Well done. However, you should also send the following complaint to POPLA at info@popla.co.uk and CC enquiries@flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk; info@trustalliancegroup.org:
Subject: Formal Complaint – Incoherent and Unprofessional “Appeal Withdrawn” Correspondence
Dear POPLA Team,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the extraordinarily poor standard of the template email issued when an operator cancels a Parking Charge Notice before an appeal is assessed. The communication I received is so lacking in clarity, logic, and basic literacy that it calls into question the intellectual capability and procedural understanding of the person or team responsible for drafting it.
The phrase “the operator has withdrawn your appeal” is, on its face, nonsensical. An operator cannot withdraw an appellant’s submission, and no competent writer would use wording that implies otherwise. The fact that this has been adopted as standard text suggests that whoever authored it did not understand the process they were meant to be describing, or lacked the linguistic ability to articulate it accurately. Either possibility is deeply concerning.
The rest of the letter is equally inelegant. It is clumsily structured, contradictory in places, and written in such a muddled fashion that it reads like a hastily assembled paragraph from someone intellectually out of their depth. Basic sequencing, grammatical consistency, and coherence are all missing. The message lurches between confused hypotheticals and ill-fitting explanations, none of which reflect how the process actually works.
It is not merely embarrassing; it is an indictment of the level of internal oversight within POPLA. Any halfway competent professional would have sent this back for correction. Instead, it has been allowed to stand as an official communication from an organisation that claims to assess evidence, interpret procedures, and apply reasoning in a quasi-judicial setting.
If the standard of written communication is this poor, it raises a legitimate question: how can the public have confidence that POPLA is capable of the analytical, evidential, and reasoning-based work expected of an appeals service? A body that cannot draft a coherent template letter cannot reasonably be assumed to possess the competence required to evaluate appeals with fairness and intellectual rigour.
I request confirmation that this complaint will be logged and reviewed, and I expect a response addressing:
1. How this wording was approved;
2. Whether POPLA acknowledges that the current text is inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically deficient; and
3. What steps will be taken to correct the template and improve internal quality control.
I look forward to your prompt and considered response.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
That's good. Just put them to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises PPS to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name. Refer the operator and the IAS 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, 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.
Their appeal rejection does not address the PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failure and it misstates how PoFA works.
At the moment you have:
• You: “Your NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) because it never invites the keeper to pay; it only addresses the driver”.
• Operator: “We comply with 9(2)(f), therefore we can recover from the keeper; you ‘assume liability’ because you didn’t give us the driver’s details”.
Those are ships passing in the night. 9(2)(f) is a different limb from 9(2)(e). Compliance with (f) does not cure a failure under (e).
Key points you can use in your POPLA appeal:
1. PoFA is “all or nothing”, not “pick your favourite paragraph”
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is a composite list. The notice “must” do (a), (b), (c)… right through to (i). It is not sufficient for the operator to show arguable compliance with 9(2)(f) if they have ignored 9(2)(e)(i). If any one required element is missing, keeper liability never arises. The operator’s letter does not dispute your analysis of 9(2)(e)(i); it simply pretends that only 9(2)(f) matters.
2. They still have not met 9(2)(e)(i)
The analysis of 9(2)(e)(i) is sound: the statute requires an invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. This must be directed to “the keeper”. A demand addressed only to “the driver” does not satisfy that requirement.
From what you have said, their NtK never contains a sentence such as “the keeper is invited to pay…” or equivalent. The word “keeper”, if present at all, is only used in neutral data/descriptive paragraphs, not in an invitation to pay. That is a straightforward failure of 9(2)(e)(i).
3. PoFA does not say the keeper “assumes liability” by silence
The phrase “you therefore assume liability for the charge” is legally wrong. PoFA does not operate on the basis of assumption. Keeper liability only arises if and only if every applicable condition of Schedule 4 is met – including full compliance with all limbs of 9(2).
If the NtK is not a valid PoFA notice (as here, because 9(2)(e)(i) is not met), the creditor has no statutory right to recover from the keeper at all. The only potentially liable party is the driver. If the driver is not identified, the claim ends there.
4. Mis-describing the law is itself a Code issue
The operator mis-stating PoFA and telling a keeper that they “assume liability” where PoFA conditions are not met is a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), in particular the requirement not to misrepresent the legal position or the effect of PoFA on keeper liability (now at clause 8.1.1(d) in v1.1).
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA and so, as long as the unknown (to them) drivers identity is not revealed, inadvertently or otherwise, they cannot hold the known Keeper liable.
The NtK is non-compliant with Schedule 4 PoFA for the following reasons:
• No period of parking stated on the NtK (only a single timestamp).
• Defective/missing 9(2)(e)(i) invitation to keeper to pay and incorrect 9(2)(f) keeper liability warning.
• Ambiguous identification of the creditor.
Result: keeper liability does not arise. They can only pursue the driver (unknown to them unless named).
Other merits that would assist you should this ever be litigated:
1. Authorised waiting / representation by attendant (estoppel)
• You were directed to wait for passengers and then expressly told by a high-vis “warden” (operators employee?) that up to 30 minutes was permitted and no PCN would be issued.
• This is a clear representation by the operator’s agent on site. You relied on it. The operator is estopped from enforcing a charge inconsistent with its agent’s assurance.
2. Wrong location
• NtK says “1 Western Gateway”; the vehicle was at 27 Western Gateway.
• Location is a material term. A mis-stated location undermines proof of breach and the contractual nexus.
3. Contradictory signage / unclear terms
• Same stretch has signage stating “20 mins free parking” yet another sign says “Red Route – no stopping/parking at any time”.
• Where terms conflict, they are not incorporated. Ambiguity is construed against the drafter; the permissive bay signage prevails for that boxed area.
4. Mismatch between contravention and place
• Allegation: “Parked on Red Route”.
• Fact: vehicle was within a marked red box / parking bay. If the area genuinely formed part of a Red Route, it should be delineated by double red lines and not a permissive bay. The stated contravention is therefore not made out.
5. Permitted duration not exceeded• Operator’s own photo times: 21:12 to 21:19 (≈ 7 minutes).
• Within the 20 minutes free stated for the bay. No breach on duration.
However, as you have rightly point4d out, no initial appeal will be considered by this bottom-dwelling firm of ex-clampers. You would have better chance of appeal to POPLA, but even then, you need to remember that POPLA are funded by the very BPA members that pay for them to assess any appeal.
If no luck at POPLA, that really does not matter as their decision is not binding on you. Eventually, they would issue a county court claim, which as long as it is defended, is very unlikely to ever reach a hearing as it would almost certainly be struck out or discontinued.
My advice is to submit a brief operator appeal and when rejected, make a more substantial appeal to POPLA.
There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS 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 some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.