Free Traffic Legal Advice

Popla appeal submitted. Really struggled to upload the video. Even reduced it's size to 7080 pixel and 45mb down to half of the 100mb limit.

Submitted a youtube link the end to info@popla...

File said it was too large to send via email, even after I compressed it into a zip.

Ok, Here's the draft.

It's took ages and I have a funny feeling that's it's going to get pulled to pieces. Not spell checked or reworded but hoping that it's on the right lines.


I am appealing this parking charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

I have included a number of attachments in this appeal.

A Video demonstrating that no contact could be formed
A  Photo of the dashboard which does not prove that the badge wasn’t on display
A copy of my sons disabled badge
A picture of the parking place


No Contract Formed

The signs in this car park are not prominent. They are neither clear from the drive into the car park or at the parking space where the ticket was issued. I have attached a video, taken on a drive from the only entrance into the car park taking a route to the same parking space where the ticket was issued demonstrating this. There is only one sign on the drive from the entrance of the car park to the parking space where the ticket was issued. This sign is not only not secure, clearly broken, and inadequate to offer any form of contract.  The sign is also facing completely in the wrong direction, making it almost impossible to notice it’s existence. The video also demonstrates that not only are there no adequate signs on the drive from the entrance to the car park, there are none in front of where the car was parked within 50 metres on either on the left or right of where the vehicle parked.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.


Inadequate Images of the vehicles windscreen

The parking operator have provided images of the vehicles windscreen. The badge does indeed look like it’s on display on the drivers side at the front of the dashboard. Given that the photos are not clear, coupled with the obvious fact that there is clearly something on display on the dashboard, why did the operator not take a closer image to offer complete clarity?

I have also provided a copy of our sons current disabled badge. The ticket was issued in the time that his old badge would have been valid. The old badge has bee discarded as it was no longer required.  I can assure you given the fact that he’s 8 years old, that a valid badge would have been displayed on the day in question.


I have also provided an image of the parking place itself. For the avoidance of doubt, you will see my vehicle with it’s boot open parked in the exact same parking space where the ticket was issued clearly showing an image of my sons wheelchair. In the background of this image on the left, you will see a UKPC Parking sign. As you can see, this sign is clearly inadequate as it’s facing in entirely the wrong direction, presumably because the fixings on the sign itself have failed. You will notice by the attached video that this is the only sign the driver had a chance to read but as it’s clearly broken, how could the driver possibly be expected to notice it?

Notice is non Compliant with POFA as the date to appeal to POPLA is shortened as the “relevant period” has been incorrectly stated.

The notice to drive was posted on 13/11/25 and according to Section 8:6 of POFA it should be deemed to be delivered on 17/11/25. This would have allowed the driver to appeal by 14/12/25

The parking company incorrectly informed the keeper that an appeal had to be serviced with POPLA within 28 days of the date of the letter which would be 11/12/25

There are clear instructions that have not been followed in the legislation below:

(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

https://ibb.co/cSyXdycR
https://ibb.co/8D8nY8DJ

Hi Guys,

The driver got this ticket and was with our disabled little fella at the time. Badge was either displayed on dash, but also sometime sticks it inside the side window right where little man sits before lifting him out of the seat and into his wheelchair. - No images of side windows in evidence.

I have however added an image of the dash as it looks to me that you can see the top of the badge where it's potentially slid down as image is awful and you cant tell at that angle whether or not it's visible properly.



Clearly we can appeal and send a copy of the badge but any advice would be appreciated

Ticket 19/10/25
Letter Dated 23/10/25
Last date of "discount" 16 days after service to allow for posting so 8/11/225 no?

If anyone could offer help I'd really appreciate it.

https://ibb.co/nsWc6Qxj
https://ibb.co/1tsSRqs8
https://ibb.co/2YctXKNt
https://ibb.co/wrJ6C2rr

Hi All,

As the subject suggests. I have a charge sent to my home address. Charge is for Heathrow T5 Drop Off Zone.

Reg on photo is one digit out. Car (incidentally) is the same make and model as mine but not the same colour - which it often is in these cases.

The ANPR has read a "V" in the reg when it's clearly a "W" in their photo, hence sending the ticket to me.

Contravention dated 28/9 and letter send 6/10.

I'm guessing that the advice is that I should wait until around 4/10 to let let them know - making it "Out of time" for them to serve the correct ticket, thus giving the keeper the best opportunity to submit their challenge?

Thanks

Result. Thanks so much for your input

Successful
Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist exceeded the 45-minute maximum stay time.

Assessor summary of your case
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • The notice to keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The signage is inadequate. • They would like to see whether the operator has the landowner’s permission to issue parking charge notices on the land. Specifically, they would like to see the contract. • They would like to see a copy of the operator’s KADOE contract. • It is a clear abuse of the system. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided a photograph of spar and a photograph of the entrance signage. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist parked in excess of the 45-minute maximum stay time. Within their appeal, the appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site. They have provided a photograph of the entrance sign and questioned how the motorist was supposed to read it from the moving vehicle. The appellant has also provided a photograph to demonstrate where they parked, and explained that the only signs are located on the edges of the building. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking. Section 19.3 specifically states that signs must be easy to see, read and understand. In response to the appellant’s appeal, the operator has provided photographs of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution throughout. Having reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, I can see that there aren’t any signs located where the appellant claims to have parked, but on the sides of the building away from the central spaces. While I accept that the motorist would need to have passed the entrance sign, this is located on a bend and I do not consider it reasonable to expect a motorist to read this whilst trying to navigate a bend. Further, I can see that the site operates a one-way system, and although I accept that other signs would have been visible on the exit road, the parking contract is formed on entry to the site.

Overall, I cannot be satisfied that the operator has demonstrated that the motorist would have been presented with a reasonable opportunity to review the terms and conditions before deciding whether to park. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN was correctly issued. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Ok we have a reply. Shall I post an appeal for critique? Not sure what B789 might have up their sleeve but I'd be willing to go all the way with this one, no question.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]