evidence of Posting the NtK Required
Under PoFA, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given to the Keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking event. It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the original NtK was sent and delivered by requiring them to provide the following evidence:
• A Certificate of Posting, showing the date on which the NtK was sent.
or
• A delivery receipt or equivalent proof of service, confirming when the NtK was delivered to the Keeper.
Assertions alone by the operator that the NtK was sent are insufficient. Without documented evidence of posting or delivery, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA’s requirements.
Failure to prove that the NtK was sent and delivered within the required timeframe renders the operator unable to transfer liability to the Keeper under PoFA.
3. Reservation of Rights to Challenge PoFA Compliance
Since no NtK was received, the Appellant cannot assess whether the operator complied with all the requirements of PoFA. The Appellant explicitly reserves the right to challenge the PoFA compliance of any NtK presented by the operator in their evidence pack, if/when received.
POPLA assessors are reminded that:
PoFA compliance must be absolute; partial or substantial compliance is insufficient to transfer liability to the Keeper.
This includes strict adherence to all prescribed wording, deadlines, and content requirements under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9.
Should the operator provide a copy of the NtK, the Appellant reserves the right to highlight any deficiencies or non-compliance in their response to the operator’s evidence.
4. Non-Compliance with BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP)
The operator must comply with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) as a condition of their membership and in accordance with industry standards. In this case, the operator has failed to comply with the following SCoP provisions:
• Transparency in Communication: The operator failed to ensure that a compliant NtK was received by the Keeper, which is a fundamental procedural failure.
• Proper Escalation Processes: The operator advised the Keeper to appeal using the reminder letter, despite the absence of the original NtK. This does not align with fair and professional practices expected under the SCoP.
• Predatory Practices: The operator appears to rely on missing NtKs to proceed with charges against Keepers, contrary to the fair treatment principles outlined in the SCoP.
The operator is required to adhere to these standards, and their failure to do so casts doubt on the validity of the charge and the fairness of their conduct.
5. Evidence of Landowner Authority Required
The operator is required to have a valid, written contract with the landowner that:
• Grants them the authority to issue parking charges in their own name.
• Confirms their legal right to enforce parking terms on the land in question.
This is a mandatory requirement under both PoFA and the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice. The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof to produce an unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner, showing that it:
• Grants them the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in their own name.
• Covers the location where the parking event allegedly took place.
• Was valid on the date of the parking event.
Without such evidence, the operator has no legal standing to pursue this charge, and the PCN should be cancelled.
Conclusion
The operator has failed to establish Keeper liability under PoFA or demonstrate compliance with other legal and procedural requirements. Specifically:
• The original NtK was not received, as evidenced by the operator’s admission that it was “probably lost in the post.”
• The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that the original NtK was posted and delivered, which requires verifiable evidence such as a Certificate of Posting or delivery receipt.
• The operator has failed to comply with key requirements of the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice.
• The operator has not demonstrated that they hold a valid contract with the landowner giving them the authority to issue PCNs in their own name.
Given the above points, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.