I would include the issue with an illegible contract but reword it. I suggest the following for your email to the Lead Assessor of POPLA:
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Decision by Assessor Ellie Appleton (Ref: [Insert Reference])
To the Lead Adjudicator,
I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the decision issued by Assessor Ellie Appleton in my appeal against Parkingeye Ltd. The decision is legally defective and procedurally flawed to such a fundamental degree that it raises serious concerns about either the assessor’s competence or an institutional bias in favour of operators.
I understand POPLA operates a single-stage process and does not reverse decisions. Nonetheless, I require a written response to this complaint for the record, as I intend to rely on it in future proceedings and/or regulatory complaints.
Core Legal Failure
In the operator’s evidence pack, they explicitly confirm that the PCN was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Therefore, they cannot rely on Schedule 4 of PoFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
This critical fact was deliberately omitted from earlier correspondence by the operator — a cynical tactic designed to pressure the keeper into payment under false pretences. It only became apparent upon disclosure of the evidence pack.
As the appeal was submitted by the registered keeper, and the operator does not know the identity of the driver, there is no lawful basis for liability. The keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver, and PoFA cannot be applied retroactively or by implication.
Despite this, the assessor concluded:
“In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA.”
This statement is legally incoherent. If PoFA is not invoked, it cannot be complied with. The presence of PoFA-like wording in a notice that is not issued under PoFA is irrelevant. Liability cannot be transferred without the statutory framework being applied.
The assessor’s conclusion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal principles involved. It is deeply concerning that POPLA entrusts adjudication to individuals who demonstrate such a lack of competence in applying basic statutory interpretation.
Procedural Failure – Landowner Authority
The operator’s evidence pack included a copy of the landowner contract that was illegible and incapable of being meaningfully reviewed. Despite this, the assessor failed to dismiss the evidence or uphold the appeal on the basis that the operator had not demonstrated landowner authority.
POPLA’s role is to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted. Where the operator fails to provide legible or probative documentation, the correct adjudicative response is to reject that evidence and uphold the appeal. The failure to do so reflects a further breakdown in procedural integrity.
Summary of Failures
• The operator confirmed the PCN was not issued under PoFA.
• The appeal was submitted by the registered keeper, who cannot be held liable without PoFA.
• The assessor ignored this and wrongly applied PoFA to justify an adverse decision.
• The operator’s landowner contract was illegible, yet the assessor failed to dismiss it as insufficient.
I request that the Lead Adjudicator reviews this complaint and confirms whether these failures are acknowledged and whether any internal action will be taken to address the assessor’s conduct.
While I do not expect the decision to be reversed — POPLA’s institutional bias is well documented — this decision so fundamentally misapplies the law that I will be relying on it in future proceedings. The claim will be rigorously defended, and this complaint will form part of the record.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]