FORMAL COMPLAINT – REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ASSESSOR MISCONDUCT, GROSS INCOMPETENCE, AND PROCEDURAL FAILURE
POPLA Verification Code: 6062555711
Assessor: Nazia Mohammed
Decision Date: 20/11/2025
To the POPLA Complaints Team,
I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the conduct and competence of POPLA assessor Nazia Mohammed. After reviewing her decision in full, it is clear that the assessor failed to apply even the most basic principles of evidence assessment, failed to engage with the statutory framework, and made findings that are factually and legally impossible. The standard displayed in this assessment is so poor that it raises serious questions about the integrity and reliability of POPLA’s decision-making process.
This complaint is not about the outcome. I am fully aware POPLA does not overturn decisions. This complaint is about the assessor’s fundamental inability to correctly interpret evidence, apply the law, or demonstrate even minimal professional competence. The response to this complaint will be forwarded in full to my Member of Parliament and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as this level of failure requires external scrutiny.
1. The assessor misapplied PoFA against the operator’s own evidence
The operator explicitly stated in its evidence pack: “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
This is an unequivocal statement. It means there is no keeper liability. It means only the driver could be pursued. It means POPLA should have allowed the appeal immediately.
However, the assessor instead wrote:“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.”
This is not a misunderstanding. It is a direct contradiction of the operator’s own position. The assessor invented legal applicability where none existed and declared keeper liability where it was legally impossible. This alone demonstrates a complete collapse of the decision-making process.
2. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
I raised that the Notice to Keeper did not include the statutory requirement to “invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges”. The operator did not dispute this. The assessor ignored it entirely. Instead, she relied on the fiction that PoFA applied at all, which the operator had already disavowed.
3. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)
The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking. It only contains ANPR timestamps, which PoFA expressly rejects as insufficient. This was a central point of appeal, and the assessor again ignored it.
4. The assessor disregarded Jopson v Homeguard
I cited binding persuasive authority confirming that unloading is not parking. The assessor did not distinguish it, apply it, acknowledge it, or appear even to recognise it. This omission indicates either a lack of legal understanding or a refusal to engage with relevant authorities. Neither is acceptable in an adjudicative role.
5. The assessor demonstrated a complete failure to apply the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
I raised breaches of the consideration period requirement, the grace period requirement, and the landowner authority requirements. The assessor failed to meaningfully address any of these. Her reasoning shows no understanding of the Code beyond quoting generalities. She failed to assess the site’s “0 hours 0 minutes allowed” condition against mandatory provisions.
6. The assessor accepted defective and incomplete landowner authority without scrutiny
The operator submitted redacted documents lacking several mandatory elements required by PPSCoP section 14. The assessor declared herself “satisfied” without performing any analysis or referencing the requirements. This is not assessment; it is rubber-stamping.
7. The assessor’s reasoning is illogical and internally inconsistent
The assessor claimed the appellant “entered into a contract” by “remaining on site for 23 minutes”, ignoring the fact that contract formation cannot occur until terms are communicated, and that contractual terms cannot be enforced where PoFA is not engaged and the identity of the driver is unknown. She contradicted her own quoted Code sections and ignored the prohibition-based nature of the signage.
8. The decision demonstrates a level of incompetence that undermines POPLA’s credibility
The decision displays:• Failure to consider evidence
• Failure to consider statutory requirements
• Misapplication of PoFA
• Refusal to engage with case law
• No evaluation of contractual formation
• No evaluation of landowner authority
• No evaluation of grace or consideration periods
• Internal contradictions
• Incorrect statements of law
• Incorrect statements of fact
This is not the work of a competent assessor. It brings POPLA’s process into disrepute.
Requested action
Given the seriousness of these failures, I request:1. A formal investigation into the competence and conduct of assessor Nazia Mohammed.
2. Confirmation of what legal training assessors receive before ruling on PoFA matters.
3. A detailed explanation of how an assessor can apply PoFA where the operator expressly stated it was not used.
4. A full review of this assessor’s decisions for similar errors.
Confirmation that this complaint will be retained for audit and provided to MHCLG if requested.
