Show Posts - mrpopa

what should i respondi want to respond with the following: '''''Dear Sir/Madam,I refer to your email dated 28/01/2026.As already stated, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I will not be naming the driver.Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and, as such, you have no right to pursue the keeper for this charge. As you are no doubt aware, there is no legal obligation for a keeper to identify the driver.You are therefore invited to either:1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice, or2. Issue a POPLA verification code so the matter may be referred to independent adjudication.Any further attempts to pursue the keeper without lawful basis will be considered unreasonable conduct and may be raised in any subsequent complaint or proceedings.I do not consent to any further processing of my personal data beyond that strictly necessary for the resolution of this matter.Yours faithfully,''''please do let me know if i should change anything

https://ibb.co/qFrkqFW5I do not have pictures of the signage (I tried searching on google).An accident occurred on the motorway as I was travelling to court, so I was in a rush to get there on time.

Hi all,https://ibb.co/tpDGSQNZhttps://ibb.co/n8MKctkvGot an NCP PCN for “parking outside bay markings.” This was at a spot that’s basically two and a half bays. Only two cars ever fit there. The car next to me was already on/over the line, so I parked outside the line too—no space was blocked, no loss of capacity. I was in a rush due to an emergency.Key points:No bay lost; two cars used the only two usable spaces.Markings/layout are confusing (the “half bay”).Amount feels punitive given no loss.I’m the registered keeper and haven’t named the driver.Questions:Best grounds to appeal to NCP/POPLA?Anything specific I should request (contract with landowner, signage map, proof of bay layout/maintenance, etc.)?Any template wording for “no loss / unclear markings / PoFA compliance”?Thanks in advance!

Yes, I meant my father was the driver. Apologies for the confusion.Is there anything more you'd advise? @ManxTom

Thank you very much for your response @NewJudge.I have already responded to the SJPN and did exactly what you mentioned in regards to not pleading guilty and the reason.Unfortunately I have received a summons to a Magistrates' Court. I will do as you have advised; try and talk to the porsecutor beforehand and also get an interpreter.Is there anything more you'd advise?Once again, thank you for your response, it was very helpful.

Thank you for your response.I have written the above post on behalf of my dad.Is the process of going through court and doing a plea bargain with the prosecutor a simple one?The reason I ask is because English is not my dads first language and he is not veru knowledgeable in what to do.Of course I would have wanted to speak on behalf my dad in court but I know this is not allowed.Do you think it is worth hiring a solicitor to deal with this case since my dad is a bit clueless when it comes to knowing what to do? Or will it be a simple process where I can hopefully talk to the prosecutor beforehand, show him evidence of the multiple emails sent and my dad just has to plead guilty or not guilty in court.Again, I have never been to court so I am a bit clueless in regards to the process so any advice is appreciated. All in all, I just need to know whether it is worth getting a solcitior because I do not want to risk being charged with both offences and my dad to get 9 points on his licence.

Thanks for your response. I understand what you’re saying — that I could have just written a letter to the police with the driver’s details. Looking back, maybe I should have tried that, but at the time I thought the correct and only way was to use the NIP form or the online portal. Since the form was damaged and the portal wasn’t working (and they even admitted the fault), I felt stuck and was waiting for proper guidance or a replacement form.To answer your main question: to the best of my knowledge, I think I was the driver at the time. I just wanted to see the photographic evidence first to be 100% certain before confirming it, as some time had passed and I didn’t want to risk giving inaccurate information.

