Free Traffic Legal Advice

Had no further communication with them since that email and just got a message from POPLA saying that it's been withdrawn

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Strange way to word it.. "they have withdrawn your appeal"..

Also kind of ridiculous that they can wait for you to go through all the work of writing an appeal and then withdrawn their PCN with no penalty, but as the person challenging, you have to engage with the process every step of the way or else lose your right to appeal.

Almost disappointed that nobody's even going to read the appeal

Ok, after spending far to much time labouring over it, appeal has now been submitted.

Thanks again for all your help, will update with outcome.

From looking at the PoFA it doesn't seem like there is a requirement that the NtK be issued by the creditor, only that it states who the creditor is? I left that out for now, but do let me know if I misunderstood.

I instead added failure to specify period of parking, and inflated demand amount in the NtK as PoFA non-compliance reasons.

Also.. do they have to provide evidence with the NtK, and would the lack of any such evidence render it non-compliant?

This is what I have drafted so far..

POPLA APPEAL

⸻
POPLA Verification Code: ...
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: ...
Vehicle Registration Number: ...
Date of Alleged Contravention: ...
Parking Operator: P4Parking (UK) Ltd ("the Operator")

⸻
Grounds for Appeal:
This appeal is made on the following independent grounds, any one of which is sufficient to cancel the PCN:
    1. Lack of Landowner Authority: The Operator’s authority cannot override a resident's pre-existing rights granted by lease.
    2. Primacy of the Lease: The lease is the supreme legal instrument governing parking rights and does not permit the issuance of a penalty charge for the alleged conduct.
    3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA): Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
        a.  Failure to specify the period of parking.
        b.  The amount demanded in the NtK exceeds that permitted under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
    4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal: The keeper has been unable to mount a full appeal as evidence was removed before notice was received.


1 & 2. Lack of Landowner Authority & Primacy of the Lease
The Operator’s claim is predicated on authority it does not possess. The landowner, Southern Housing, cannot grant authority to a third party that it does not hold itself—namely, the power to penalise a resident for exercising a right already conferred by a legally binding lease.

The lease grants the resident the right "to use the Common Parts for the purposes for which they were designed or intended," with no clause requiring permit display or authorising financial penalties for parking.

Any contract between the Operator and the landowner is subordinate to this lease. Under the principle of non-derogation from grant, the landowner cannot delegate powers that diminish leaseholder rights. The Operator’s enforcement of a permit scheme not contained within the lease interferes with the resident's right to quiet enjoyment and is ultra vires.

The judgment in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [EWCA Civ 2011] affirms that a landlord cannot regulate in a way that extinguishes a granted right.

Please find attached a copy of the lease, and a signed letter from my father Paul Charman, the leaseholder, confirming that I am allowed to live at the property and park the vehicle there, and that he did not consent to third-party parking enforcement.

⸻

3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

a) Failure to specify the period of parking
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 mandates that a compliant 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 Notice to Keeper issued by the Operator only states a single "parking charge date & time." This is not a "period." A period, by definition, has a duration with a start and an end. A single point in time fails to establish the duration of parking for which the alleged contravention occurred.
As the Operator has failed to meet this mandatory condition of PoFA, the Notice to Keeper is invalid.

b) Inflated Sum Demanded in Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper is invalid as it demands a sum exceeding that permitted by PoFA 2012. The original charge was £100, but the Notice to Keeper demands £125.

Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA 2012 states:

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to driver..."

By demanding more than the original charge, the Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, rendering the Notice to Keeper non-compliant and thus the keeper cannot be held liable.

⸻

4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal
A fair appeal has been made impossible due to the removal of signage before the Notice to Keeper was received:
• Evidence Removed: On 29/07/2025, all P4Parking signage was permanently removed from the site.
• Notice Issued Post-Removal: The Notice to Keeper was received on 08/08/2025, ten days after the signage—the basis of the alleged contract—was removed.

This sequence prejudiced the keeper’s position. It is impossible to inspect or photograph the signage to challenge its adequacy, placement, or compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. This obstructs the right to a fair appeal and is further grounds for the PCN to be cancelled.

⸻
Conclusion
The PCN is unenforceable for multiple reasons:
• The Operator acted without authority, violating the primacy of the resident's lease.
• Clear defects under PoFA 2012 regarding the NtK issuer and the sum demanded.
• Procedural unfairness preventing a fair defence.

For all these reasons I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

Also, is the fact that the signage had been removed and replaced with signage from a new parking company by the time I received the NtK itself a ground for appeal? How am I supposed to gather evidence if it no longer exists to be photographed? It makes the process unfair and one-sided.

Ok, POPLA code received..

https://ibb.co/album/5kYQ7C

Was curious to see what the photos showed seeing as the 2nd PCN was never found on the windscreen, can definitely see on days 2 and 3, there were only 2 PCNs, but obviously hard to tell if one was pulled off the windscreen by someone, or if the 2rd pcn was never actually placed there. They do seem remarkably similarly positioned (text upside down), but the PCN inside the envelope seems slightly differently positioned, so I'm guessing it went missing at some point between days 2 and 3

I've sent an email to complaints@p4parking.co.uk with b789's suggested appeal.

The auto-reply says:

An appeal can be lodged online at https://p4parking.zatappeal.com/ or by post to P4Parking (UK) Ltd., Po Box 71107, London, SE18 9LB (for Scotland Appeals: P4Parking (UK) Ltd., Po Box 15688, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH48 9BS) only within 28 days from the date of the notice to driver.

Sounds like they're just going to say it's too late to appeal and wont issue a POPLA code?

Super grateful as always b789

Any thoughts on who I should be sending that reply to and via what medium? Is it an informal appeal to p4parking expecting a POPLA code? I'm guessing I'd have to send that by post.. or could I just chuck it at sales@p4parking.co.uk do you think?

Cheers! will do

Edit:
Sent.