Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: purpleshadow on March 13, 2025, 09:13:51 am
-
I wanted to update you on the my popla appeal and have today received a message saying that it was successful.
The reason stated is as follows:
I am allowing this appeal for the following reason: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with an operator to demonstrate that the parking charge has been issued correctly. The driver’s details are unknown therefore, I need to assess if the PCN is complaint with the relevant aspects of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, in order to transfer the liability to the registered keeper. POFA 2012 Paragraph 6, subsection (1) (a) outlines that if a Notice to Driver is issued according to Paragraph 7 and the driver is not identified a Notice to Keeper must be sent in accordance with Paragraph 8. Having reviewed the operator’s casefile the operator has claimed that a Notice to Keeper was sent via post however, they have only provided a copy of the initial Notice to Driver issued, with no copy of the Notice to Keeper claimed to have been sent attached. I therefore cannot conclude that a compliant Notice to Keeper has been sent in accordance with Paragraph 8. I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has met the requirements set out in POFA 2012. And, as such, I am allowing this appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant has brought other grounds of appeal to POPLA, but as I am allowing this appeal based on the reasoning above, there is no requirement to address these grounds as they will not affect the outcome of this appeal.
I would like to thank all contributors to my post but especially b789. I am truly grateful.
Many thanks.
-
Many thanks for this. I will submit this today.
-
Copy and paste the following as your response to the operators evidence:
1. Failure of the operator to issue a Notice to Keeper
The operator claims they issued a “reminder Notice to Keeper” after obtaining DVLA data, but they have not supplied a copy of this document in their evidence pack. There is also no record of any original Notice to Keeper (NtK) being issued before that. Under PoFA, a parking operator can only hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge if they serve a valid NtK within strict statutory timeframes and containing all the required information.
In this case, the operator first issued a Notice to Driver (NtD), and the registered keeper then submitted an appeal using the operator’s internal process. The operator rejected that appeal and confirmed that the internal process had ended. However, they did not issue a formal NtK before or after that stage, only stating in their evidence pack that a “reminder” was sent. A reminder is not a substitute for a PoFA-compliant NtK.
PoFA Paragraph 6(1)(a) states that if an NtD has been given, then the NtK must be served not less than 28 days and not more than 56 days after the alleged parking event. It must also include specific mandatory information as set out in Paragraph 8 of PoFA. Without a valid NtK that meets all these conditions, the operator has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable.
As no NtK has been produced and no evidence has been submitted to show that one was ever issued in the correct form or timeframe, the operator cannot rely on PoFA. Therefore, liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.
2. Failure to evidence an entrance sign defining the boundary of the private land
There is no entrance signage shown anywhere in the operator’s evidence pack. This is a serious omission, especially given that the appeal specifically raised the lack of entrance signage as a key reason why no contract could have been formed with the driver.
Under Section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and section 19.2 of the BPA CoP (v9), it is a mandatory requirement that operators place a clear and prominent entrance sign at the entry point to the land they are managing. This sign must inform drivers that they are entering private land and that terms and conditions apply. Without such a sign, a driver cannot be expected to know they are entering a controlled area or that they may be entering into a contract by remaining on the land.
In this case, the location is not a traditional car park but a residential road with no ground markings or clear boundaries. This makes proper entrance signage even more important. If the driver entered what appears to be an ordinary residential street with no clear notice at the entry point, they would have no reasonable opportunity to know that private parking terms applied.
The operator has submitted only isolated images of signs placed somewhere within the site. These are not dated, not mapped, and not shown in context. There is no visual evidence of a sign at the point of entry to the site, and no indication that the driver would have seen or had the chance to read any terms before stopping or parking.
The absence of an entrance sign means that no contract can have been formed, and the driver was not adequately informed of any terms or charges. This is a breach of both the BPA CoP (v9) and the PPSCoP which undermines any claim that the parking charge is enforceable. The appeal should be upheld on this basis alone.
3. Failure to evidence that any contract could have been formed
The NtD issued by the operator does not evidence any breach of contract because it fails to show that the vehicle was parked for a period of time that exceeds the minimum consideration period required under the PPSCoP.
The NtD simply states an “observation time” of 14:01 and an “issue time” of 14:04. This shows only that the vehicle was present for a total of three minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP, a driver must be allowed a minimum consideration period of at least five minutes from entering the site before a Parking Charge Notice may be issued. This time is intended to allow drivers to locate, read, and understand the terms and conditions displayed on signs before deciding whether to accept them and remain on the land.
