Sorry, that was my bad. The I mistakenly believed that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman could investigate concerns about POPLA’s conduct. However, I forgot that POPLA is a private adjudication service, not a public body, and therefore falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
POPLA was created at the request of the UK Government as part of implementing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which outlawed clamping on private land. The Government required an independent appeals service to justify keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In 2012, POPLA was launched and operated by London Councils under a 3-year contract with the British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA funded the service, but London Councils managed it independently. POPLA was meant to mirror statutory tribunals like PATAS and TPT, with legal adjudicators and annual reports.
It was always funded by the private parking sector via the BPA — £27+VAT per appeal.
In 2015, The BPA transferred POPLA’s operation to Ombudsman Services Ltd, a private dispute resolution company. This marked the shift from quasi-public oversight to industry-appointed private control.
POPLA is now industry-funded, industry-appointed, and not subject to statutory oversight. The BPA claims POPLA is “independent”, but it appoints the operator, pays for the service and controls the Code of Practice.
The so-called “Independent Board” overseeing POPLA is appointed by the BPA, with no public transparency or accountability. This system is structurally rigged:
• POPLA pretends to be independent, but is funded and appointed by the very industry it’s meant to regulate.
• The BPA is a trade body, not a regulator — its “oversight” is performative.
• The ICO and DVLA routinely sidestep accountability, especially when it comes to systemic failures rather than isolated data breaches.
And litigation, while winnable, puts the burden on the defendant to clean up a mess that should never have existed.
This isn’t just about one flawed decision — it’s about a deliberately opaque, self-serving framework designed to:
• Give the illusion of fairness
• Funnel motorists into a dead-end process
• Shield operators from real scrutiny
POPLA was created to satisfy the Government’s need for legitimacy under PoFA — but once the public-sector oversight ended, it became a closed loop of industry self-interest.
You could try explaining this to your MP, to raise the structural issue in Parliament, push for statutory oversight of private adjudication services and demand transparency and accountability in unregulated private parking enforcement.
For what it is worth, you could ask them to question the current government as to when they are going to implement the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019? In 2019 The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 received Royal Assent. It placed a legal duty on the Secretary of State to create a statutory Code of Practice for private parking operators.
In February 2022 the Government finally published the draft Code of Practice, nearly three years after the Act was passed. This delay was due to consultations and development work with the British Standards Institution (BSI).
In June 2022 the draft Code was withdrawn following legal challenges from parking firms and their trade bodies, the BPA and IPC, who objected to lower charge caps and the ban on debt recovery fees.
In 2023 and 2024 the Government conducted further impact assessments and calls for evidence to address industry concerns. No statutory Code is in force during this time.
However, whilst the Act was introduced to fix exactly the kind of systemic failure we're dealing with here, its implementation has been delayed, diluted, and derailed by the very parking industry through their powerful lobbying. So, whilst the Act was passed in 2019, the Code wasn’t even drafted until 2022.
The parking industry successfully lobbied to block its implementation. As a result, the sector remains self-regulated, with no statutory oversight or binding standards.
This month a new consultation was launched to revive the Code. It closes on 5 September 2025. Please have your say here: Open consultation-Private parking code of practice (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice)
Ignore everything unless it is a Letter of Claim (LoC). Keep the POPLA response as evidence.
I strongly advise you to contact your MP and show them the failures by POPLA and their weasel excuses. The response is a false dichotomy. A misapplication of law is a procedural error when it results in a decision contrary to statute. POPLA’s refusal to revisit the decision despite acknowledging the breach undermines its claim to impartiality and legal competence.
Find your MP's email (https://members.parliament.uk/findyourmp) and send the following:
Subject: Request for Referral to Parliamentary Ombudsman – POPLA’s Refusal to Correct Statutory Breach
Dear [MP’s Name],
I am writing to request your assistance in referring a matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concerning the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service, which operates under the oversight of the British Parking Association (BPA).
POPLA recently adjudicated an appeal I submitted regarding a parking charge issued by Smart Parking. The appeal turned on a clear statutory requirement under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which mandates that a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days of the parking event to establish keeper liability.
The facts were not in dispute:
• The parking event occurred on Sunday, 23 March 2025.
• Day 1 of the relevant period was Monday, 24 March 2025.
• The NTK was posted on Thursday, 3 April 2025.
• Presumed delivery (two working days later) was Monday, 7 April 2025—Day 15, outside the statutory limit.
Despite this, the POPLA assessor upheld the charge, wrongly concluding that PoFA had been complied with. I submitted a formal complaint, and POPLA’s own complaints handler admitted that the NTK was delivered outside the relevant period and therefore did not meet the statutory requirements. However, they refused to overturn the decision, claiming that the error was a “misassessment” rather than a “procedural error”, and that POPLA is a “one-stage process” with no mechanism for correction.
This is a textbook case of administrative injustice:
• A statutory breach was acknowledged.
• The decision was not corrected.
• The complaints process was closed with no recourse.
• The adjudication body continues to uphold legally defective decisions.
POPLA presents itself as an independent appeals service, yet it refuses to apply or enforce statutory law correctly. This undermines public trust and leaves individuals with no remedy when faced with unlawful enforcement.
I am therefore requesting that you refer this matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for investigation. I am happy to provide all supporting documentation, including the original appeal, the complaint, and POPLA’s written admission of error.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]
I would be incandescent about this blatant example of utter incompetence by a supposedly trained POPLA assessor. Whilst POPLA will never change the decision, even when they make a clear mistake, you should make a formal complaint about it which can later be used for any defence should it ever be needed.