I recently received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), and I am really anxious because I’ve never been to court before and I cannot afford to end up with 6 points on my licence.Here’s my situation:-The original offence was a speeding ticket (38mph in a 30mph restricted road – automatic camera device).-I then received a further charge for Failing to Give Information Relating to the Identification of the Driver / Rider of a Vehicle (Section 172, Road Traffic Act 1988).The issue is:-The NIP form I received was damaged and unusable, so I couldn’t complete it by post.-I tried to use the online portal, but there was a technical fault on their end.-West Midlands Police actually acknowledged the fault in their reply, but they never offered me guidance or an alternative way to respond.-I first contacted them on 08/01/2025 and followed up several times, asking for a replacement form or another way to fulfil my duty. (The speeding penalty letter is dated 24/12/2024).-Despite my repeated emails, I was never provided with help, instructions, or a replacement form.So I’ve entered a Not Guilty plea in relation to both charges — the speeding offence (38mph in a 30mph zone) and the allegation of failing to provide driver information. I explained that:-I made every reasonable effort to comply.-The only reason I couldn’t was because of a faulty system, a damaged form, and lack of police guidance.-I can provide the full email transcript history to prove my repeated attempts.-I am also willing to name the driver now, but I wanted to first see the photographic evidence to make sure I gave the correct information to the best of my knowledge.-I am willing to provide the name of the driver involved in the alleged offence, to the best of my knowledge, on the condition that the related charge of failing to provide driver details is withdrawnMy ConcernsI’m very worried about what happens next. I’ve never been through court before, and I’m nervous about the whole process.Questions for the Community-What steps should I expect next in the process?-Will this definitely go to a hearing, or could it be dealt with before court?-Is it possible that the “failure to provide driver information” charge could be dropped if I can prove I tried to comply?-Should I seek legal representation at this stage, or is it something I can handle myself if I bring all the evidence?-Has anyone been through something similar?I really don’t want to end up with 6 points on my licence for something that wasn’t my fault. Any guidance, experiences, or advice would be hugely appreciated.

Hopefully all is well. It has been a few months and I still have not received the 'Letter of Claim'. Only one letter from the debt collectors but that is it.Is this normal and when should I expect to receive the 'letter of claim'?As always, thank you for the help.

Thank you for your response. 'and a defence you will get help with', does this mean I would have to find a solicitor?

Thank you for your responses — they are greatly appreciated. It's genuinely interesting to see the different perspectives shared by the respondents.From what’s been said, the advice still stands: don’t pay unless you're prepared to challenge it all the way.Could you briefly outline what the process of fighting this case would involve?I’m asking because if it turns out to be too difficult of a process with a likelihood of losing, I may decide it’s simpler to just pay it.

URGENTMy appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful. I genuinely believed it would be upheld based on the points I raised.Here is a POPLA summary:'''''''''Assessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the free period without payment.Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the appellant has explained why they consider it is not compliant with several aspects of PoFA. • They have questioned the signage at the site, the signage is misleading and inconsistent, prominently displayed signs state: “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours, in reality only three hours is free, which is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable, especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure. • Mitigating circumstances were not considered by the parking operator, the overstay was due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, making is impossible for the driver to leave the car park within the time limit. • Despite this being explained to the parking operator within an initial appeal, the parking operator made no reference to this within their rejection, and failed to demonstrate it had been considered. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.Assessor supporting rational for decisionPOPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park can stay for an initial three hours free, after this time tariff apply, with a maximum stay of five hours, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. . The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 42 minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event, they have also provided a copy of the appellant’s initial appeal, which I will refer to below. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. 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 28 day deadline mentioned by the appellant refers to the period the parking operator has before it can transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, and not the period the parking operator has to allow a motorist to pay the PCN. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, in this case the terms mentioned above. The appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site, the parking operator has provided a series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding mitigating circumstances and a vehicle breakdown, these issues were not raised in their initial appeal to the parking operator. As such, it is unclear how the parking operator could have addressed matters they were not made aware of at that stage. While I appreciate the appellant sharing such information now, this information should have been disclosed to the parking operator. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that exceeding the free period without payment, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the free period without payment, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in excess of the free period without payment, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.''''''''I’d really appreciate any advice on what steps to take next, especially as I genuinely believe I raised some legitmate points.