The operator has not provided any evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond this minimum period. Without proof that the vehicle was parked beyond the minimum consideration period, no breach of contract can be established.
Additionally, courts have confirmed in decisions such as Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) that a single snapshot or short time period is not enough to show parking, particularly where the vehicle may have stopped only briefly to assess the terms or turn around.
As the NtD does not show any period of parking, and only records a 3-minute window, it fails to satisfy the evidential burden required to establish a breach. The operator has therefore failed to show that a contract was ever accepted and breached, and the parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
4. Rebuttal to Operator’s Agreement – Lack of Sufficient Evidence of Landowner Authority
The operator includes a document titled "Car Park Management Agreement" in their evidence pack and seeks to rely on it as proof of their authority to operate and enforce parking charges at Mill Parc, Isleworth. However, this agreement does not meet the evidential requirements set out in Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (version 1.1, dated 17 February 2025).
The agreement is between Spring Parking Ltd and Proxima GR Properties Ltd c/o Firstport Property Services Ltd. It includes a generic statement that the client "confirms that it has authority from the site owners" to contract out car park management. However, no evidence has been provided to prove that Proxima GR or Firstport is the landowner or has been granted the necessary legal authority by the landowner to authorise parking enforcement on this site. There is no lease, deed of appointment, or written authority from the landholder confirming the capacity in which the client is acting.
Furthermore, the agreement has been signed by an individual whose name is printed, but no job title or position is given. This omission raises doubt as to whether the individual was authorised to bind the client company in this matter.
Section 14 of the Code requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder or a person acting with the authority of the landholder. That authorisation must confirm the identity of the site, the duration of the contract, and the ability of the operator to issue parking charges. Crucially, it must also be clear that the person signing the agreement has the appropriate authority. The absence of supporting documents and the failure to identify the signatory's position mean that the operator has not discharged the burden of proof in this regard.
In summary, the agreement included in the operator’s evidence pack is insufficient to demonstrate that they hold the necessary authority to manage and enforce parking at the location. It lacks any supporting evidence of landowner status or delegated authority, and the signatory’s role is unstated, making it impossible to verify whether the agreement has been validly executed. Given the requirements of Section 14 of the PPSCoP, the operator has failed to establish that it has the legal standing to pursue parking charges at this site. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
5. Rebuttal – Misrepresentation of Keeper Appeal
In the operator’s Case Summary, it is falsely stated that an “email appeal was received from the driver.” This is factually incorrect and misleading.
The appeal was explicitly submitted by the Registered Keeper, not the driver. The wording of the appeal clearly stated:
- “The Notice to Driver (NtD) was passed to me by the driver, and I am now submitting this appeal as the Keeper. I am providing my details as the Registered Keeper...”
The operator has chosen to disregard this clear and unambiguous statement and instead recorded the appellant as “the driver”, presumably to mislead the appeals process or to suggest that liability has been admitted. This is not only inaccurate but also undermines the operator’s credibility.
Moreover, the appeal expressly instructed the operator not to request the Keeper’s data from the DVLA, since it had already been voluntarily provided. The relevant extract from the appeal reads:
- “Since you now have my details, you must not request my data from the DVLA.
Any such request would be a breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018... and a misuse of the DVLA KADOE system...”
As the operator has subsequently requested the Keeper’s details from the DVLA, this constitutes unlawful processing under the UK GDPR and a breach of their KADOE contract with DVLA.
In light of the above, any assertion that the driver appealed or admitted liability must be dismissed. The operator’s misrepresentation in their evidence undermines the reliability of their case and supports the position that the charge must be cancelled.
It is under the 10,000 character limit for the webform.
-
Hello, here the link to the images. I have not added the original appeal or their response as they are already on here. I didn't notice that they said driver rather than registered keeper. I guess I could say something along the lines that it raises serious concerns about their record keeping, and reinforces the question the fundamental accuracy of their evidence.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tTi7r5IwHOBIlAlBsopTVeo5jOabRRdu?usp=sharing
-
Please host their evidence pack on DropBox or Google Drive. Without seeing their evidence, it is impossible to advise fully. How on earth are we supposed to know whether the contract they have evidenced is even valid?
You say they have stated that an email appeal was received from the "driver". Is that true or are they being mendacious?