Try this email (and always CC yourself) info@popla.co.uk and also CC enquiry@flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint: Gross Misapplication of PoFA by Assessor Michaela Sutton [POPLA ref number]
Dear POPLA Management,
I am writing to express my utter outrage and disbelief at the appalling standard of adjudication demonstrated by your assessor, Michaela Sutton, in a recent appeal decision. Her handling of a clear-cut statutory breach under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) was not merely incorrect—it was legally incoherent, procedurally negligent, and frankly, an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even a cursory understanding of the law.
The facts were not in dispute:
• The parking event occurred on Sunday, 23 March 2025.
• Day 1 of the "relevant period" under PoFA began on Monday, 24 March 2025.
• The final day for delivery of the NTK within the "relevant period" was Sunday, 6 April 2025.
• The NTK was issued on Thursday, 3 April 2025, and therefore, presumed delivered was two working days later on Monday, 7 April 2025 — Day 15 which is NOT within the "relevant period".
Despite this, Michaela Sutton concluded that the operator had complied with PoFA and was entitled to pursue the keeper. This is a flagrant misapplication of Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4, which requires delivery (date "given") of the NTK within 14 days—not issuance, not posting, but actual delivery. The assessor’s own timeline confirms that this did not occur.
This is not a grey area. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a statutory deadline, and it was missed. For an assessor to acknowledge this and still uphold the charge is not just incompetent—it is derelict.
I demand the following:
• A full and immediate review of this decision by a legally qualified adjudicator.
• A formal apology for the distress and wasted time caused by this egregious error.
• clear explanation of what disciplinary or remedial action will be taken regarding Michaela Sutton’s conduct and competence.
• A commitment that assessors will be retrained on the basic statutory requirements of PoFA, which they are clearly failing to apply.
If POPLA wishes to retain even a shred of credibility as an independent appeals body, it must stop enabling this level of incompetence. Michaela Sutton’s decision is not just wrong—it is indefensible. And if this is the standard you accept, then the entire POPLA process is a sham.
I expect a substantive response, not a generic brush-off.
Yours faithfully,
[your name]
Please confirm when you have successfully submitted your POPLA appeal.
A suggested wording for your complaint is below. It should be sent to complaints@smartparking.com (complaints@smartparking.com). I would attach to this a copy of the correspondence you have shared with us today.
They will probably fob you off in their response, but the goal here is to ultimately escalate the complaint to the British Parking Association.
Subject: Formal Complaint, PCN #[REFERENCE]
Dear Sirs,
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an appeal against a parking charge (one has been submitted separately) but is instead a formal complaint regarding your handling of my case.
I am writing to make a formal complaint about your correspondence in respect of PCN #[REFERENCE], which amounts to a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) and, by virtue of this, your KADOE contract with the DVLA.
Following receipt of your PCN, I appealed as the registered keeper, pointing out that due to your failure to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), you are unable to recover the charge from me as the keeper. You responded with a letter dated [DATE], which is attached, falsely claiming that the notice was issued under PoFA. In the letter you claim:
"the Parking Charge was promptly issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012"
As you will know, paragraph 9(4) of PoFA is clear that the notice must be given (that is, delivered), within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.
By falsely claiming otherwise, you are in breach of the PPSSCoP and the KADOE contract for the following reasons:
1. Breach of the PPSSCoP
Section 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP 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:d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
In the appeal, I explained that Smart Parking had failed to serve a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, having given the notice outside of the relevant period of 14 days. You then responded on [DATE] with the attached letter, claiming the ability to recover the charges from me under PoFA. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, and a breach of 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP.
As per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, this constitutes at least a Level 1 sanction for non-conformance.
2. Breach of the KADOE Contract
Clause C1.1 of your KADOE Contract with DVLA states:
The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.
By knowingly and falsely claiming compliance with PoFA, you have failed to comply with the terms of your KADOE contract, bringing into question your suitability to have access to sensitive registered keeper data.
As a result of these serious failings you should:
- Confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken
- Explain why your correspondence falsely claims the ability to recover charges under PoFA when you are, or ought to be, fully aware this is not true
- Issue a formal apology
I expect a response to my complaint within 14 days. Following your response, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the British Parking Association, and the DVLA.
Yours etc...
Your next steps are:
- A POPLA appeal
- A formal complaint to Smart Parking about their misrepresentation of their position
Your POPLA appeal can be worded as below. For your reason for appeal on the online portal, simply choose 'Other'. If it asks for your relationship to the vehicle, simply select 'Registered Keeper'. Create your appeal as a PDF document, and attach it to the portal under supporting evidence. In the actual appeal box, just put something along the lines of "Find attached the full appeal document".
POPLA Appeal
[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)
-Vs-
Smart Parking (Operator)
Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]
Case Overview:
I, [NAME], the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from Smart Parking (“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. Smart Parking have failed to do so.
They have failed to deliver the notice to keeper 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: 23/03/2025
Date of PCN issue: 03/04/2025
Date of presumed service (2 working days after issue, as per 9(6) of the Act): 07/04/2025
Elapsed time period: 15 days
As Smart Parking are unable 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 Smart Parking claimed that they 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. Following my appeal pointing this out, Smart Parking doubled down on their stance, claiming that the charge was 'issued within the 14 days required under POFA 2012', despite the fact that PoFA requires the notice to be given (that is, delivered) within 14 days, not merely issued within 14 days.
This repeated misrepresentation 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.
So they are wrongly claiming the ability to hold you liable as the keeper. You should in due course complain to them about that, which we can advise on.
In the meantime, the first thing to do is appeal. Don't do this until Tuesday 8th April.
Dear Sirs,
I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you claim to be able to hold me liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"), but this is not true. You have failed to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as required by paragraph 9(4) of the Act.
Date of parking: 23/03/25
Date of issue: 03/04/25
Date of presumed service under 9(6) of the Act: 07/04/25
Days elapsed: 15 days
I am appealing as the registered keeper. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.
But as above, not until 8th April!