Show Posts - Sarf London

Intercity - thanks for all your help. I'll post back here should an LBA appear.

Thank you for your email received 16 March 2026 I note my colleague has previously responded to your complaint and confirmed POPLA’s position. I note further they confirmed that this response marks the end of our complaints procedure and it will not be appropriate for POPLA to respond further. For the avoidance of doubt, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended. Any further correspondence received in relation to this issue will be noted on your case, but not responded to.========================================================================In other words, they bottled it twice and think that's the end of the game.I now want to push ECP for an early court date. Let's get this over with.

Sent.

Here's the original email reply, converted to a PDF......Please let me know if your commenst still stand as I will be going back to them with your response if that's the case....https://ibb.co/Fkc9Ywr5

Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. You say the assessor has omitted elements of the required  mandatory wording of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. You raised that the operator’s PCN was not compliant and there was the omission of the subsequent two limbed legal choice required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e). You say if the notice is examined it will be noticed that this was never presented. You say the assessor makes a procedural error as her wording referenced is that as discussed in 9 (2) (f) and not (e). I have looked at the PCN following your complaint. I can see that you raised:   PoFA 2012 in e and f states:  (Quote of (e) and (F) from the ACT inserted here)  I have highlighted the pertinent section of the PCN which discusses PoFA 2012 requirements. •   Green relates to 9 2 (e)•   Blue relates to 9 2 (f) BLUE:You are advised that if after the period of 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given (which os presumed to be the second working day after the Date issued) the parkign charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.....GREEN:...applicable cobnditions under Schedule 4 of the Act. If you do not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you for any parking Charge amount that remains outstanding. Should you identify someone who denies they were the driver, we will pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains outstanding.  The assessor stated: “The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to make payment may result in additional costs.” I am satisfied that the assessor is correct. Whilst the assessor has not touched upon the relevant sections, I am satisfied that it met the mandatory requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore, the registered keeper can be held liable for the PCN. Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented.

Thank you for your contact. We are sorry that you are unhappy with our service and would like to reassure you that we take all complaints seriously. The information has been escalated to our complaints team and the details will be reviewed. You should receive a response within 21 days depending on the complexity of the information provided.

SentThank you.

Yes Please Intercity.

Decision Unsuccessful Assessor Name Rachel HankinsonAssessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for overstaying the maximum time period allowed. Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. • The signage is inadequate as the text is half the required size and a driver would not be able to see the entrance sign. • There is no evidence of parking, and the operator has failed to include entry and exit images. They require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in further detail. The appellant has provided images of signage as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.Assessor supporting rational for decisionWhen assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to make payment may result in additional costs.The appellant says that the signage is inadequate as the text is half the required size and a driver would not be able to see the entrance sign. I note that the appellant has referred to the new code of practice regarding signage. However, this is not yet applicable. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with regarding signage. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the evidence provided by the appellant and the operator shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 90 minutes, and any breaches would result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice.The appellant states that there is no evidence of parking, and the operator has failed to include entry and exit images. They require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site. The site in question is ANPR operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. Two ANPR images featured on the PCN show the appellant’s vehicle registration XXXX XXX entering site at 14:28 and vacating at 16:35, 2 hours 7 minutes after arriving. However, no evidence has been provided by the appellant to show that the driver was in an alternative area between the time frames pictured on the PCN, so we are unable to presume that they were not on site after being pictured entering at 14:28 and not leaving until 2 hours 7 minutes later. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary, I will work on the basis that the information is accurate. As the driver was on site for 2 hours 7 minutes and exceeded the allowed maximum stay, a PCN was issued for breaching the displayed terms. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority.The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the document provided shows that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCN’s. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.The paragraph 9  issue was not addressed, but the Assessor has also completely ignored the fact that the signage requirements are the same through all previous versions of the COP and dismissed my argument wholesale simply becuase the current version doesnt apply until later this year.Thoughts ?