The core of this appeal is that you, the Keeper have not identified the driver and because no NtK was issued, they cannot hold you liable.
-
Good evening. I have now received the "evidence" from Spring Parking. This included the Contract they have with the property management company. It also contains a
Case Summary
Actions Taken:
- The vehicle was observed parked at Mill Parc, Isleworth, London, TW7 6TH, without Clearly Displaying a Valid Permit.
On 5th March 2025 at 14:04
- As the vehicle was parked in breach of the parking terms and conditions, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.
- An email appeal was received from the driver.
- No proof that they were authorised to park was provided and the appeal was rejected. The account was held for 14 days at the reduced amount of £55.00, then at £95.00 for a further 14 days.
There is a contract in place at the above location.
There are multiple contractual agreement signs at the site the PCN was issued, 1 of which was near the vehicle.
Please find enclosed a copy of the signage that is located at the entrance to the car park and within.
____
It also includes the parking charge notice and then Registered Keeper's Details and Liability Trail It states that "The Registered Keeper's details were obtained from the DVLA under a reasonable cause request. Once the details were obtained, a reminder Notice to Keeper was issued by post." It shows underneath the name and address of the registered keeper. But they have not provided proof of postage or anything, nor a date when it was requested.
I need to point out, that at no point did we receive a letter at this address from Spring Parking.
The evidence pack then includes the Original Representation and Rejection which also includes the information that no Registered Keeper details should be requested, since they were provided.
The evidence pack then continues with a number of images showing the Signs around this area and also an image of the parking permit and its features. It does not show any entrance sign. It also shows the signage around some parking bays. One could argue that a driver was under the impression that these signs are for the parking bays and not for on the road parking?
I now have 7 days to respond to the evidence and would appreciate your suggestions and feedback. Do let me know if you need any further info.
-
No, you should not include that email. Your appeal argument relies on Spring Parking's procedural failure — specifically, that they did not issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) and therefore cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper.
Including that email could undermine that argument. By telling them not to contact the DVLA, you could be seen as having caused or contributed to the absence of a NtK. The operator (or the assessor) might argue that the NtK was not issued because of your instruction, rather than through any procedural failure by them.
POPLA assessors are not judges; they are not legally trained and in many cases, it is very clear that some of them even lack the most basic contract law knowledge. You must keep your appeal simple and based on objective failures by the operator — not introduce facts that allow POPLA to invent excuses for the operator.
-
I'm preparing my Popla appeal under the 'Other' category. Should I include my email to Spring Parking where I told them not to contact DVLA due to GDPR concerns? I'm now arguing they failed to send a Notice to Keeper (NTK) - would including this email undermine my case? Many thanks for the clarification.
-
Very good. I have adjusted it slightly because there was an inference that could possibly be made that the appellant was the driver. Also, the consideration period was wrongly referred to as a grace period:
POPLA Appeal
Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Operator: Spring Parking
Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7 6TH
Date of Incident: 05/03/2025
Grounds for Appeal:
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued – No Keeper Liability Can Be Established
Spring Parking has failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) as required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Consequently, the operator cannot establish liability against the registered keeper. The sequence of correspondence demonstrates the procedural gap:
• A Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 05/03/2025.
• A representation was submitted on 31/03/2025 using the operator’s internal appeals process.
• Spring Parking issued a rejection on 03/04/2025 stating, “You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.”
By concluding the internal appeals process without issuing a NtK, Spring Parking has precluded itself from seeking keeper liability. It cannot retrospectively serve a NtK or rely on PoFA provisions once this procedural path has ended.
2. The NtD Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Requirements
a) No Valid Period of Parking Specified (PoFA Paragraph 7(2)(a)):
• The NtD refers only to an “Observed Time” of 14:01 and a “Time of Issue” of 14:04.
• This 3-minute span does not constitute a verifiable period of parking.
• It is within the minimum 5-minute consideration period required under Section 8.3.2 of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), during which the driver is permitted time to consider terms and conditions before deciding whether to stay or leave.
b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA Paragraph 7(2)(e)):
• The NtD does not specify who the actual creditor is.
• It is unclear whether Spring Parking is the creditor or acting as an agent.
• The omission of this information renders the NtD non-compliant with PoFA requirements.
