Have you not yet clicked that you are dealing with a firm staffed by morons with less IQ than these Lego examples:
(https://i.imgur.com/DnncxEY.jpeg)
You have already sent your POPLA appeal. They will now have to decide whether they want to pay the ~£35 POPLA fee for it to be assessed or simply cancel the PCN. No need to appeal to CUP now. The ball is in their court.
However, they have not responded to these points that were made in the formal complaint where they were required to provide:
1. A copy of the original NtK issued for this charge.
2. Documentary evidence confirming the actual date of posting, including proof from any third-party mail provider (such as a Mail Consolidator) that the NtK was physically placed into the postal system.
3. A clear explanation of the method of postage used (e.g. Royal Mail first-class, bulk mail, etc.).
You can now wind them up a bit more by requiring the to respond to the demands or face further escalation:
Subject: Re: Formal Complaint – Failure to Address Raised Concerns
Dear CUP Enforcement Complaints Team,
Your response is nothing short of embarrassing. Either you failed to read my complaint, or you lack even the most basic comprehension skills. I did not ask whether I was 'eligible to appeal'. That ship has not only long since sailed, but an appeal to POPLA has already been submitted. You now have only two options: pay the POPLA fee and have the appeal independently assessed or cancel the Parking Charge Notice outright.
More importantly, your response completely ignores the fact that you have failed to address a formal complaint, which you are required to do under the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 11.3. This is yet another breach to add to the growing list of CUP Enforcement’s failures, and one that will be escalated to the DVLA alongside your blatant disregard for compliance. Given that breaches of the PPSCoP form part of the criteria for maintaining a KADOE contract, you may wish to reflect on whether CUP Enforcement is in a position to withstand a full compliance review once this is raised with the relevant authorities.
Just to ensure there is no further room for your obvious ignorance, I will repeat the request you have so conveniently ignored:
1. Provide a copy of the original NtK you claim was issued.
2. Provide documentary proof of the actual date of posting, including confirmation from any third-party mail provider (e.g., a Mail Consolidator) proving that it was physically placed into the postal system.
3. Confirm the method of postage used (Royal Mail first-class, bulk mail, etc.).
If this documentation does not exist (which seems increasingly likely), then CUP Enforcement has issued a Parking Charge Notice without ever following the required legal process. That would constitute malpractice, a breach of the PPSCoP, and a clear violation of DVLA data access rules.
I am now giving you one final opportunity to address this complaint properly. Either provide the requested proof or confirm in writing that you have no evidence that an NtK was ever posted. If you fail to do so, this matter will be escalated not just to the BPA, but to the DVLA for a full compliance review of your KADOE access.
Choose wisely.
Yours sincerely,
But that is not a response to the formal complaint. It is just a reminder letter. Ignore that. Wait for the response to the formal complaint.
You have not yet submitted a POPLA appeal. Go to the POPLA website. The code should be valid until the 9th February. Just use the code to send the following appeal to POPLA: (read it carefully and edit the necessary parts, especially section #5)
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: 34141
Vehicle Registration: BN02 FUG
Date of Alleged Contravention: 5th November 2024
Location: 481 Green Lanes
Grounds for Appeal:
1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has explicitly stated they are not relying on PoFA
2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence Provided
3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting
4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify the Driver
5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)
6. No Landholder Authority
1. No Keeper Liability – CUP Enforcement has explicitly stated they are not relying on PoFA
CUP Enforcement has confirmed in their appeal rejection letter dated 9th January 2025 that they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to hold the Registered Keeper liable.
Since the alleged contravention occurred on 5th November 2024, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) would have needed to comply with Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 to establish Keeper liability. As CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying on PoFA, they have no legal basis to hold me, the Keeper, liable.
It is well established by POPLA and case law that in the absence of PoFA compliance, only the driver can be held liable for a private parking charge. I am the Registered Keeper and at no point have I been identified as the driver. Therefore, as Keeper, I cannot be held liable, and the charge must be cancelled.
POPLA must uphold this appeal on this basis alone.
2. Failure to Send a Notice to Keeper (NtK) – No Evidence Provided
I never received an initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) from CUP Enforcement. The first correspondence I received was a reminder dated 9th December 2024.
I submitted a formal complaint to CUP Enforcement, requesting:
• A copy of the original NtK
• Documentary proof of the actual posting date
• Confirmation of the postage method
To date, CUP Enforcement has not responded to this complaint. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2 states that operators must retain proof of the actual date of posting and that a notice is presumed delivered only if it was correctly posted by a third-party mail provider (e.g., Royal Mail, Mail Consolidator, etc.).
Since no NtK was ever received, and CUP has failed to provide any proof that it was actually posted, they cannot enforce this charge against the Keeper.
3. Breach of BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Lack of Proof of Posting
CUP Enforcement has not provided any evidence that the original NtK was ever sent. According to PPSCoP Section 8.1.2, the burden of proof is on CUP Enforcement to show that the NtK was:
• Physically placed into the postal system, not merely generated
• Sent via a traceable method (e.g., Royal Mail, bulk mail provider)
• Presumed delivered under the correct legal timeframe
Without proof of posting, no presumption of delivery can be made. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and the charge is therefore invalid.
