Here's a revised draft response:
PPS' response fails to sufficiently rebut the points made in my appeal.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:
PPS claim that the images contained on their notice are sufficient to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. This is false. The images provided on the notice cover a period of just 20 seconds, clearly insufficient to demonstrate that the relevant consideration period has been exceeded, and clearly insufficient to specify the alleged period of parking. They also refer to "online images", which they claim indicate the duration the vehicle was onsite. This is not true. The images they have supplied cover a period of just 20 seconds. In any event, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA is clear that the notice must specify the period of parking. Whether additional information is available online is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of keeper liability - the information provided on the Notice to Keeper must be sufficient to specify the period of parking, without reliance on any supplementary evidence found elsewhere. Their notice fails to meet this standard. They have failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such are unable to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
Consideration Period:
PPS claim that because the driver cannot be seen in their evidential photos, this means the driver left the site and accordingly is not entitled to a consideration period. This claim is nonsensical and does not stand up to basic scrutiny. PPS have provided just 2 evidential photos - both of these are images of the rear of the vehicle, taken at close range, just 20 seconds apart. In order to consider the terms on offer, a driver must exit the vehicle in order to read the signage, and by necessity must leave the vehicle unattended to do so. It is laughable for PPS to suggest that because the driver cannot be seen in their 2 close range images of the vehicle, that they must have therefore left the site.
PPS have produced no evidence to support their claim that the driver left the site. There is therefore no merit to their claim that the driver is not entitled to a consideration period. PPS have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on the site for longer than the consideration period. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
[/quote]
It is somewhat unusual for the operator not to have provided some sort of 'evidence pack' on the POPLA portal - I would recommend logging into the portal again and double checking there is nothing else there. However, if nothing else has been provided, here's a draft response:
PPS' response fails to rebut any of the points made in my appeal.
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012:
PPS claim that the images contained on their notice are sufficient to specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. This is false. The images provided on the notice cover a period of less than 10 seconds, clearly insufficient to demonstrate that the relevant consideration period has been exceeded, and clearly insufficient to specify the alleged period of parking. They also refer to "online images", which they claim indicate the duration the vehicle was onsite. Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA is clear that the notice must specify the period of parking. Whether additional information is available online is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of keeper liability - the information provided on the Notice to Keeper must be sufficient to specify the period of parking, without reliance on any supplementary evidence found elsewhere. Their notice fails to meet this standard. They have failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such are unable to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
Consideration Period:
PPS claim that because the driver cannot be seen in their evidential photos, this means the driver left the site and accordingly is not entitled to a consideration period. This claim is nonsensical and does not stand up to basic scrutiny. PPS have provided just 2 evidential photos - both of these are images of the rear of the vehicle, taken at close range, less than 10 seconds apart. In order to consider the terms on offer, a driver must exit the vehicle in order to read the signage, and by necessity must leave the vehicle unattended to do so. It is laughable for PPS to suggest that because the driver cannot be seen in their 2 close range images of the vehicle, that they must have therefore left the site.
PPS have produced no evidence to support their claim that the driver left the site. There is therefore no merit to their claim that the driver is not entitled to a consideration period. PPS have provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on the site for longer than the consideration period. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
Landowner Agreement:
My appeal put PPS to strict proof that they had a valid contract with the owner of the relevant land, which allows them to issue and recover parking charges for vehicles parked on the site. PPS have failed to produce any such contract. In the absence of any evidence from PPS that they have a valid contract with the landowner, they have failed to demonstrate they have the authority to issue parking charges on the site. For this reason, the appeal should be upheld.
Each PCN must be appealed separately with POPLA. Use the following:
POPLA Appeal: PCN [Insert PCN Number]
In assessing this appeal, the first and most fundamental consideration is whether the operator has complied with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), such that liability for the parking charge can be transferred from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper. The appellant contests this point directly, asserting that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a) and therefore invalidates any claim against the keeper.
If the operator cannot establish keeper liability, the appeal must be upheld without further consideration. If, however, the operator contends that PoFA compliance has been achieved, which it hasn't, the next issue is whether a valid contract was formed between the driver and the operator. This requires evidence that the driver remained on site long enough to read and accept the terms, and that a minimum period of parking occurred sufficient to satisfy the legal threshold for contractual formation.
Only if both keeper liability and contractual formation are evidenced can the assessor proceed to evaluate whether the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on site.
As I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing against the issuance of this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:
1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a)
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that a Notice to Keeper must:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The NtK issued the operator fails to specify any period of parking. It merely states that the vehicle was observed at a single moment in time, allegedly “not clearly displaying a valid permit”. This timestamped observation does not constitute a “period”. The statutory requirement is for a duration—a timeframe that establishes at least a meaningful span of time. This does not necessarily mean for the whole duration of parking, but a period of observation that covers at least the minimum consideration period.
This omission is a fatal flaw. As the operator has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold the keeper liable. Keeper liability under PoFA is only possible if all conditions are met. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
2. Persuasive authority: Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H]
In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], the court clarified that the “period of parking” required under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 does not need to reflect the entire duration the vehicle was stationary, but it must nonetheless specify a minimum identifiable period. A single timestamp or momentary observation is insufficient. The judge held that even a short span—such as the time between first observation and issuance of a charge—would suffice, but it must be stated. Logically, this minimum period must at least exceed the minimum consideration period required for a contract to be formed, typically at least five minutes. Where no such period is shown, as in this case, the NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a), and keeper liability cannot apply.
3. No evidence of a contract being formed
The operators own initial appeal response states:
“Please be advised that when parking on private land, the motorist must read the signs and decide whether they wish to stay and be bound by the contract offered on the signage or leave the site.”
The operators own statement acknowledges that a contract is only formed after the motorist has had a fair opportunity to read and consider the terms. Yet PPS has provided no evidence that the vehicle remained on site for longer than the minimum consideration period required for a contract to be formed. A single timestamped observation cannot establish that the driver had time to read, understand, and accept any contractual terms.
Therefore, there is no evidence of a contract, and no lawful basis for issuing a charge.
4. The driver has not been identified
There has been no admission as to who was driving the vehicle, and no evidence has been provided to establish the identity of the driver. The operator cannot rely on assumptions, inferences, or any interpretation of agency law to pursue the registered keeper. As the NtK is non-compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from the unidentified driver to the keeper.
5. Strict proof of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Conclusion
As the NtK fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(a), and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper, and there is no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver, this appeal must be allowed. The burden of proof lies entirely with the operator, and they have failed to meet it.
I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the PCN.