3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed
There was insufficient signage at the location entrance to inform a driver that they were entering private land subject to parking controls. The absence of clear, prominent signage means no contract could have been offered or accepted. The location presents as a residential road with no obvious demarcation, lines, or visible restrictions, reinforcing the appearance of a public street.
4. No Reasonable Consideration Period Allowed
The interval between observation and issue (14:01 to 14:04) is unreasonably short and fails to comply with the required consideration period under the PPSCoP. The vehicle was present for only three minutes—an insufficient time for any motorist to:
• Locate signage
• Read and understand the terms
• Decide whether to stay or leave
Issuing a PCN during this period is premature and contrary to industry standards of fair practice.
5. Location Appears to Be a Public Road
The vehicle was situated at a location that, by appearance and configuration, resembles a public highway. No signage or road markings indicated that private parking controls were in place. Any reasonable observer would have assumed the area was part of the public highway network.
6. Breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
The operator has breached PPSCoP Section 3.1.1 by failing to install an entrance sign informing motorists they are entering controlled land. This omission is particularly relevant as the location is not a car park but an open road without bay markings or restriction indicators. The allegation of “not clearly displaying a valid permit” lacks merit in the absence of adequate signage or any visible instruction that such a permit was required.
Conclusion:
Spring Parking has failed to comply with several legal and procedural requirements:
• No NtK has been issued, precluding keeper liability
• The NtD is PoFA non-compliant
• Signage is inadequate or absent
• No valid contract could have been formed
• The PPSCoP has been breached
• The alleged contravention occurred in a location resembling a public road
• The operator’s own rejection letter confirms that no further correspondence is forthcoming, and yet no NtK has been served.
As such, the appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.
I confirm that the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Date]
Supporting Evidence:
• Copy of the Parking Charge Notice (front and back)
• Spring Parking’s appeal rejection dated 03/04/2025
• Photographs of the location showing lack of signage
• Google Maps screenshot of the location
-
Hello, I have started on my POPLA appeal and was hoping for some feedback if this is sufficient, overkill or not enough. I haven't figured out how to copy the contents nicely into here, so have also attached the appeal as document.
POPLA Appeal
Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]
Personal Details:
• Name:
• Address:
• Email:
Parking Charge Details:
• Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN NUMBER]
• Vehicle Registration: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
• Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7 6TH
• Date of Incident: 05/03/2025
• Operator: Spring Parking
Grounds for Appeal:
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Spring Parking on the following grounds:
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued - Creditor Cannot Establish Keeper Liability
The creditor (Spring Parking) has not issued a Notice to Keeper and therefore has not satisfied the precedent condition at paragraph 6(1)(a) [and therefore paragraph 4(2)] of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the assessor is obliged to uphold this appeal and direct the creditor that they do not have the "Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle."
The sequence of events clearly demonstrates this:
• Notice to Driver issued on 05/03/2025
• I engaged with the creditor's internal disputes resolution procedure on 31/03/2025
• Creditor issued rejection on 03/04/2025 stating: "You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure"
Having expressly stated that I have reached the end of their internal appeals procedure without issuing a Notice to Keeper, they cannot now attempt to establish keeper liability, as this procedural sequence has closed.
2. The Notice to Driver (NtD) Fails to Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The NtD affixed to my vehicle does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in several critical ways:
a) No Period of Parking Stated (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a)):
• The NtD only records an "Observed Time" of 14:01 and "Time of Issue" of 14:04.
• This 3-minute interval does not constitute a legitimate period of parking for establishing a contravention.
• This brief period falls within the minimum consideration period required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) for a driver to seek out, read, and understand any terms and conditions before deciding whether to remain or leave.
b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (Breach of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(e)):
• The NtD does not clearly state who the actual creditor is.
• It is unclear whether Spring Parking is acting as the creditor or merely as an agent for the landowner.
• Without this information, the notice fails to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA.
3. Inadequate Signage and No Valid Contract
There was insufficient signage at the entrance to the location to inform drivers they were entering private land with parking restrictions. Without clear entry signage, no valid contract could have been formed between the driver and the parking operator.
This location appeared to be a public road with no clear markings, lines, or signage indicating parking restrictions or that it was private property subject to a parking scheme.
4. Failure to Allow Reasonable Grace Period
The extremely short time between observation (14:01) and ticket issuance (14:04) - just 3 minutes - demonstrates that Spring Parking failed to allow a reasonable grace period for the driver to:
• Locate any relevant signage
• Read and understand any terms and conditions
• Make an informed decision about whether to park
This practice contradicts the principles established in the British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC) Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which requires operators to allow a reasonable consideration period.