4. Lack of Keeper Responsibility & No Obligation to Identify the Driver
As the Registered Keeper, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Given that CUP Enforcement has chosen not to use PoFA, they can only pursue the driver. Since they have no evidence of who was driving, the charge is unenforceable.
POPLA has ruled in numerous appeals that in the absence of PoFA compliance, the Keeper cannot be assumed or inferred to be the driver. There is persuasive case law that also confirms that there can be no presumption of liability.
Since I have not identified the driver and CUP Enforcement has no means to do so, they have no lawful claim against me.
5. Unclear and Unenforceable Signage (if applicable)
(Include this section if you believe the signage was unclear, misleading, or inadequate. If the signage was small, poorly positioned, or lacked clear terms, state that it fails the BPA/IPC requirements on signage clarity and transparency.)
If the signage fails to clearly communicate contractual terms, then any alleged contract is unenforceable. CUP Enforcement must prove that:
• The signage was clearly visible and legible from the parking location
• The terms were unambiguous and prominently displayed
• The driver had a reasonable opportunity to review the terms before entering into any agreement
Without such proof, the alleged contract is not valid, and the charge must be cancelled.
6. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Conclusion – The Parking Charge Must Be Cancelled
• CUP Enforcement has confirmed they are not relying on PoFA, meaning I, as the Registered Keeper, cannot be held liable.
• The original NtK was never received, and no evidence of posting has been provided.
• The BPA/IPC PPSCoP requires operators to provide proof of actual postal dispatch, which CUP has failed to do.
• The Keeper is under no obligation to name the driver, and CUP cannot assume liability.
• The signage (if applicable) is unclear and does not form a valid contract.
• The operator does not have a valid contract with the landholder that authorises them to issue PCNs at this location.
Given the overwhelming evidence that the charge is legally unenforceable, I request that POPLA upholds my appeal and orders the cancellation of this Parking Charge Notice.
OK. The first PCN was definitely not PoFA compliant. You say you never received the original NtK for the second PCN. However, you have already appealed it and even sent a second appeal.
We need to establish a timeline that makes sense before we proceed.
5th November 2024: Date of alleged contravention
?? November 2024: Issue date of issue of original NtK (Possibly 8th November 2024)
9th December 2024: Issue date of first PCN reminder
12th December 2024: First appeal to CUP
23rd December 2024: Issue date of final demand notice
6th January 2025: Second appeal to CUP
9th January 2025: Date of CUP appeal response referring to appeal received on 4th January 2025 stating that they are not relying on PoFA
What date did your first appeal get delivered (signed for) to CUP?
What date did your second appeal to CUP get delivered (signed for) to CUP?
What is confusing me is the discrepancies about dates of appeal receipts. Also, if the original NtK was "issued" on 8th November for an alleged contravention on 5th November, then as far as dates are concerned, they are PoFA compliant. We would have to see the actual NtK to be able to see if there are any other issues with PoFA compliance. However, their admission in the appeal rejection that they are not relying on PoFA is damning for them.
I suggest that you submit a formal complaint to CUP that you never received the original NtK and that you require a copy of that NtK and evidence of it having been sent either by way of a "Proof of Posting Certificate" or a delivery receipt.
You still have a valid POPLA code for appealing until 9th January, so just keep that in reserve for a day or two.
You send the following as a PDF attachment in an email to info@cupenforcement.com and you CC in yourself. DO NOT use registered mail to do this!!! by sending it by email you have evidence of sending and receipt. PPSCoP section 11.3 requires that a complaint must be acknowledged by the parking operator within 14 days of its receipt:
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Date]
Close Unit Protection (C.U.P)
Office 9, Dalton House
60 Windsor Avenue
London
SW19 2RR
By email to: info@cupenforcement.com
Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for Evidence of Notice to Keeper (NtK) Sent by Post
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: 34141
Vehicle Registration: BN02 FUG
Date of Alleged Contravention: 5th November 2024
Location: 481 Green Lanes
Dear CUP Enforcement Complaints Team,
I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the above-referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN). I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and did not receive any initial Notice to Keeper (NtK) for this charge. I first became aware of the PCN upon receipt of a reminder issued on 9th December 2024.
In your appeal rejection letter dated 9th January 2025, you confirmed that the PCN was issued as a Non-PoFA Notice and referenced the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) in this regard. However, I require CUP Enforcement to provide specific evidence that the original NtK was actually sent by post and not merely generated.
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), section 8.1.2, explicitly states:
“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered 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.
Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)”
Given that I never received the original NtK, I now formally require CUP Enforcement to provide:
1. A copy of the original NtK issued for this charge.
2. Documentary evidence confirming the actual date of posting, including proof from any third-party mail provider (such as a Mail Consolidator) that the NtK was physically placed into the postal system.
3. A clear explanation of the method of postage used (e.g. Royal Mail first-class, bulk mail, etc.).
Failure to provide satisfactory evidence that the NtK was correctly posted and presumed delivered will be treated as a fundamental failure of your processes and a breach of the PPSCoP.
I expect this formal complaint to be responded to within 14 days as mandated by the PPSCoP section 11.3. I will not hesitate to escalate my complaint to the BPA. Additionally, I will bring this to the attention of any relevant regulatory bodies overseeing CUP Enforcement's conduct.
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your complaints procedure. I expect a response addressing the specific concerns raised, rather than a generic reiteration of the parking charge validity.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper