Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes, they are trying their luck. I would normally put together a POPLA appeal that covers a multitude of other points, as the appellant only has to succeed on a single one, whereas the operator has to succeed on all the points raised.

However, this is such a blatant abuse and evidence of unlawful behaviour that a single issue POPLA appeal would succeed anyway. Appeal only as the Keeper with the following:

Quote

POPLA Appeal: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Appellant: [Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Operator: Civil Parking Office Ltd
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]

Appeal Grounds

1. The Notice to Keeper Is Not PoFA Compliant—No Keeper Liability

The operator has openly admitted that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As a result, the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.

As confirmed in my appeal to the operator, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver. The operator has provided no evidence to establish the driver's identity, which is their burden to prove if they wish to pursue this claim.

Let me be clear: the POPLA assessor cannot assume or infer that the registered keeper was the driver. This would be a breach of the assessor’s role and contrary to well-established legal principles, including VCS v Edward (2023), which clarifies that no assumption or inference can be made unless the operator provides clear, unequivocal evidence identifying the driver.

The operator has failed to provide such evidence, and their case must fail on this point alone.

2. Misleading Assertions in the Rejection Letter

Despite acknowledging their NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s rejection letter falsely asserts:

"As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage."

This language is deliberately misleading, as it attempts to suggest that liability has automatically transferred to me, the registered keeper. Such tactics are both unlawful and unethical, as they exploit the ignorance of recipients who may not be familiar with their legal rights.

3. Failure to Identify the Driver

Since the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s claim relies entirely on identifying the driver. However, no evidence has been provided to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. Without such evidence, the operator has no case.

It is not my responsibility to identify the driver, nor is there any legal obligation on me to do so. The operator’s failure to meet their evidentiary burden is fatal to their claim.

4. Lack of Evidence of a Parking Contravention

The operator’s reliance on Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site does not demonstrate a parking contravention. There is no evidence provided of:

• The vehicle being parked, as opposed to merely passing through.

• Any specific terms of parking being agreed to or breached.

Without clear evidence of a parking event and breach of terms, this claim lacks credibility.

Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor

I must emphasise that no assumption or inference can be made regarding the registered keeper being the driver. Such assumptions are contrary to legal precedent, including the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2018, which confirms that assessors must not make unfounded inferences.

If the assessor fails to recognise this point, the decision would be procedurally flawed and legally invalid.

Conclusion

This operator’s claim is legally baseless, as they have failed to:

• Issue a PoFA-compliant NtK to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

• Provide any evidence identifying the driver.

• Prove a parking contravention occurred.

The operator’s behaviour in this matter is both incompetent and predatory. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice and strongly criticise the operator for their misleading conduct and complete disregard for established legal standards.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]