Here is the summary of the case presented by the parking charge company in their response to POPLAPlease do inform me on how I should respond. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Here is the appeal I have written. Please do give any feedback.'To Whom It May Concern,I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced above and am writing to formally appeal the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the following grounds:1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.a. Failure to Invite the Keeper to Pay (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i))The NtK issued by GroupNexus fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). The notice states that the driver is required to pay the charge or the Keeper must identify the driver. However, PoFA requires the NtK to clearly invite the Keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. There is no legal obligation for the Keeper to name the driver, and the notice omits the essential statutory invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge, which is a clear procedural failure.Because this requirement is unmet, GroupNexus cannot pursue the Keeper for the charge under PoFA and must instead pursue the unknown driver, whose identity has not been and will not be disclosed.b. Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA 9(2)(h))The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA 9(2)(h), which states that the notice must identify the “creditor” — the party legally entitled to recover unpaid parking charges. Nowhere in the NtK is the creditor clearly identified. The absence of this key piece of information makes the notice invalid under PoFA, and again, no Keeper liability can be transferred.As the NtK is materially non-compliant with PoFA, liability cannot be transferred to the Keeper, and the PCN must therefore be cancelled.________________________________________2. Misleading and Unclear Signage — Contravention of BPA Code of Practice (Section 19)The signage at Gallagher Retail Park is inconsistent and misleading. Prominently displayed signs state “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five hours. In reality, only 3 hours are free, and this is mentioned only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable — especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure.This discrepancy misleads motorists into believing they have more time than actually permitted, which is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice Section 19.3, which states that signage must be “clear, intelligible and unambiguous” and must not mislead. It also violates 19.4, which requires that terms must be in “sufficiently large text” and be visible to drivers upon entering and parking.Therefore, the signage is insufficient to form a legally binding contract and fails to convey the terms clearly to motorists.________________________________________3. PCN Breach of Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – Incorrect Timeframe for Payment and AppealThe NtK issued by GroupNexus incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the charge date, rather than 28 days from receipt of the notice as required under the Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Section 8.1.2(e). This is a procedural failure that shortens the appeal period unjustly and demonstrates non-compliance with the applicable standards.________________________________________4. Mitigating Circumstances It is important to record that the alleged overstay occurred solely due to an unexpected vehicle breakdown, which left the vehicle temporarily immobile and unable to exit the car park within the time limit. This was an unforeseen and uncontrollable situation and should never result in a punitive charge — especially where the signage was misleading to begin with.________________________________________Conclusion:•   The NtK is not PoFA compliant, so liability cannot be transferred to the registered Keeper.•   The signage is misleading and unclear, breaching BPA requirements and invalidating the contract.•   The PCN does not comply with PPSCoP timelines, which shortens the appeal window improperly.•   The identity of the driver has not been disclosed, and no assumptions can legally be made.On all these grounds, I request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct GroupNexus to cancel this PCN.'Thank you in advance. As always, any advice is appreciated.

UPDATE: Appeal rejected as told. This is what they responded to my appeal:'Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking Charge.The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all relevant laws and regulations. Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform drivers that the maximum stay at this site is 3 hours, and it is not possible to access any part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Please note that payment for parking is required after that. Your representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal.We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As no driver details have been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the vehicle liable.In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If no payment is received within this period, and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate and further costs may be added.Please find below the payment options: Online: www.groupnexus.co.uk/pcnBy Telephone: Credit/Debit cards via our automated payment line: 0844 371 8784By Post: Cheques or Postal Orders to: PO Box 1750, Northampton, NN1 9PN ----------You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This correspondence represents our final stance on the matter and we will therefore not enter into any further correspondence.CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF AN APPEAL WILL NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR EXTEND THE DATE IN WHICH PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE.Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. An appeal to POPLA must be made within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.  POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.  To appeal to POPLA, please go to their website http://www.popla.co.uk and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork. Your POPLA reference number is: XXXXXXXXXPlease note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate. POPLA will not consider any cases where payment has been made. You must pay the charge or appeal to POPLA, you cannot do both.By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.  However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service.  As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.Yours faithfully,CP Plus Ltd.' Please do advise me on the next steps to take. As always, any advice is appreciated.