That's good but is missing the point that requires the operator to prove standing to operate and issue PCNs in its own name.
Here’s an improved version of your POPLA appeal draft. I’ve tightened structure, removed redundancy, and adjusted tone and phrasing to make it more persuasive and authoritative without unnecessary elaboration:
1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012, Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(f)
The operator asserts compliance with Schedule 4 because its Notice to Keeper (NtK) states: “If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details...” This is defective in both timing and substance and fails to satisfy paragraph 9(2)(f).
Timing
The Act requires the warning to be framed by reference to “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” (paragraph 9(2)(f)), and paragraph 9(6) defines “given” as deemed two working days after posting. The operator’s formulation—“after 29 days”—is not equivalent and is likely to mislead. It is detached from the statutory “given” date and produces inconsistent deadlines depending on posting day and intervening weekends or bank holidays. The statute fixes a single 28-day period; the operator’s wording does not.
Substance
The same paragraph requires the NtK to warn that if, after that 28-day period, the charge remains unpaid and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid sum from the keeper.
The operator’s wording—“payment or driver details”—misstates the statutory test. It implies the keeper must identify the driver or pay, whereas PoFA imposes no such obligation; it merely sets conditions on the creditor’s right to transfer liability.
Because the NtK fails to express the warning by reference to the correct 28-day period and misstates the statutory pre-conditions, it does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f). Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.
2. Prohibitory signage—no contract capable of arising
The signage reads: “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME… UNAUTHORISED PARKING WILL RESULT IN A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100.” This wording is a prohibition, not an offer.
Contract formation requires (i) an offer granting permission to park on stated terms, (ii) acceptance of that offer, and (iii) consideration moving from the driver. Where parking is expressly forbidden, no permission is offered, and thus no consideration can arise. Any vehicle stopping contrary to such a prohibition is, at most, a trespasser—a matter only the landowner may pursue, generally for nominal damages. A parking agent cannot re-characterise a prohibition as a contractual offer.
This is the opposite of the ParkingEye v Beavis model, where a time-limited licence to park was clearly offered, and the charge was a conspicuous core term of that licence. Here, there is no offer at all, merely a warning against trespass. Accordingly, no contract could have formed, and neither driver nor keeper can be held liable in contract.
3. Absence of a “period of parking”
The NtK provides only a single timestamp (e.g. “13:36”) and does not specify any duration of stay. Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 requires that the NtK “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single moment in time is not a “period”. The County Court confirmed this defect as fatal in the persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd [2023, H6DP632H]. Without a defined period of parking, the NtK is non-compliant and incapable of transferring liability to the keeper.
4. Consideration period not evidenced
Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a minimum five-minute consideration period to allow a motorist to read the terms and decide whether to accept them. The operator has provided no evidence that the vehicle was parked beyond this mandatory period. The limited photographs are insufficient to prove that any contract was formed.
5. No evidence of standing to operate or litigate
The operator is put to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous agreement flowing from the landowner that authorises it to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue payment or legal action in its own name.
Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (“Relationship with Landowner”) sets out mandatory requirements which must be satisfied and evidenced before any operator may issue PCNs. In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires written confirmation from the landowner identifying:
• the landowner’s name and address
• a boundary plan of the land to be managed
• any applicable byelaws
• the scope and duration of the operator’s authority
• the detailed parking terms and conditions, including any exemptions
• the means of issuing PCNs
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents
• and the operator’s obligations and appeals procedure under the Code
These provisions are not optional; they are a condition precedent to lawful operation. The operator must therefore produce an unredacted, dated, and signed agreement identifying the contracting parties and signatories, confirming authority for this specific site. Any document with redacted or obscured details will not satisfy this requirement.
Conclusion
PPS’s NtK is defective under PoFA 2012 and cannot transfer liability to the keeper. The signage is purely prohibitory and incapable of creating a contract. No period of parking or evidence of compliance with the mandatory consideration period has been shown. Finally, the operator has produced no proof of its legal standing to issue PCNs or pursue claims at this location.
For all these reasons, the appellant respectfully requests that POPLA allow this appeal.
Meh! You will appeal to POPLA. You have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection to submit a POPLA appeal.
Have a search of the forum for some recent POPLA appeals to get a feel for how they are structured and show us what you have before you send anything.
For example, here are a couple of points you could use in your POPLA appeal:
PoFA 2012 – NtK non-compliance with paragraph 9(2)(f)
The operator’s rejection asserts that its Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant because it says: “If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details…”. That is wrong in both timing and substance and does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
First, timing. PoFA 9(2)(f) requires a warning framed by reference to “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. PoFA 9(6) further defines when a posted notice is “given” (deemed two working days after posting). By contrast, the operator’s “after 29 days” formula is not equivalent and is liable to mislead. It is untethered to the statutory “given” date and will produce different deadlines depending on the day of posting and intervening weekends/bank holidays. The statute fixes a 28-day period from the day after “given”; the NtK’s “after 29 days” does not.
Second, substance. PoFA 9(2)(f) requires the NtK to warn that if (i) the parking charge remains unpaid after that 28-day period and (ii) the creditor “does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid sum from the keeper. The operator’s wording (“payment or driver details”) misstates the statutory test. It implies the keeper must supply “driver details” or pay, whereas PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver; it merely sets a condition on the creditor’s ability to transfer liability where the creditor does not know both the driver’s name and a current service address. The NtK fails to convey this mandatory statutory warning accurately.
Because the NtK’s warning is neither expressed by reference to the statutory 28-day period beginning the day after the notice is “given” nor faithful to the “both the name and a current address for service” requirement, the NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(f). Keeper liability therefore cannot arise.
And...
Contract cannot arise from a prohibition
The sign says “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME… UNAUTHORISED PARKING WILL RESULT IN A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100.” That is a blanket prohibition, not an offer. Contract formation requires (i) an offer conferring a permission/licence to park on stated terms, (ii) acceptance (by parking in accordance with that permission), and (iii) consideration (the driver’s compliance/payment in return for that permission).
Where parking is forbidden, there is no permission to accept and no consideration moves from the driver; at most there is a trespass. Only the landowner may pursue trespass, typically for nominal damages, and a parking agent cannot convert a prohibition into a contractual charge. This is the opposite of the Beavis model, where a time-limited licence to park was offered and the charge was a conspicuous core term of that licence.
What would be required to create a contract
To form a contract by signage the operator would need, at minimum:
• An express offer to park (a licence) on clear terms, not a prohibition.
• Core terms stated with certainty: who may park, time limits, the tariff (if any), and the parking charge for breach stated prominently as a core term.
• Prominence and timing: entrance signage and repeated on-site signs so the driver can see and read the terms before deciding to park (see Vine v Waltham Forest; prominence akin to Beavis).
• Clarity: unambiguous wording; large fonts for the charge and headline terms; readable in the conditions and lighting at the site.
• Authority: the operator named as contracting party and agent of the landowner.
Illustrative wording (for contrast only)
This shows the sort of structure that can create a contractual licence; the operators site does not display anything like this:
Main terms (core terms in large text):
• “Parking is permitted for:
• Vehicles displaying a valid PPS permit or
• Pay-to-park users who purchase a session on arrival.
• Max stay: X minutes. Tariff: £X per hour.
• Parking charge: £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) payable if you fail to comply with these terms, including: no valid permit, no valid payment, overstaying, or parking outside marked bays.
• By parking you agree to these terms”.
Because PPS’s signage is purely prohibitory and does not extend any permission to park on terms, no contract could have formed and keeper/driver contractual liability cannot arise. If the landowner believed a wrong occurred, the correct cause of action would be trespass, which PPS has no standing to pursue.