Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good afternoon,

This dropped through the letterbox this morning.

The driver who does not live in this country visited Iceland and did not know that the rules had changed as he/she previously use to the car park when shopping in Iceland without registering the vehicle.

https://ibb.co/ymxMBv1S
https://ibb.co/Ps0KrxWr

thanks

Hashim

I will take advice from the experts, so yes.

Also regarding the next stage, What happens now?


Hashim

Good afternoon.

I have received a response from Popla:

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Lyndsey Howgate
Assessor summary of operator case:

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no payment for parking made.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below: •The appellant advises the PCN is not PoFA 2012 compliant. •The appellant advises the car park is council owned, therefore not relevant land.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

The registered keeper of the vehicle has raised the appeal; I will be referring to them as the appellant throughout my report. POPLA is an independent, single‑stage appeals service. Our role is to determine whether the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly and whether the driver complied with the car park’s terms and conditions. The parking operator has provided a site map and time‑dated photographs showing clear and prominent signage stating private property, terms and conditions apply at all times, tariffs available, payment methods available and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of utilising the private land will result in a £100 PCN being issued. ANPR images confirm the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park on 5 December 2025 at 13:41 and exited at 14:07, a stay of 26 minutes. The parking operator’s whitelist shows no payment for parking was received on the day the PCN was issued. The appellant advises the car park is council owned, therefore not relevant land. The 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based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022.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. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. I have reviewed The Code and note Section 14.1 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, a copy of the agreement between Visio-Redbridge Culture & Leisure Agreement has been provided dated 17 January 2022 confirming that the landowner has given authority for Euro Car Parks LTD to carry out parking enforcement for breaches of the advertised terms and conditions. This document does not have an expiry date, and I have received no further evidence that would suggest the above contract has been terminated and therefore is still valid. A copy of this document can be located in the case file provided by the parking operator and if the appellant wishes to obtain any additional details, they may wish to contact the landowner directly. I am satisfied that the land is private land and not council owned. The appellant advises the PCN is not PoFA 2012 compliant. I am aware 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 due to the drivers details not being provided. Section 9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period and requested driver details to be provided. The parking operator has demonstrated full compliance with the Code and has provided sufficient evidence that no payment was made for the appellant’s 26‑minute stay. As this constitutes a breach of the clearly advertised terms and conditions, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued. The appeal is therefore refused.

What's next.....


Thanks

Hashim

Sorry for the previous post regarding Debt recovery. it was a mistake on my part. That was relating to another incident which should have been cancelled a while ago.


Sorry about that...

Please try now as I have lifted the restrictions

Thanks.

Good afternoon Intercity125

Have you had time to draft a response yet!.

Also received a response from Redbridge council as follows:

Date: 10 February 2026

Dear Mr Oomerjee

Thank you for your complaint received on 23 December 2025.

The matters you raise have been considered and the response is set out below:
The London Borough of Redbridge is the freehold owner of the land comprising Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre.

However, the leisure centre and its associated car park are demised under a long lease to Vision - Redbridge Culture & Leisure, a charitable company. Under that lease, Vision has exclusive possession and control of the premises, including responsibility for the operation and management of the car park.

The car park is operated as an ancillary facility to the leisure centre and is not managed or enforced by the Council under its statutory traffic management or civil parking enforcement powers. No Traffic Regulation Order applies to the site, and the Council does not exercise day‑to‑day control over parking at this location.

For clarity Vision - Redbridge Culture & Leisure operate as a wholly independent entity with its own Board of Management. In the circumstances, Vision is free to make its own arrangements in respect of the management of its car parks.  The car park is not operated by the Council as a traffic authority parking place.

On the basis of the lease arrangements in place, Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre car park is not excluded land for the purposes of Schedule 4, and it is therefore open to the occupier to operate parking management arrangements under private law, including reliance on Schedule 4 where the statutory conditions are met.

Vision has appointed Euro Car Parks Ltd to provide parking management services at the site, insofar as the Council can ascertain they are legally entitled to do so.

The Council is satisfied that the operator is not asserting keeper liability on land which is statutorily excluded from Schedule 4.

There is no evidence before the Council that DVLA data is being obtained or processed in an improper or misleading legal basis at this location.

Your request for the correspondence to be shared with Legal Services and the Monitoring Officer has been noted, and this response fulfils that request.

In summary:

The car park at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre is not operated by the Council as a traffic authority parking place.
The land is not excluded from Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Private parking enforcement arrangements at the site are capable of being lawful, subject to compliance with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
I trust this clarifies the Council's position.

I regret that you felt it necessary to complain and am grateful you took the time to bring these concerns to our attention.  I hope our response has now answered and resolved the concerns you raised.

I trust that we have dealt with your complaint satisfactorily.  If, however you are not satisfied with our explanation, in some circumstances we may consider a request that your complaint is considered as a Stage 2 Review. You will need to:
provide detailed information as to why you are unhappy with our Stage 1 response
provide detailed information and evidence as to why you feel your complaint has not been answered in our Stage 1 response
provide detailed information as to the outcome you are seeking from raising a Stage 2 review
A request for a Review should be made within 20 working days. In some circumstances, we may not escalate your complaint, however, we will write to you giving our reasons for this.

A senior manager will be appointed to review your complaint, and we will write to tell you the outcome of the Stage 2 Review within 20 working days.

If you would like your complaint reviewed, please respond to this email


Yours sincerely


[REDACTED]
Business Improvement Manager
London Borough of Redbridge



www.redbridge.gov.uk
@RedbridgeLive
www.facebook.com/Redbridge

Hello

Received a further correspondence from DVLA.

https://ibb.co/wNNhMrM2


Thanks

Hashim