5. The Ticket Was Issued on What Appeared to Be a Public Road
The vehicle was parked at a location that had all the characteristics of a public road, with no clear demarcation or signage indicating it was private land subject to parking restrictions. The driver had a reasonable belief they were parking legally on a public road.
6. Breach of Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)
There is no entrance sign at the location to indicate that drivers are entering controlled private land subject to contractual parking terms. This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 3.1.1 which requires operators to display an entrance sign that informs drivers that they are entering controlled land.
This location is not a designated car park but rather appears to be a residential street with no ground markings, making it entirely unclear that any restrictions apply. The alleged contravention is "not clearly displaying a valid permit," but without proper signage indicating this requirement, no contract could possibly have been formed.
Conclusion:
Given the multiple failures to comply with PoFA requirements, the failure to issue a Notice to Keeper, the inadequate signage, the breach of the PPSCoP, and the failure to allow a reasonable grace period, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the parking charge in its entirety.
Spring Parking has already expressly stated that I have "reached the end of [their] internal appeals procedure" without issuing a Notice to Keeper, and therefore they cannot now attempt to establish keeper liability under PoFA. This procedural failure alone is sufficient grounds for POPLA to uphold this appeal.
I confirm that the information provided in this appeal is true to the best of my knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
Name, Date
Supporting Evidence:
1. Copy of the Parking Charge Notice (front and back)
2. Copy of Spring Parking's appeal rejection email dated 3rd April 2025
3. Photographs of the parking location showing lack of clear signage
4. Google Maps screenshot of the location where the vehicle was parked
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
What material advantage is gained by appealing now as opposed to the later date suggested?
The potential material downside has already been articulated.
-
Thanks.
Which is why I included what IMO is their position statement: 'you have reached the end...'.
IMO, they could not issue a NTK anyway and even if they did would be doomed by virtue of them already having closed-off their internal procedures.
I would engage with POPLA now.
-
Also, as I read PoFA the creditor must access keeper data from DVLA even when someone asserts, but without supporting proof, that they were the keeper on the relevant date. I don't understand the claim to the contrary in the challenge. Are there legal authorities on this point?
You are entirely correct that a parking company wishing to recover the charges from the keeper under Schedule 4 of PoFA must access the details from DVLA, even if they have already been provided by someone claiming to be the same.
But, if the Notice to Driver was not compliant with PoFA, then the PoFA-shaped ship has already sailed, so any subsequent request for details couldn't claim to be accessing the details for the purpose of holding the keeper liable under PoFA.
Whether a subsequent request for keeper data could be justified on the basis that they wanted to make sure the person claiming to be the keeper was indeed the keeper is another matter, but one that I would discourage being debated on this thread, as it would be hypothetical for now, and thus off-topic.
I think waiting to submit to POPLA is sensible to prevent any shenanigans by the parking company, whereby they hastily issue an NtK, which is the sort of thing POPLA might just be daft enough to fall for.
-
@b789, just to get clarity regarding the challenge as keeper to Spring Parking
Whether a NTD is complaint with PoFA or not does not affect whether the driver is liable for the parking charge. PoFA doesn't engage with this issue other than in the context of keeper/hirer liability. Therefore cancellation of the charge as such is not something which the keeper can demand unless in the context of driver liability. Therefore as I understand it, only the issues of signage impact on the charge.
Also, as I read PoFA the creditor must access keeper data from DVLA even when someone asserts, but without supporting proof, that they were the keeper on the relevant date. I don't understand the claim to the contrary in the challenge. Are there legal authorities on this point?
OP, their response is standard i.e. no-one has really considered what you submitted.
Anyway, IMO you're home and dry. They may not engage with POPLA as part of their 'arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints' without issuing a NTK, neither may they assert the 'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle'.
So, register with POPLA and get them to tell SP to go away. I don't see any benefit in delay.
Points:
The creditor has not issued a Notice to Keeper and therefore has not satisfied the precedent condition at para. 6(1)(a)[and therefore para. 4(2)] of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to As such the assessor is obliged to uphold this appeal and direct the creditor that they do not have the 'Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle'.
