The operator’s evidence pack is a classic example of irrelevance and obfuscation, spectacularly failing to address the single most important legal requirement: compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The third page of their own evidence confirms that the date of the alleged contravention was 21/12/2024, and the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 02/01/2025. Being a Thursday, the earliest this could be “given” is Monday 06/01/2025 – 16 days after the event. Under PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9(4)(b), a NtK must be delivered within 14 days of the date of the alleged contravention to create keeper liability. The operator has missed this statutory deadline and cannot rely on PoFA. The rest of their submission is therefore irrelevant, because they have not established any liability on the part of the keeper.
Despite this being fatal to their claim, they try to bluff their way through the appeal by falsely asserting that the NtK was issued “within the required timeframe.” This is either basic ignorance of statutory requirements or a wilful attempt to mislead. Either way, POPLA must not allow operators to proceed on the basis of such blatant disregard for the law.
Even if PoFA had been complied with (it wasn’t), the signage at the site is wholly incapable of forming a contract with the driver. The signs simply state: “NO PARKING AT ALL TIMES”. This is not an offer to park under terms; it is a clear prohibition. Contract law requires that an offer is made, which can then be accepted by conduct (parking). Where parking is forbidden entirely, there can be no offer and thus no contract.
This legal principle is supported by PCM UK v Bull (Wimbledon County Court, 2016), where the judge held that prohibitory signs cannot form a contractual agreement because they do not offer terms that can be accepted. The same view was expressed in Horizon Parking v Mr J. C (2016), where the judge found that a sign stating "no parking" cannot constitute an offer capable of acceptance and no contract was formed.
The operator’s evidence shows that the signage in question contains prohibitory language only. The signage does not specify terms for permitted parking or any charge for authorised use – because none is permitted. If parking is not permitted at all, then no contract can arise and any driver parking there cannot be said to have “accepted terms.” The operator’s assertion that a contract was formed is legally unsustainable.
In addition, the operator has provided no valid evidence of landowner authority. A single page labelled “site agreement” is presented with no start date, no term, and no indication that it flows from the landowner. This fails to meet the evidential burden established in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338, which requires proof of the operator’s legal standing to offer contracts and pursue charges in their own name. CUP’s one-page document does not come close to meeting this standard and would not be accepted in court.
For the benefit of the POPLA assessor, I repeat the requirements of a valid landowner contract according to section 14 of the PPSCoP and if you compare what has been provided by the operator, it is not difficult to see where their evidence fails miserably to prove any contractual right flowing from the landowner:
Relationship with landowner
14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
NOTE 1: For example, to the windscreen or through the post.
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges.
NOTE 2: Where byelaws have been made, which prohibit the issuance of a parking charge, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.
NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.
To summarise:
- The operator has failed to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(4)(b) and cannot pursue the keeper.
- The signage is prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract under basic contract law.
- No contract was formed with the unidentified driver.
- The operator has failed to demonstrate landowner authority or legal standing.
POPLA is invited to allow this appeal without delay. If this appeal is refused despite these fatal defects, it would confirm that POPLA is not applying basic legal principles and is merely enabling BPA members to misuse data and mislead the public.
The operator's evidence fails to successfully challenge the grounds of my appeal. Instead, to the contrary, it proves the points I made. On page 4 of the operator's evidence pack, they claim that "a PoFA notice had been issued within the required time frame". This is disproved by their own evidence. On page 3 of the operator's evidence pack, they helpfully provide the following key details:As outlined in my appeal, according to paragraph 9(6) of PoFA, a "notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales". The notice was posted on Thursday 2nd January - the first working day after this was Friday 3rd January - Saturday 4th January and Sunday 5th January are not working days for the purposes of 9(6) of PoFA - the second working day after Thursday 2nd January was therefore Monday 6th January, when the notice was delivered. As already outlined in my appeal, Monday 6th January is 16 days after the alleged contravention. Therefore, the notice was not given within the relevant period of 14 days as defined by PoFA, and my appeal should be upheld.
- Date of contravention: 21/12/2024
- Date notice sent: 02/01/2025
It is telling that, in their reply to my initial appeal, the operator themselves confirmed that they were not seeking to hold me liable under PoFA. Their response to my appeal, a copy of which is included on pages 14/15 of their evidence pack, states clearly that they are not seeking to rely on PoFA. This makes their claim that they are able to hold me liable as the keeper under PoFA all the more absurd.
For the reasons outlined, this appeal should be upheld.
POPLA Appeal[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)-Vs-Close Unit Protection Services Ltd (trading as CUP Enforcement) (Operator)Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]
Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from CUP Enforcement (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is on the following grounds:
1. No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. CUP Enforcement have failed to do so. Helpfully, the operator confirmed this in writing, when responding to my appeal:"The PCN was issued within the required time frame for Non-PoFA notices."
hey have failed to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as specified by 9(5) of the Act.
Date of Parking: 21/12/2024
Date of PCN issue: 02/01/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 06/02/2024
Elapsed time period: 16 days
As CUP Enforcement now concede that they are not seeking to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge, and my appeal should be upheld.
2. Breach of the PPSSCoP - Misrepresentation
The parking charge notice issued by CUP falsely claimed that CUP Enfocement would be able to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, despite the fact they were aware (or ought to have been aware) that they had not complied with the relevant conditions to do so. This was confirmed in their response to my appeal, in which they admitted that they were not seeking to hold me liable under PoFA.
This is in direct contravention of section 8.1.1 (d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, which states:8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:a) implies or would cause the recipient to infer statutory authority where none
exists;
b) deliberately resembles a public authority civil enforcement penalty charge
notice;
c) uses prohibited terminology as set out in Annex E; or
d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that as the registered keeper I have no liability for this charge, and I request that my appeal is upheld.
Evidence Available
I am able to provide:
• Metadata proving the delivery of my original complaint to CUP Enforcement’s email servers.
• Copies of my correspondence with CUP Enforcement, demonstrating their failure to respond fully to the issues raised.
• Copies of the PCNs, showing the duplication and PoFA non-compliance.
I suggest a hybrid strategy.For clarity, me too.
Data Protection Officer
Close Unit Protection (C.U.P)
Office 9, Dalton House
60 Windsor Avenue
London
SW19 2RR
By email to: info@cupenforcement.com
Subject: Subject Access Request
To the Data Protection Officer at CUP Enforcement,
I am submitting this Subject Access Request (SAR) under Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and request access to all personal data CUP Enforcement holds about me.
Scope of the Request
I specifically require the following information:1. Copies of all correspondence between myself and CUP Enforcement, including any emails, letters, or other written communications.
2. Records or logs of emails received by your email servers (e.g., Microsoft Exchange [MX] servers) from my email address [your email address] on the following dates:• [Insert date and time of original email]
• [Insert date and time of follow-up email]
• Please include metadata, timestamps, and confirmation of receipt for these emails. If CUP Enforcement has classified these emails under a specific internal reference or complaint number, please provide this as well.
3. Internal notes, records, or correspondence related to my case, including any reference to PCNs [PCN #1] and [PCN #2], and any actions or decisions made in response to my communications.
4. All other personal data CUP Enforcement holds about me, as defined under Article 4(1) of the GDPR.
Transparency Failures
I note that your website does not have a privacy policy or any publicly accessible information about how personal data is processed. This is a clear breach of your obligations under Articles 13 and 14 of UK GDPR, which require organisations to provide transparent and accessible information about data processing. Additionally, no contact details for a Data Protection Officer (DPO) are provided, contrary to Article 37.
Due to this lack of transparency, I am forced to send this SAR to your general email address, info@cupenforcement.com. Please ensure this request is forwarded to the appropriate person or team responsible for data protection compliance.
Preservation of Data
Please note that as of the date of this request, all data related to this SAR is subject to legal preservation. CUP Enforcement is prohibited under Article 17(3)(b) of UK GDPR from deleting or tampering with any data that is relevant to this request. Any such actions will constitute a breach of GDPR, and I will report this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for investigation.
Identity Verification
I am attaching a copy of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by your company as proof of identity. This document contains sufficient information to verify my identity and locate my records, including my name, address, and the PCN reference number.
Deadline for Response
Under the GDPR, you are required to respond to this request within one calendar month. Therefore, I expect to receive your response no later than [insert deadline date].
Submission of Response
Please provide the requested information in electronic format via email to [your email address]. If the data includes large files, I will accept a download link.
Next Steps
Failure to provide a complete and accurate response to this SAR will result in a formal complaint to the ICO. I will include evidence of non-compliance, including email headers confirming delivery of my original complaint and follow-up correspondence to your servers.
I look forward to your timely response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
Subject: Formal Complaint Against CUP Enforcement: Procedural Failures, Privacy Violations, and PoFA Non-Compliance
Dear BPA Compliance Team,
I am submitting a formal complaint against CUP Enforcement, a member of your association, regarding serious procedural failings, breaches of the BPA Code of Practice, and non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). CUP Enforcement’s conduct raises serious concerns about their adherence to legal and industry standards, including their compliance with their KADOE (Keeper at Date of Event) contract with the DVLA.
Summary of Complaints1. Failure to Respond to a Formal Complaint and Incomplete Response:
I submitted a formal complaint to CUP Enforcement on [original complaint date], addressing two Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), [PCN #1] and [PCN #2], which were issued for the same alleged contravention on 21st December 2024. CUP Enforcement failed to acknowledge or respond to my formal complaint within their stated timeframe.• A follow-up email was sent on [follow-up complaint date], reminding them of their obligation to respond.
• Their subsequent reply failed to address all the issues raised in my original complaint. For example:• The response acknowledged that PCN [PCN #1] was issued in error and cancelled but failed to explain how this error occurred or what measures were in place to prevent duplicate PCNs from being issued in the future.
• They provided no substantive response regarding the invalidity of PCN [PCN #2], which I clearly raised as being non-compliant with PoFA.
• CUP Enforcement did not address their failure to handle my complaint in accordance with their published complaints procedure.
2. Issuance of Duplicate PCNs for the Same Alleged Contravention:
CUP Enforcement issued two PCNs, [PCN #1] and [PCN #2], for the same alleged contravention on the same day. This duplication was admitted in their response, with PCN [PCN #1] being cancelled. However, they failed to provide an adequate explanation for this error or assurance that such administrative failings will not occur in the future.
3. Non-Compliance with PoFA:
The Notices to Keeper (NtKs) for both PCNs fail to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).• The alleged contravention occurred on Saturday 21st December 2024, and the NtKs were issued on Thursday 2nd January 2025, with a deemed, two working day delivery date of Monday 6th January 2025. This is outside the statutory 14-day window required for keeper liability.
• Despite this, CUP Enforcement is attempting to hold me, the registered keeper, liable for PCN [PCN #2], which is unlawful under PoFA.
4. Failure to Publish a Privacy Policy and DPO Contact Information:
CUP Enforcement’s website does not provide a privacy policy or details of their data protection practices, contrary to Articles 13 and 14 of the UK GDPR.• No contact information for a Data Protection Officer (DPO) or equivalent is provided, as required under Article 37.
• These omissions make it unnecessarily difficult for individuals to understand how their personal data is processed or to exercise their data protection rights.
5. Failure to Maintain Transparency:
Due to the lack of a privacy policy or DPO contact, I was forced to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to CUP Enforcement via their general email address (info@cupenforcement.com). Their failure to comply with GDPR transparency obligations is unacceptable and further undermines trust in their operations.
Next Steps
In addition to this complaint to the BPA, I will also be submitting a formal complaint to the DVLA. CUP Enforcement’s breaches of PoFA, failure to comply with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), and procedural failings constitute a breach of their KADOE contract. These failures call into question their continued access to DVLA data.
Required Action
I request the BPA investigate CUP Enforcement’s actions and take appropriate measures, including:• Holding CUP Enforcement accountable for issuing duplicate PCNs for the same contravention and ensuring processes are implemented to prevent such errors.
• Requiring them to publish a GDPR-compliant privacy policy and provide contact details for their DPO or equivalent.
• Investigating their non-compliance with PoFA, specifically their attempt to hold me, the registered keeper, liable under an invalid NtK.
• Reviewing their complaint-handling process to ensure timely and complete responses that address all issues raised by complainants.
Evidence Available
I am able to provide:• Metadata proving the delivery of my original complaint to CUP Enforcement’s email servers.
• Copies of my correspondence with CUP Enforcement, demonstrating their failure to respond fully to the issues raised.
• Copies of the PCNs, showing the duplication and PoFA non-compliance.
CUP Enforcement’s conduct reflects poorly on the standards expected of BPA members and raises serious questions about their compliance with both industry standards and the law. I trust the BPA will take this matter seriously and investigate promptly.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Subject: Urgent Follow-Up on Formal Complaint Regarding Duplicate PCNs
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to follow up on the formal complaint I submitted on [date you sent the formal complaint], regarding duplicate Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for the same alleged contravention. [PCN #1 number] and [PCN #2 number]. My original complaint detailed serious administrative errors and a failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
According to your published complaints policy, CUP Enforcement is required to acknowledge complaints within 14 days of receipt. As of today, no acknowledgment or unique reference code has been provided to me. This failure to adhere to your own policy undermines your credibility and raises further concerns about your handling of this matter.
