Use the following to make your POPLA appeal:
POPLA Verification Code: 6011075025
Parking Charge Number: 13962079
Vehicle Registration: [REDACTED]
Operator: Britannia Parking
Site: Saundersfoot Harbour
I am the registered keeper and I appeal as such. The driver has not been identified.
1. No Keeper Liability – Land Is Not “Relevant Land” Under PoFA 2012
This alleged contravention took place on land which is subject to statutory control and therefore not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The land in question is Saundersfoot Harbour, managed by the Saundersfoot Harbour Commissioners, a statutory body created under the Saundersfoot Harbour Order 2011 (SI 2011/1406).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 3 of PoFA 2012 is clear and unambiguous:
“‘Relevant land’ means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
...land which is subject to statutory control.”
The legislation could not be more explicit. Land under statutory control is excluded from the scope of PoFA. No parking operator has any lawful right to rely on PoFA to hold a registered keeper liable for charges on such land.
An official boundary map issued pursuant to the Saundersfoot Harbour Order 2011 is included with this appeal. It proves that the location of the alleged contravention falls within the controlled harbour area and is therefore under statutory control. Britannia Parking has no statutory power, and PoFA cannot apply. They may only pursue the driver, who has not been identified.
(https://i.imgur.com/U6k46yU.jpeg)
This ground is fatal to the charge. Britannia’s use of PoFA wording on its NtK in this context is legally incompetent and must result in cancellation.
2. Even If Land Were Relevant (It Isn’t) – NtK Fails PoFA Compliance by Shortening the Keeper’s Statutory Period
Even if Saundersfoot Harbour were “relevant land” for PoFA purposes (it is not), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Britannia Parking would still fail because it does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
That paragraph requires that the NtK must:
“...warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day AFTER that on which the notice is given—”
However, the NtK from Britannia Parking states:
“...after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued)...”
This is not a trivial drafting error. The statutory period must begin on the day after the notice is deemed “given”, not on the day of deemed delivery. The operator’s version shortens the 28-day period and thereby prejudices the rights of the keeper by threatening enforcement action sooner than the legislation allows.
In simple terms:
• If the NtK was dated 10th March, Britannia presumes service on 12th March (second working day), and starts the 28-day clock on the same day — i.e., 12th March.
• The statute, however, says the 28 days begins on the day after — i.e., 13th March.
• This means the keeper is given 27 days, not 28 — an unlawful curtailment of the statutory protection under PoFA.
The law is not optional. The wording of PoFA must be followed precisely, as confirmed in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. There is no margin for approximation, interpretation, or “close enough” wording when it comes to liability transfer under statute.
This failure to reproduce the correct statutory warning invalidates the NtK. Therefore, even if the land were relevant (which it is not), no keeper liability could arise because Britannia has failed to meet the mandatory conditions of Schedule 4.
3. No Driver Identified – Keeper Liability Cannot Be Assumed
Britannia Parking has provided no evidence whatsoever who was the driver, and I am not obliged to name the driver. There is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver to a trivial, unregulated, private parking company.
It is important to understand that the introduction of Schedule 4 of PoFA in 2012 was Parliament’s response to the clear legal position that keepers could not otherwise be held liable for the actions of drivers. PoFA was enacted to create a narrow and conditional legal exception, and it is precisely because such liability did not exist beforehand that the statute was necessary in the first place.
Therefore, where PoFA does not apply — either because the land is not relevant, or because the notice is not compliant — there is no lawful fallback that allows a parking operator to infer keeper liability through implication, assumption, or guesswork.
Attempts to suggest that the keeper is “probably” the driver based on nothing more than DVLA data are legally flawed. This position is confirmed by persuasive appeal-level case law, including:
• VCS v Edward (2023): His Honour Judge Henson made it explicitly clear that the balance of probabilities is not sufficient to infer keeper liability in the absence of PoFA. The court reaffirmed that PoFA is the exclusive mechanism by which a parking operator can lawfully transfer liability from an unknown driver to a keeper.
• Excel Parking Services v Smith (2017): The Circuit Judge held that there is no presumption that the keeper was the driver and that the Claimant must prove the identity of the driver with actual evidence.
