Respond to the housing association with the following:
Subject: Re: PCN – Ongoing POPLA Appeal
Dear [Housing Officer's Name],
The suggestion that I should withdraw a live POPLA appeal in order for your contractor to “consider” cancellation is as absurd as it is inappropriate.
Let me be clear:
•The appeal stands.
•POPLA is the correct and only relevant channel at this point.
•If your agent now wishes to concede, they are free to inform POPLA accordingly.
That is how the process works. No further nonsense is required from me.
Any attempt to pressure or induce a withdrawal is not only procedurally defective but legally reckless. You, as the principal, remain jointly and severally liable for the conduct of your appointed contractor.
If this PCN is not withdrawn, and your agent continues to pursue it despite having no legal standing to do so, the record of this correspondence will be used as evidence of unreasonable and obstructive behaviour.
I trust that brings this ridiculous suggestion to a close.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
If the appeal rejection letter was issued on 1st September, then your POPLA code expires 33 days later, which would be 4th October. They allow 5 days for service (28 + 5 = 33 days). So you still have time to submit the appeal.
Use the original appeal as your primary structure. Your POPLA appeal should include:
• Lack of landowner authority (no evidence that P4 can override lease rights)
• Lease takes precedence (no permit or enforcement clause in lease)
• No keeper liability under PoFA (if NtK was issued by TNC, a third party)
• Signage no longer visible at the site (you couldn’t check what was there)
• Potential unfairness due to changed signage (unbalanced and prejudicial process)
For evidence:
• Include a copy of the lease (even if it doesn’t show your father’s name)
• Include a signed letter from your father confirming:
1. He is the leaseholder
2. You are allowed to live there and park the vehicle
3. He did not consent to third-party parking enforcement
DO NOT include insurance documents or anything that risks revealing who was driving.
The fact that signage was replaced is relevant. Say that by the time you received the NtK, the signs had already changed, so you were unable to gather any contemporaneous evidence. Emphasise that this makes the process unfair, as only the operator has access to the original signage and you have no way to verify the alleged terms.
Show us your POPLA appeal before you send it.
Only the “Creditor” can issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK). This is a requirement under Paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which states that the notice must be given by or on behalf of the creditor.
In this case, the named Creditor is P4Parking (UK) Ltd, but the NtK was issued by TNC Parking Services, which is a third-party debt collector and not the Creditor. Although the notice identifies the Creditor and includes the required content, it was issued in the name of TNC, not P4Parking.
Because TNC is not the Creditor and has no statutory authority under PoFA to issue the notice, the NtK is not valid for the purposes of holding the keeper liable. Even if the timing and content were otherwise correct, only the Creditor can issue a valid PoFA notice. Keeper liability does not apply.
TNC is ONLY allowed to lawfully engage in debt recovery for parking charges. They can potentially request keeper data as an authorised agent of a BPA member for the narrow purpose of recovering outstanding charges.
However, because they're not an operator, they are not entitled to issue a PoFA-compliant Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 8 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. Only BPA-approved operators, like P4Parking, can issue such notices.
Unity t/a TNC is limited to debt collection—they lack enforcement powers. They are likely authorised under P4Parking’s BPA AOS membership only to request keeper data for debt purposes, not to issue NtKs or notices under PoFA.
Their use of the BPA roundel may be permissible, but only when acting strictly within the scope of debt recovery. If they present as an operator or issue legal notices like an NtK, that exceeds the permitted role.
In short: TNC may access data for debt recovery, as an agent of the operator, but cannot issue Notices to Keeper or enforce parking charges under PoFA.
SO, to summarise your legal position:
• The Keeper (you) is not the leaseholder, but the vehicle is associated with the leaseholder (your father), and he holds parking rights under the lease.
• There is no express requirement in the lease for a permit or for participation in any scheme operated by P4Parking.
• TNC is not the parking operator, nor are they legally permitted to issue PoFA-compliant NtKs.
• No valid NtD was found on the vehicle, and PoFA Paragraph 9 applies if no NtD was served — but the notice received is based on Paragraph 8, indicating that an NtD allegedly was served.
• Since no driver has been identified, and keeper liability under PoFA is not established, no liability can be enforced against the Keeper.
You should appeal with the following:
Subject: Re: Notice to Keeper – PCN [insert reference number] – Vehicle Registration: [XXXXXXX]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Registered Keeper in response to your Notice to Keeper dated [insert date].
I deny any liability for this charge. This is not a valid Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) for the following reasons:
1. The notice was issued by TNC Parking Services, not the Creditor. Only the Creditor named in the notice (P4Parking UK Ltd) may issue a PoFA-compliant NtK. TNC, being a third-party debt collector and not a party to the alleged contract, lacks standing to pursue keeper liability.
2.You rely on Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of PoFA, which only applies where a valid Notice to Driver (NtD) was affixed to the vehicle. I put you to strict proof that such a notice was served in compliance with PoFA requirements. Absent such proof, your reliance on Paragraph 8 is misconceived, and the notice is not valid for the purpose of establishing keeper liability.
3. I am a resident of the estate and my father is the leaseholder. He holds a lease that makes no mention of any permit requirement, enforcement scheme, or delegation of authority to third parties such as P4Parking. There is no obligation in the lease to display a permit, and no contractual relationship exists between the parties and P4Parking.
4. I am a resident of the estate, and the leaseholder has authorised the vehicle to be parked at the premises. The lease contains no requirement to display a permit and confers no authority for third-party enforcement. There is no contractual relationship between the leaseholder or any authorised resident and P4Parking, and no lawful basis for enforcing terms contrary to the lease.