Next steps
Your response will be forwarded to my MP and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as evidence of systemic inadequacy within the POPLA adjudication process.
I expect a full, detailed reply addressing each point above.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
1. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
The operator’s evidence fails to rebut the central issue: the vehicle was engaged in legitimate parcel deliveries to residents. This was brief unloading, not parking.
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (HHJ Harris QC, Oxford County Court appeal), the court held that temporary stopping for loading or unloading does not constitute parking. The decision expressly refers to delivery vans and is binding persuasive authority at this level.
The operator relies only on ANPR entry and exit timestamps (17:18 to 17:42). ANPR does not identify any stationary period or unattended vehicle and cannot prove parking. The vehicle was moving between buildings while deliveries were made. POPLA must therefore find that no parking contract arose and no contravention occurred.
2. Signage – no allowance for deliveries or visitors
The operator’s photos confirm signage limited to “Residents Only”. There is no wording accommodating deliveries, tradespeople, or visitors. Such total prohibition is ambiguous and unfair to lawful delivery drivers.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 sections 62 to 68, terms must be fair and transparent. No reasonable driver could have understood that brief unloading for residents would incur a £100 penalty.
Further, under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, a contract cannot be formed unless the terms are communicated before entry. No evidence shows that the terms were legible or even visible to a delivery driver entering the site. Hence, no fair or transparent contract was formed.
3. Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – breach of fairness and grace requirements
The operator claims compliance with the Single Code, but their own evidence proves otherwise.
Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP requires a consideration period to allow drivers to read terms and decide whether to stay. Section 5.2 requires a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of a parking session.
Here, the alleged “stay” was only 23 minutes and includes time for arrival, unloading, and departure. The operator’s data table lists “Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes”, demonstrating there was no allowance at all, breaching both sections 5.1 and 5.2 and the Code’s fairness principles.
4. No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used
The operator’s own evidence states in their 'Additional information' in their evidence pack: “PLEASE BE ADVISED, THIS PARKING CHARGE WAS NOT ISSUED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.” That statement ends the matter. If PoFA is not used, only the driver could be liable. As the appellant is the registered keeper and has not been identified as the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal.
5. No standing / defective landowner authority
The operator provides only a heavily redacted “Order Form” rather than a full contemporaneous, site-specific agreement compliant with PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (j). The redacted document omits:
- the landowner’s full identity and signature;
- the unredacted boundaries of the controlled land;
- clear terms defining the operator’s authority to issue and enforce PCNs.
The PPSCoP makes these items mandatory. Without a complete and dated agreement evidencing the landowner’s consent, ParkingEye has no legal standing to issue or pursue this charge.
6. Beavis is distinguishable
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned a retail park where a charge served a commercial interest in space turnover. Here, the site is a residential housing association estate and the driver was conducting a necessary delivery. There is no comparable commercial or deterrent interest, and the charge serves no legitimate purpose beyond punishment.
7. Summary
- No period of parking evidenced – only entry/exit timestamps.
- Jopson v Homeguard confirms unloading is not parking.
- Signage is prohibitive and fails Consumer Rights Act standards.
- Operator admits PoFA not invoked – keeper not liable.
- Landowner authority not proven in accordance with PPSCoP.
- Beavis distinguished – no legitimate interest in penalising deliveries.
- PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions breached.
For all these reasons, the appeal should be upheld and the Parking Charge cancelled.
I. Introduction
I am the registered keeper. I deny liability and appeal in full. The vehicle was engaged in Amazon parcel deliveries at Forest Housing Association. The stop was brief and solely for unloading parcels to residents. That activity is not “parking”, and no enforceable charge arises.
II. Grounds of Appeal
1. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court, HHJ Harris QC, appeal), the court explained that “parking” means leaving a vehicle for a duration beyond that needed for getting in or out, loading or unloading. The judge stated that merely stopping is not parking, and expressly contemplated delivery vehicles carrying out short, necessary unloading. On the facts here, the vehicle paused only to unload parcels and then departed. ANPR images showing entry and exit do not evidence any period of “parking” within the meaning adopted in Jopson. Accordingly, no parking contract arose.