These authorities are directly relevant, and any attempt by Britannia to lean on outdated "implied driver" arguments or unfounded assumptions about keeper identity must be rejected out of hand.
POFA compliance is binary: either it applies or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the operator must prove the driver’s identity. Britannia has not even attempted to do so.
4. Breach of Code of Practice – False Representation of Keeper Liability
By issuing a Notice to Keeper that explicitly claims PoFA compliance — and by extension, keeper liability — Britannia has breached Section 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). That section states:
“The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.”
This is not a grey area. Britannia Parking has served a Notice on the registered keeper that states the keeper is liable under PoFA, when in fact:
• The land is not relevant land (PoFA does not apply), and
• The NtK is not PoFA-compliant anyway.
This is a breach of the industry Code of Practice and represents a misrepresentation of the operator’s lawful entitlement. I have already submitted a formal complaint to the DVLA, because a breach of the PPSCoP is, by definition, a breach of the operator’s KADOE contract.
This operator has either failed to understand the law, or deliberately misused it. Either way, POPLA must not permit this kind of conduct to go unchecked. The appeal must be allowed.
5. Strict Proof of Landowner Authority – No Possibility of PoFA Authorisation
The operator is also put to strict proof that it has a current, valid, and fully unredacted contract with the landowner (or lawful occupier) that confers upon it the authority to operate at this exact site and issue parking charge notices.
POPLA has repeatedly held that a simple assertion or generic letter is not enough. The operator must demonstrate:
• That it has landowner authority, not merely management rights;
• That the contract explicitly allows the operator to issue PCNs at the site in question;
• That the contract is valid for the date of the alleged contravention;
• And in this case, that the operator has been lawfully authorised to operate under PoFA.
That final point is the most important. It is a matter of statutory law that PoFA cannot be extended to land under statutory control, and no landowner — not even a statutory authority — can unilaterally “authorise” a private operator to issue PoFA-compliant notices on land that the statute excludes.
If Britannia attempts to produce a vague “landowner authority” letter in an attempt to retroactively justify their unlawful reliance on PoFA, it must be rejected. Contracts cannot override statute. No agreement can turn land that is not relevant into land that is.
The operator has no lawful basis for issuing PCNs based on PoFA at this site, and POPLA is asked to put them to strict proof and dismiss any non-compliant evidence.
Conclusion
• The land is not relevant land under PoFA;
• The NtK fails to meet PoFA’s mandatory wording requirements regardless;
• The driver has not been identified and cannot lawfully be assumed;
• The operator has breached the Code of Practice by falsely claiming keeper liability;
• The operator must be put to strict proof of landowner authority, which cannot override statutory exclusion.
This PCN is unenforceable in law against the keeper and must be cancelled.
Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:
• Go to: https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/complaints
• Select: “Making a complaint or compliment about the Vehicles service you have received”
• Enter your personal details, contact details, and vehicle details
• Use the text box to summarise your complaint or insert a covering note
• You will then be able to upload a file (up to 19.5 MB) — this can be your full complaint or supporting evidence
That’s it.
The DVLA is required to record, investigate and respond to every complaint about a private parking company. If everyone who encounters a breach took the time to submit a complaint, we might finally see the DVLA take meaningful action—whether that means curtailing or removing KADOE access altogether.
For the text part of the complaint the webform could use the following:
I am submitting a formal complaint against [INSERT PPC NAME], an [INSERT IPC or BPA] AOS member with DVLA KADOE access, for breaching the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) after obtaining my personal data.
While the Operator may have had reasonable cause at the time of their KADOE request, their subsequent misuse of my data—through conduct that contravenes the PPSCoP—renders that use unlawful. The PPSCoP forms an integral part of the DVLA’s governance framework for data access by private parking firms. Continued access is conditional on compliance.
The DVLA, as data controller, is obliged under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 to investigate and take enforcement action when data is misused following release. This complaint is not about whether the data was obtained lawfully at the outset, but whether its subsequent use breached the terms under which it was provided.