Supporting rationale:
Notice to Driver issued on ******;
Keeper engaged with the creditor's internal disputes resolution procedure by letter dated ****;
Creditor issued rejection dated **** in which they stated: 'You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options can pay or appeal'.
-
It’s actually valid for something like 33 days. As @b789 said above.
EG https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/euro-car-parks-vehicle-parked-without-valid-payment-transaction/msg63990/#msg63990
You initial appeal to ECP will be rejected no matter what is in it. However, with that rejection will be a POPLA code that will be valid for 33 days from the rejection date. It is at POPLA that your appeal will succeed.
-
Just a quick question. On the popla site it also says that the code is valid for 28 days? Should I not make my appeal by then so I won't risk it expiring?
-
Thank you for your response. We have not received a notice to keeper.
I will have a look at other popla appeals in the meantime and put a reminder in my calendar.
Many thanks
-
Just to confirm... have you received a Notice to Keeper (NtK)?
Again, put this in your diary... Thursday 1st May. On that date you will submit your POPLA appeal. The POPLA code is valid for 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection.
In the meantime, start to put together your POPLA appeal based on the original appeal but you will need to flesh it out a little. You need to lead the assessor by the nose to the conclusions of wy you are not liable and why the NtD was not PoFA compliant.
When you have something to show us, put it up here for review before you send anything. There will be one more thing to add which I will tell you about just before you need to submit the POPLA appeal.
Have a search for other POPLA appeals on the forum so that you can get a feel for how it should be presented.
-
We have received a response back from Spring Parking they rejected the appeal and provided the popla code. I would like to know the next steps. I presume I will now have to appeal to popla with the code given. There was a relevance of submitting appeal close to the deadline so that they do not contact DVLA for keeper details. I am not entirely sure about the relevance of this? Will this be useful in the popla appeal?
Many thanks for your assistance with this.
Date of this notice 3rd April 2025
Thank you for submitting your PCN appeal via email.
PCN Reference-
Vehicle Registration-
POPLA Verification Code -
Date and Time of Parking Event -05th March 2025 at 14:04
Location- Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London, TW7 6TH
Thank you for your representation you made on receiving a Parking Charge Notice with the above reference number.
We have considered everything on your email including any evidence enclosed but do not feel that you have made grounds for cancelling the Parking Charge Notice and as such payment remains due.
Your vehicle was parked on our Client's Property which is Private Land, in a Permit Holders only car park, NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT.
Parking on site without a Permit when one is necessary, will be liable to a PCN.
More evidence can be viewed online by visiting http://www.sp.eparking.co.uk .
We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, so the Parking Charge Notice is fully enforceable. There are adequate warning signs mounted prominently in the car park. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure all signage is checked and understood before a vehicle is parked.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options can pay or appeal -YOU MUST NOT DO BOTH.
If you have already made payment for your parking charge notice, please ignore the below:
1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice online by visiting www.sp.eparking.co.uk or by calling our 24-hour payment line on 0330 008 0454 or payment can be made by posting a cheque made payable to Spring Parking Ltd. and sent to the address below. Please quote your 'Parking Charge Notice' Number and your vehicle registration number on the reverse, if paid within 14 days of issue it will be at the reduced amount of £55.
2. Make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days by going online and completing the form at www.popla.co.uk. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA, and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due of £95. Your POPLA reference number is
3. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org /) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
4. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A PAYMENT IF YOU WILL BE APPEALING THROUGH POPLA AS NO REFUNDS ARE GIVEN.
5. If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant time frame, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed Debt Collection Agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.
6. POPLA will NOT consider any cases where payment has been made.
-
Appeal went out today. Wish me luck.
-
Thank you so much for your detailed reply. I have put an alert in my calendar for Monday 31st and read up on the POFA sections you mentioned.
Again, many thanks.
-
The sign you showed with the time restrictions has nothing to do with where you parked. However, there do not appear to be any signs notifying the driver that they are entering private land with parking terms and conditions. The latest images from GSV are only from 2022 but the Spring Parking signs were already in place at that time.
The Notice to Driver (NTD), is not PoFA compliant in several areas. The NtD does not identify the creditor. Is the creditor Spring Parking or is it the landowner? This is a breach of PoFA 7(2)(e). Also, it does not state the period of parking. It only states the observation time as a single moment which means that they have not complied with PoFA 7(2)(a). Even if they were to argue that there is a "period" between the observation time and the issue time (3 minutes) that is still insufficient to prove any contravention as there is a minimum consideration period required for the driver to be able to seek out, read and process the terms and conditions before deciding whether to remain or leave. There a re other PoFA failures but those are the two obvious ones that jump out.