2. No keeper liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) not complied with
Keeper liability is created only if the operator strictly complies with every applicable requirement of Schedule 4. The Notice to Keeper fails paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not state a “period of parking”. “Time in car park” derived from ANPR includes driving and brief stopping/unloading, which is not a period of parking. The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with all other mandatory elements of paragraph 9, including 9(2)(e), 9(2)(f), 9(2)(h), 9(2)(i) and 9(5). Any defect defeats keeper liability. As the keeper, I cannot be held liable.
3. No standing – landowner authority (strict proof)
The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous, unredacted, site-specific contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises ParkingEye to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue them in its own name. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP, 17 Feb 2025) section 14.1(a-j) (Relationship with Landowner) sets mandatory minimums: written confirmation identifying the landowner; the precise site/plan and boundaries (and any applicable byelaws); the duration and scope of authority; the detailed parking terms and conditions including any permissions/exemptions; the method of issuing/enforcing PCNs; responsibility for planning/advertising consents; and the operator’s obligations and appeals procedure under the Code. These are preconditions to issuing PCNs. The operator must produce a dated and signed agreement by authorised signatories. Redactions must not obscure the above; generic attestations or agent letters are insufficient unless they evidence compliance with PPSCoP §14.1(a-j).
4. No contract formed – signage incapable of creating a fair and transparent agreement for delivery circumstances
The operator must prove that signage was sufficiently prominent, legible, and positioned so that a delivery driver could read and understand the terms before any alleged contract was formed. At a residential estate where delivery vehicles must briefly stop near entrances, any term purporting to prohibit or penalise short unloading is unreasonable in context and incapable of fair acceptance at the material time. ANPR timestamps do not prove that terms were seen or accepted. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sections 62–68), terms must be fair and transparent; a term penalising a brief, essential delivery stop is not fair or transparent and should not be enforced.
5. Beavis is distinguishable on facts and purpose
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 concerned shopper parking at a retail site with a strong legitimate interest in space turnover. This is a residential housing association location and the vehicle performed a short, essential unloading task. There is no comparable commercial justification to penalise a brief delivery stop. Any charge here operates as a penalty rather than a proportionate deterrent linked to a legitimate interest, and is therefore unenforceable on these facts.
6. Private Parking Single Code of Practice – consideration and grace; fair treatment
Under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 February 2025), operators must act fairly and reasonably and must not penalise unavoidable, brief activities such as loading/unloading. The Code distinguishes (i) a consideration period on arrival to read and decide whether to stay (section 5.1) and (ii) a minimum 10-minute grace period after a parking session ends (section 5.2). ANPR “in/out” does not evidence a true period of parking or compliance with these safeguards. Penalising a delivery driver for a short, necessary unload conflicts with these standards.
III. Conclusion
The evidence shows only entry and exit, not a period of parking. On Jopson v Homeguard, the brief stop for unloading was not “parking”, so no contract arose. The NtK fails PoFA Schedule 4 because it does not state a period of parking and the operator has not shown strict compliance with all other requirements; keeper liability therefore fails. The operator has not proved landowner authority, the signage could not form a fair and transparent contract for a short delivery stop, and Beavis is not applicable to these facts. For these reasons, the appeal must be allowed and the charge cancelled.
This is a story about a busy little van called "Amazon" who went to visit Forest Homes on a weekday morning. The van was full of parcels with names and flat numbers on them, and the driver was careful and kind and wanted to make sure everyone got their things on time. He steered the van slowly through the gate, found a safe place to stop near the entrance, and said, “I will stop here for a short while so I can take the parcels inside”. He did not turn off for a long rest, and he did not wander away to do something else. He simply paused, opened the back, lifted the boxes one by one, and began to carry them to the flats.