As expected, they have rejected my appeal. We now move on to POPLA.Would you please review my POPLA appeal below ? many thanks.I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :1.   Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA)2.   Inadequate signage 3.   No evidence of parking4.   No evidence of landholder authorityNon-Compliance with POFASchedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.Inadequate SignageI refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.”Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).”Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance toread them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”Section 3.2 states “Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.”Section 3.4 in the note acknowledges “[…] the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances […]”The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria. There is a single entrance sign. It is not the sign included in the operator’s response to appeal – that is located elsewhere. According to the COP (Table A.2) this sign contains ‘group 1 text’ . The COP states that for “Car park entered from higher-speed road or using a length of access road”  the typical approach speed will be 25mph and the Group 1 text should be a minimum of 90mm. This car park is approached from just such a road and as can be seen from photograph 10, the Group 1 text is 45mm – half the required size.The entrance to the land is shown in photograph 4 in context of the driver’s view. This is the view from 30 metres. It is obvious that a driver travelling at 20+ mph along this road, with the afternoon Winter sun directly ahead, will be looking at the jutting corner of the building, not at an obscure sign on the wall which is the wrong size, contrary to sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the COP.This view is further made problematic by being mixed in with other signs. The Smart Charge company sign is much bigger and this company even felt the need to put a sign up on the opposite side of the road. In addition, there is much clutter of no parking signs around the area (see photographs 1-3) contrary to sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the COP. Its is ironic that the clutter of other signage has been created by the same parking operator.There is no obligation to visit Sainsburys. Photographs 5-9 show the route this vehicle took to arrive at a parking space showing that it is perfectly possible (as happened in this case) to park where this car was and leave the site without seeing a single sign.Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.No evidence of parkingI have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site is not evidence of parking, EuroCarParks have failed to include even this basic information in their notice. I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have ECP’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.No evidence of Landowner authorityThe operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.Section 14 of the COP  defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own nameI therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Thanks b789, I suspected that would be your reply !Let the motions begin..... dashing off the fruitless appeal to ECP. WIll keep you in the loop.

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I have just received a Notice to Keeper - copy attached.The NtK arrived on day 14 and the alleged overstay was for 37 minutes.This was a Sainsburys car park which used to be 120 mins free parking and was reduced to 90 minutes.To be honest, the driver probably forgot that the time had reduced.As It's ECP I presume I'm appealing to them fruitlessly that their NtK is non-compliant ?"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. 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. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN." NTK Page 1 https://ibb.co/Jj4MJfv9 NTK Page 2 https://ibb.co/XrF04NPZ Thanks in advance guys .....

Decision SuccessfulAssessor Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxAssessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator has issued a parking charge notice as the vehicle was not parked within a marked bay.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Driver Liability not established – the Notice to Driver is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). • Keeper Liability not established - The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA. • No breach of contract. • Inadequate signage. • No evidence of landholder authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal and raises new grounds of appeal advising: • The operator refers to pre estimate of loss/breach of consumer contracts 1999. • The copy of the notice to driver does not match the notice to driver that was placed on the vehicle. • The notice to driver attached to the vehicle had crucial information cut off. • They were unable to provide the PCN number as this information was cut off. • The operator has submitted inaccurate and misleading information on the notice to driver. • The photos show that they were parked in what appeared to be a bay. The appellant has provided a photo of the PCN that was attached to the windscreen, photos of the appellants vehicle parked on the day of the event and copy of the notice to keeper that the operator issued as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.Assessor supporting rational for decisionI am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the operator has issued the PCN to the appellant as the vehicle was not parked within a marked bay. The appellant has identified themselves as the registered keeper of the vehicle. PoFA paragraph 8 (2) (g) states: “inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;” Looking at the Notice to Keeper sent on 5 August 2024 it does not inform the keeper of the discount, it advises that the discounted amount no longer applies. Therefore, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA and I must allow the appeal. It is worth also mentioning that the original notice to driver that was attached to the windscreen of the vehicle has been cut off, and important information is missing, for example the full PCN number and the full vehicle registration. The copy of the original PCN provided by the operator in their evidence does not match the dates that are visible on the original notice o driver. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.Thanks for your help guys. Pouring a large one. I notice that the assessor went for POFA compliance on the NtK as a reason to uphold but the assessor did at least acknowledge the blatant incompetence leading to potential fraud that these intellectual pygmies attempted.

Not a bluff - depending on the outcome.

Verification Code xxxxxxxxxxxxDear POPLA.On the 13/9 I received an email from you informing me that I was in a queue and to expect a decision in 2-4 weeks.It has now been 8 weeks. Can I please have an estimate of when I might receive your decision ? I am anxious to get on with my pursuit of the parking company for criminal fraud but I really would like to have ALL the evidence with me when I speak to my solicitor...Many thanks...