Free Traffic Legal Advice

You cant even correct them once they make a mistake.

Copy pasted email received from POPLA today.


Thank you for your email received 10 March 2026, outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.
 
It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service, and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.
 
The crux of your complaint is that the assessor has incorrectly applied the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 when assessing your appeal.
 
In order for a parking operator to transfer liability of the parking charge to the registered keeper when the driver has not been identified, it must meet the strict requirements pf Schedule 4 of POFA.
 
POFA confirms the notice must be sent with the relevant times and contain the statutory wording:
 
The Notice to Keeper was issued on 19 November 2025, six days after the parking event on 13 November 2025 and therefore it was sent on the statutory time frame.
 
 
The Notice also states the keeper must either provide the full name and address of the driver and pass the notice to them. The notice confirms further if after the period of 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know the name and address of the driver, it has the right to receive any unpaid part of the paring charge from the appellant as the registered keeper:
 

 
Therefore, on reviewing the notice to keeper, I agree with the assessor that the operator has met the strict requirements of POFA in transferring liability of the charge to you as the registered keeper.
 
You state the assessor specifically mentions noncompliance with Paragraph 9(2)(e) in the summary at the start of the response.
 
On reviewing the assessor’s decision, I not the appellant has referenced this when detailing your grounds of appeal.  This comment is not the assessor stating the notice is not compliant rather it is a bullet point summary of one of your grounds of appeal.
 
Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented.
 
I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter, and all further correspondence will be noted on your case but not responded to.
 
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
 
Yours sincerely,


Paul Garrity
POPLA Complaints

Hi all.

As expected I have appeal
Denied by popla. Copy pasted below.

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Gayle Stanton
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site for longer than the maximum stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal which I have summarised for the purposes of assessment: • No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (including failure of 9(2)(e)(i)). • Mandatory consideration period and grace period not evidenced and not capable of being correctly applied when the operator relies Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR to calculate “length of stay”. That approach cannot properly measure parking time. It also fails to show that mandatory time allowances were applied. • Inadequate signage – no proof of prominent terms capable of forming a contract. • No proof of landowner authority – Euro Car Parks must evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f). • Failure to consider mitigation and vulnerability – breach of PPSCoP Annex F. • ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven. In the comments the appellant has provided the following : The conditions of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) are not met - the critically required wording is obviously not present in the NtK. The PCN shows the driver entering the forecourt (from the main road) by making a shallow turn to the left - more of a taper than a turn in fact - due to the layout, most drivers would enter in this manner. The signage on entry from this direction is wholly inadequate since there is no required 'entry signage' which faces oncoming traffic - this does not appear to meet the minimum requirements set out in The Code of Practice document. The appellant has provided a document detailing their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the site. The appellant has advised that the Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant. 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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant in all aspects. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. The appellant states that they were not allowed a consideration or grace period. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case the recommended consideration period according to Table B.1 is five minutes. The Code also includes the following note: NOTE 2: The consideration period may end earlier than the times prescribed in Annex B where there is evidence that the driver has, accepted the terms and conditions applying (whether or not they have chosen to read them) which may for example be evidenced by the driver parking the vehicle and leaving the premises, paying the applicable parking tariff, or remaining on the controlled land for more than 5 minutes. As the vehicle remained on the site for one hour and one minute this was exceeded and the driver became liable to comply with the terms. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. However, the Code advises that grace periods are not applicable to short stay areas where the parking of a vehicle is allowed for a limited period not greater than 30 minutes, such as drop off and pick up zones. In this case as the maximum stay allowed is 15 minutes which is a short stay car park, drivers are not entitled to a grace period. The appellant has advised that there was no entrance signs and Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the entrance signs on the site and these advise that the maximum stay permitted is 15 minutes. These signs also advise that motorists can see the signage on the site for further terms and conditions. Due to this I am satisfied that the entrance signs comply with Section 3.1.2 of The Code. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator has provided evidence of the signage on the site and this advises that parking is limited to 15 minutes and that failing to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies with Section 3.1.3 of The Code. The appellant says they were unaware of the terms and conditions. However, a driver does not need to have read the terms to accept them—only to have been given the opportunity to do so. It is the driver’s responsibility to locate and understand the terms before parking. Based on the photographic evidence and site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have passed at least one sign and therefore had this opportunity. The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and 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 operator has provided a memorandum of understanding and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. The appellant states that the operator has not considered any mitigating circumstances. The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. In this case the appellant has not provided any explanations as to why the operator or POPLA should consider their mitigating circumstances. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if any vehicle has overstayed the maximum stay of 15 minutes, a PCN is issued. The data provided by the operator shows that the vehicle had been parked on the site for one hour and one minute on the day in quesiton. ANPR technology is generally reliable, though POPLA sometimes receives appeals alleging ANPR errors. In such cases, POPLA considers whether any evidence casts doubt on the accuracy of the system. The operator must first prove the PCN was correctly issued, usually by providing ANPR images. If they do so, the burden then shifts to the motorist to provide evidence that questions the ANPR’s reliability. This may include an account of events, but physical evidence—such as receipts showing the motorist was elsewhere—is usually more persuasive. The POPLA assessor ultimately decides whether the evidence demonstrates an ANPR inaccuracy. In this case the appellant has not provided any evidence to cast doubt on the operator’s ANPR evidence and therefore I can only consider this evidence in this case. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site for longer than 15 minutes and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Forgot to show template.


[ Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act").

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

Hi all

I’m trying to help someone who drove into this Tesco car park due to a flat tyre during Tesco closing hours, on Sunday they close at 4pm. The breach in question was after 9pm.

I would like to know if this is pofa compliant if not I have a template ready to use.

https://ibb.co/xxXSqV8
https://ibb.co/CKJmW1KP

Thank you for your help.

I noted this point early on but didn’t mention it as I thought it would be disregarded.

You take a left into shell and drive forward to the back passing fuel pumps on your right. At the back there is plenty of signage not accessible on google street view. That’s where the courier collection boxes are.

What error are you getting exactly?

When you click the link is it a blur screen of document seems like trying to load? If so you need to scroll down and somewhere in the middle it will say load full resolution. Click this.

I checked the other day it was loading fine for me but I tried just now it’s loading but as I mentioned above and after clicking load full resolution, I’m only able to view 18 pages of 35.

Anyone else having any issues? Or can you please advice how to fix this.

Greatly appreciated.