Up on a tall pole, a quiet camera watched the road. The camera was very good at taking a picture when the van came in and another picture when the van went out, and it wrote down the clock times in neat little numbers. But the camera could not see the driver carefully walking to the door, could not see the parcels being lifted and signed for, and could not see that the stop was a short and necessary part of the day. The camera only knew “time in” and “time out”, and it did not understand what happened in between.
On the wall by the entrance there was a sign with many words and many rules. The letters were small and the sentences were long, and they were hard to read while doing a quick and careful job. The driver did not stand and study the sign because people were waiting for medicines and books and bits and bobs they needed at home. He chose to work swiftly and safely, and he carried on unloading so that the people in the flats would not be kept waiting. A fair sign should help a driver do a short, important task, not try to catch him out while he is doing good work.
Later, a letter came to the keeper of the van. The letter said, “Pay this charge”, and showed the two pictures with the two times, and it called the whole thing “time in car park”. But the letter did not show a period of parking, because there was no period of parking. There was only a short stop to unload. The law that helps keepers, called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, asks for a true period of parking if someone wants to make the keeper pay, and a drive in and a drive out with a short unload in between is not that. A camera’s clock does not turn a careful unload into parking; it only shows that a vehicle was somewhere for a while.
There was also another story told before by a wise judge in a case called Jopson v Homeguard. In that story, the judge explained that “parking” means leaving a car for longer than the little time needed to get in or out or to load and unload, and that a quick stop for deliveries is different. He even spoke about delivery vans, which must sometimes pause at doors to carry things inside. The judge’s words fit this story very well, because the van at Forest Homes was doing just that—stopping briefly to unload parcels so that people could receive their goods, and then moving on as soon as the job was done.
The keeper also asked a simple question that is important in places like this: “Who says the company may give out charges here, and where is the paper that proves it?” If a company wants to send letters and collect money, it should be able to show a clear agreement with the landholder, written down properly and not hidden or chopped up, saying it may act in its own name. If there is no such paper, then there is no standing to demand money from drivers who are just doing their work.
Some people might remember a famous story called Beavis, about a very busy shop car park where a charge was used to make sure spaces turned over quickly for shoppers. But this story is not that story. Forest Homes is not a retail park, and a delivery van doing a short, necessary unload is not the same as a shopper who overstays for a long time. There is no special reason here to punish a quick stop that helps residents receive their parcels, and so the lesson from Beavis does not fit these facts.
So our story has a gentle ending. The Amazon van arrived, the driver stopped for a short time, the parcels were carried to the right doors, and the van went away. The camera saw arrival and departure but did not see unloading. The sign was not clear or kind for a quick and necessary task. The letter did not show a period of parking as the law requires, and no proper proof has been shown that the company may claim money in its own name. The earlier judge’s story tells us that unloading is not parking, and that is exactly what happened here. For these simple reasons, the fair and sensible thing is to cancel the charge and let the little van carry on helping people with their parcels.
There will be no admission as to who was driving,so this is just an attempt to get you to do otherwise.
...it seems cruel for them to issue tickets to Van holder when they know they either came to do some work at the address or to drop parcels and stuff.
Subject: Appeal against Parking Charge Notice – [Insert PCN Reference]
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and will be making a formal complaint to your client landowner regarding your predatory conduct.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). This provision requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. Your notice merely states that the driver is liable and instructs the keeper to pass the notice to the driver and provide their details. That is not sufficient. The statutory wording is clear: unless the NtK invites the keeper to pay, you cannot transfer liability. Partial or substantial compliance is legally inadequate.
There will be no admission as to who was driving, and no assumptions or inferences may be drawn. ParkingEye 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 any misinterpretation of agency law.
Further, the driver was engaged in legitimate loading/unloading activity while delivering packages to multiple units within the complex. This took approximately 23 minutes and falls squarely within the scope of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, where His Honour Judge Harris QC stated:“A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be ‘parked’. Nor would a postman delivering letters… Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable.”
This was a delivery operation, not a breach of any parking terms. Your attempt to penalise such activity is unreasonable and unsupported by law. You have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.