I hereby reiterate the key points of my original complaint:• Both PCNs must be canceled immediately, as they pertain to the same alleged contravention.
• An explanation must be provided regarding how this duplication error occurred.
• Written confirmation must be issued to confirm no further action will be taken in relation to this matter.
If I do not receive an acknowledgment and a substantive response to my complaint within 7 days, I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA), the DVLA, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) as appropriate.
I trust that you will now handle this matter promptly and professionally.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Thank you or that.In this case, the presumption actually comes from paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered (therefore 'given') two working days after postingThat presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
Upon inspection, it actually just says "post", rather than necessarily first class.
The requirements of PoFA are the ones against which we should be comparing any dates when assessing whether the notice is compliant such that the charges may be recovered from the keeper (which in this case, they may not).
In this case, the presumption actually comes from paragraph 9(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered (therefore 'given') two working days after postingThat presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".
Because items sent by first class post are presumed delivered (therefore 'given') two working days after postingThat presumption comes from the Interpretation Act, and applies "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Duplicate PCNs for the Same Alleged Contravention
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to formally complain about two separate Notice to Keeper (NtK) letters I have received from CUP Enforcement regarding the same alleged contravention, purportedly occurring on 21st December 2024 at 105-115 The Parade, Watford WD17 1LU. These NtKs, while assigned different PCN numbers [PCN #1 number] and [PCN #2 number], are otherwise identical and relate to the same date, time, location, and even feature the same ANPR photographic evidence.
This duplication is a serious administrative error that raises concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of your enforcement processes. Issuing multiple PCNs for a single event result in unfair and unjustified financial demands against the registered keeper.
Furthermore, I note that the NtKs claim to have been issued under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). However, the dates on the NtKs invalidate any claim to compliance with PoFA. The alleged contravention took place on Thursday, 21st December 2024, and the NtK was issued on Thursday, 2nd January 2025. In order to comply with PoFA, the NtK must be given within 14 days of the alleged contravention, meaning the latest date by which it should have been given was Tuesday, 31st December 2024. Your failure to meet this statutory deadline means that the keeper cannot be held liable under PoFA.
I wish to make it clear that I am not submitting a separate appeal for each PCN at this stage. Instead, I am raising this issue as a formal complaint under the provisions of the latest BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 11.2, which states:"Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled."
Given the above, I demand that CUP Enforcement:• Cancel both PCNs immediately, as they pertain to the same alleged contravention.
• Provide a full explanation as to how this duplication error occurred.
• Confirm in writing that no further action will be taken against me, the registered keeper, in relation to this alleged incident.
Please treat this complaint as an appeal if necessary, in line with your obligations under the BPA Code of Practice.
If this matter is not resolved satisfactorily within 14 days, I will escalate my complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA) for further investigation. I also reserve the right to report this matter to the DVLA and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for potential misuse of my personal data.
I expect a prompt and detailed response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and I dispute your alleged ‘parking charge’. I deny any liability or contractual agreement, and I will be making a complaint about your predatory and incompetent conduct to your client landowner.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with all the mandatory requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It would appear that CUP Enforcement has failed to grasp that PoFA compliance is not a "close enough" exercise. Partial or even substantial compliance does not suffice.
The timeline is simple and damning:
Date of alleged contravention: Saturday, 21st December 2024
Date of NtK issue: Thursday, 2nd January 2025
First date of presumed delivery: Monday, 6th January 2025
For your NtK to be PoFA-compliant, it should have been issued by Wednesday, 1st January 2025, at the latest. Clearly, it was not.
I remind you that liability under PoFA is strictly limited to the driver unless the NtK is served within the relevant period and in full compliance with the statutory provisions. As your NtK fails this threshold, you are unable to hold me, the registered keeper, liable.
CUP Enforcement seems to be relying on some creative but misguided legal theories about presumed driver liability or the law of agency. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. There will be no admission as to who was driving. No assumptions or inferences can be drawn. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
I note your NtK. I refer you to the answer given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) (https://proftomcrick.com/2014/04/29/arkell-v-pressdram-1971/). In that spirit, I suggest you cancel this PCN and save us both a complete waste of time. You’ve got no chance at POPLA and you should try and save yourself the assessor fee.
I look forward to confirmation that this matter is now closed.