The Parking Charge Notice (PCN), issued as an NtD does not comply with PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be liable. They have no idea who the driver is and the Keeper is not obliged to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. Until they apply to the DVLA for the Keepers details, they do not know anything.
This requires a tactical approach. Do not appeal until day 26 or 27. So, on Monday 31st March, you send the following appeal to Spring Parking as an email to appeals@springparking.co.uk and CC in yourself:
Subject: Appeal Against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Reference]
Dear Spring Parking,
I am the Registered Keeper of vehicle [VEHICLE REGISTRATION] and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. Keeper Details Provided – You Must Not Request DVLA Data
The Notice to Driver (NtD) was passed to me by the driver, and I am now submitting this appeal as the Keeper. I am providing my details as the Registered Keeper:
[YOUR NAME]
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Since you now have my details, you must not request my data from the DVLA.
- Any such request would be a breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, as you would be processing my data without a lawful basis.
- It would also be a misuse of the DVLA KADOE system, which only allows Keeper data requests when necessary.
If you proceed with a DVLA request, I will report you to the DVLA and the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) for data protection violations.
2. The NtD Fails to Comply with PoFA – Keeper Cannot Be Held Liable
Your Notice to Driver (NtD) does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4. Because of these failures, you cannot transfer liability to me as the Keeper.
No Period of Parking Stated
- Your NtD lists an "observation time" of 14:01 and an "issue time" of 14:04, but does not specify a clear period of parking, as required under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a).
A 3-minute duration is within the minimum consideration period required by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). You have provided no evidence that the vehicle was stopped for longer than the minimum consideration period needed to seek out, read, and understand any signage that contained any terms and conditions of parking at the location.
Failure to Identify the Creditor
Your NtD does not state who the actual creditor is, as required by PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(e). The creditor is not necessarily Spring Parking, and without identification, liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper.
Since your NtD does not meet the legal requirements of PoFA, I, as the Keeper, am not liable for this charge.
3. No Contract Formed – Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage
The alleged contravention is "not clearly displaying a valid permit", but:
- There is no entrance sign at the location to indicate that drivers are entering controlled private land subject to contractual parking terms.
- This location is not a car park, but a residential street with no ground markings, making it unclear that any restrictions apply.
Without clear entrance signage and properly displayed terms, no contract can be formed, making this charge unenforceable. It is also a breach of the PPSCoP section 3.1.1 not to display an entrance sign that informs drivers that they are entering controlled land. I remind you that a breach of the PSCoP also invalidates your KADOE contract with the DVLA and will be reported for investigation, irrespective of the outcome of this appeal.
4. Immediate Cancellation Required
Since your NtD is non-compliant with PoFA, the signage does not form a legally enforceable contract, and you must not request my data from the DVLA, I require that this charge be cancelled immediately.
If you reject this appeal, you must provide:
- A POPLA appeal code.
- A full explanation of why you believe Keeper liability applies despite the clear PoFA failures.
I expect your response within the timeframe set by your trade association’s Code of Practice.
Yours sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
Registered Keeper of [VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
-
Here the ticket that was attached.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Show us the Notice to Driver (NtD) that was affixed to the vehicle. Both sides please. You only need to redact your VRM and the PCN number. Make sure everything else remains visible.
-
Hello,
The driver of a car parked the car on what he thought was a public road, no markings/lines to say that parking is not allowed. However upon returning a parking charge notice was attached to the window.
Details:
Observed Time: 05/03/2025 14:01
Date / Time of Issue: 05/03/2025 14:04
Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7 6TH
Issue Reason: 13 - Not clearly displaying a valid permit
A parking charge of £95 is due within 28 days of the date of issue.
Here the location on google maps: it was parked where the red car is.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/h2F4o1xMibXrFsYC8
Before you get to this close there is a sign for time-restricted no motor vehicles zone (image attached). The driver arrived prior to the time stated on the signs. The parking charge notice appears to be from a private company though, Spring Parking and their sign is also attached.
Could one appeal this on the grounds that observed time and time of issue is less than 5 minutes and that the ticket from a private company was issued on a public road?
Many thanks for your feedback.
[attachment deleted by admin]