5. Your continued pursuit of this charge may constitute a breach of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). You are not entitled to process my personal data in the absence of lawful basis under either PoFA or a legitimate contractual framework. Misuse of DVLA data and false claims of keeper liability will be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office and DVLA.
Accordingly, you must now:
• Cancel this charge in full,
• Cease processing my data for this or any related matter,
• Confirm that no further correspondence will be sent regarding this charge.
Failure to do so may result in a formal complaint to the DVLA and the ICO, as well as potential legal action for misuse of personal data.
The lease does not mention any requirement for permits—physical or electronic—for use of the car parking spaces. That is not merely an implication; it is a legal fact. Under property law:
• What is not expressly required in the lease cannot be imposed unilaterally.
• Any attempt to enforce a permit scheme without leaseholder consent or lease amendment is void and unenforceable.
The leaseholder’s right to use the car parking spaces is governed solely by the lease terms. The only obligation is to keep the spaces clear of obstructions and unroadworthy vehicles.
As confirmed by legal commentary on leaseholder parking rights:
"Car parking rights granted in a lease may include exclusive possession or a general right to park. If the lease does not specify a permit requirement, none can be imposed without formal amendment or agreement".
So rather than saying the clause "implies" permission, the stronger and more accurate position is:
The lease grants use of the car parking spaces and contains no clause requiring permits. Therefore, any permit scheme is legally irrelevant to leaseholders and unenforceable against them.
Are you sure that there's NO mention of parking anywhere in your lease? Did you pay for the electronic permit? There is no requirement for a permit in your lease and if you have paid for it, you should demand your money back. If they want to issue permits for free, so that they can whitelist your vehicle, then that is OK and you are only doing so as a courtesy, not a requirement.
Your lease is the governing document. If it makes no mention of parking rights, enforcement, or delegation to third parties like P4 or any other third party company, then no such authority exists.
The definition of “Common Parts” in your lease includes access ways and forecourts, but does not confer any right to regulate or restrict parking, nor does it mention enforcement mechanisms or third-party control. P4’s involvement is ultra vires—beyond the powers granted by the lease. Their actions are not legally supported unless the lease was formally amended or a supplemental deed was executed. Can you confirm this has not occurred.
Under English property law, particularly the principle of derogation from grant, a landlord or their agent cannot take away rights that have been granted by the lease. If leaseholders have historically parked in common areas without restriction, and the lease does not prohibit it, then imposing penalties or enforcement constitutes a material interference with quiet enjoyment and use.
The case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd confirms that landlords cannot extinguish parking rights arbitrarily—they may regulate, but not revoke without legal basis. TheLandlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to act reasonably and transparently in managing common parts and service charges.
Introducing a third-party enforcement firm without consultation or lease authority breaches the duty to manage the property in accordance with the lease and statutory obligations. P4 is unregulated and acting vexatiously, therefore this also breaches consumer protection laws and data protection regulations if they’re issuing notices or collecting personal data without lawful basis.
So, P4 Parking is a contractor, not a party to the lease. Their authority is strictly limited to what the landlord or management company delegates—and that delegation cannot override leaseholder rights.
If the leaseholder has a right to park (whether exclusive, general, or implied through historic use), P4 must cancel any PCN issued to a vehicle that is confirmed to belong to or be authorised by a leaseholder. Enforcement against third-party vehicles (unauthorised visitors, trespassers, etc.) may be within P4’s remit, but once notified that a vehicle is linked to a leaseholder, continued enforcement becomes unlawful.
If the management company refused to get the PCNs cancelled, then I suggest you send the following to them:
Subject: Immediate Cancellation of PCNs and Cessation of Unlawful Enforcement Against Leaseholder Vehicles
Your refusal to intervene in the unlawful issuance of PCNs by P4 Parking is a dereliction of duty and a breach of both contractual and statutory obligations. Let me make this unequivocally clear:
There is no legal requirement for a leaseholder to display a permit. The lease contains no clause mandating participation in any permit scheme—physical or electronic. Any such scheme is entirely extraneous to the lease and cannot override the leaseholder’s rights.
P4 Parking’s authority may be limited to managing unauthorised vehicles. Once notified that a vehicle belongs to or is authorised by a leaseholder, any PCN must be cancelled immediately. Continued enforcement is unlawful and constitutes:
• Derogation from grant, interfering with the leaseholder’s right to quiet enjoyment.
• A breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires you to manage the property in accordance with the lease and act reasonably.
• A violation of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), which prohibits misleading and aggressive commercial practices. Issuing PCNs based on signage or permit schemes that have no contractual basis is unlawful and may expose both P4 and your company to enforcement action.
The leaseholder has applied for an electronic permit as a courtesy, not as a legal obligation. They reserve the right to withdraw from this scheme at any time without penalty or interference. Any attempt to enforce penalties based on non-display or non-participation in a voluntary scheme is legally void.
You are responsible for the conduct of your agents. If you have failed to amend the lease or consult leaseholders before introducing enforcement, you will be held accountable for any resulting legal or financial consequences.
I demand:
• Immediate written confirmation that P4 Parking has been instructed to cancel all PCNs issued to leaseholder-authorised vehicles.
• A copy of any agreement purporting to authorise P4’s involvement.
• A full explanation of why leaseholder rights were ignored and why no lease amendment or consultation was undertaken.
If this matter is not resolved within 7 days, I will escalate to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and pursue recovery of all costs incurred due to your negligence. You are expected to act with urgency, competence, and legal compliance.