I have prepared a supporting statement setting out the nature of the breach and the Operator’s actions, and I request a full investigation into this matter. I have attached the supporting document.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the reference number for this complaint.
Then you could upload the following as a PDF file for the formal complaint itself:
SUPPORTING STATEMENTComplaint to DVLA – Breach of KADOE Contract and PPSCoP
Operator name: [INSERT PPC NAME]
Date of PCN issue: [INSERT DATE]
Vehicle registration: [INSERT VRM]
I am submitting this complaint to report a misuse of my personal data by [INSERT PPC NAME], who obtained my keeper details from the DVLA under the KADOE (Keeper At Date Of Event) contract.
Although the parking company may have had reasonable cause to request my data initially, the way they have used that data afterwards amounts to unlawful processing. This is because they have acted in breach of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which is a mandatory requirement for access to DVLA keeper data. The PPSCoP forms part of the framework that regulates how parking companies must behave once they have received keeper data from the DVLA.
The KADOE contract makes clear that keeper data may only be used to pursue an unpaid parking charge in line with the Code of Practice. If a parking company fails to comply with the PPSCoP after receiving DVLA data, their use of that data becomes unlawful, as they are no longer using it for a permitted purpose.
In this case, [INSERT PPC NAME] has breached the PPSCoP in the following ways:
[INSERT A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE BREACH(ES), e.g. failure to follow grace periods, misleading notices, refusal to engage with a complaint, pursuing a charge despite having evidence of disability or mitigation, etc.]
These are not minor or technical breaches. They show a clear disregard for the standards required under the current single Code. As a result, the operator is no longer entitled to use the keeper data they obtained from the DVLA, because the purpose for which it was provided (a fair and lawful pursuit of a charge under the Code) no longer applies.
The DVLA remains the Data Controller for the data it releases under KADOE, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that personal data is not misused by third parties. This includes taking action against AOS operators who breach the conditions under which the data was provided. I am therefore asking the DVLA to investigate this breach and to take appropriate action under the terms of the KADOE contract.
This may include:
• Confirming that a breach has occurred
• Taking enforcement action against the operator
•Suspending or terminating their KADOE access if warranted
I have attached relevant supporting material with this statement. Please confirm receipt and provide a reference for this complaint. I am also happy to provide further information if required.
Name: [INSERT YOUR NAME]
Date: [INSERT DATE]
Report Britannia Parking to the DVLA as they have breached section 8.1.2(d) of the PPSCoP by declaring PoFA liability where the location is actually under statutory control. It clearly states:
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
Thanks b789, I've make appeal with your quote paragraph, let's see how would they response.
Moreover, would like to ask the steps to report them to the DVLA, cheers.
Report Britannia Parking to the DVLA as they have breached section 8.1.2(d) of the PPSCoP by declaring PoFA liability where the location is actually under statutory control. It clearly states:
"The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable."
The Saundersfoot Harbour Empowerment Order 2011 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2011/1565/made)
(https://i.imgur.com/U6k46yU.jpeg)
So, the morons at Britannia have breached their KADOE contract and must be reported to the DVLA.
There is no Keeper liability. As long as the driver is not identified, there is nothing they can do. Besides the fact that the NtK fails PoFA anyway, simply appeal with the following, which will be rejected by Britannia but will require them to issue a POPLA code where this will be quashed at secondary appeal:
I am the registered keeper. Britannia cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, Britannia will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Suandersfoot Harbour is not 'relevant land'.
Just in case you are in doubt about this, I refer you to The Saundersfoot Harbour Empowerment Order 2011 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2011/1565/made). If you are not yet convinced, I suggest you pass this appeal to a responsible adult at Britannia, preferably one with enough intellectual capacity to understand why you cannot hold the Keeper liable.
If Suandersfoot Harbour wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Harbour Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because Britannia is not the Harbour owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NBritannia's own profit (as opposed to a bylaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and Britannia has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Britannia have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
No need to explain anything else. When you receive the rejection or the request for the drivers identity, show us the letter and I will provide a suitable response. You may as well have some fun with the intellectually malnourished feckwits at Britannia.