Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: Hippocrates on December 04, 2025, 03:29:29 pm

You have my e mail address?

yes.  I've emailed the video, NTK and NOR to you.

If you want us to comment on the video evidence, we'll need to see it (or have access to it).

Yes. Let's see how they respond.

When you get a response from POPLA, please show it to us.

Who's 'we' pl?

Only the person* to whom the PCN is addressed has liability here for the moment.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QTCgAH4g2UJ66wnh8

Suggests the red line extends under the car and IMO would be taken as proof by an adjudicator unless the RK could show otherwise.


*- normally the registered keeper. Possibly a corporate entity. Pl confirm.

Yes. Let's see how they respond.

I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 ( (v) of Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted)

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.

Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 ( (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

Additionally, the locus as stated on the PCN is inexact.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

If further evidence that POPLA assessors, especially this moronic feckwit, are not legally trained and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are intellectually malnourished, this decision is clear evidence that they are not fit for purpose.

1. PoFA 9(2)(a): basic statutory error
They equate a single timestamped photo with a “period of parking”. That is plainly wrong. A period requires a duration. Saying the NtK “contains the period parked” because it shows a date/time is legally indefensible.

2. Keeper liability: burden flipped and law misstated
They assert it’s the registered keeper’s “responsibility” to name the driver. It isn’t. The operator can pursue the keeper only if (and because) the NtK is fully PoFA-compliant. No compliance, no keeper liability. The assessor reverses that scheme.

3. Consideration period: concept misunderstood
They claim no consideration period applies because the vehicle was “out of bay”. Consideration is about pre-contract opportunity to find and read terms. Whether a breach later occurred is irrelevant to whether that minimum five-minute window had to be allowed and evidenced. The assessor’s position is circular.

4. Contract formation: assumption standing in for analysis
“By parking on site a contract was formed” is a conclusion, not reasoning. Formation depends on opportunity to see and digest the terms. One timestamp cannot prove acceptance—especially when the operator’s own case tops out at “~5 minutes observed”.

5. Persuasive authority: wrong standard, wrong dismissal
They dismiss cited County Court appeal decisions wholesale as “cannot set a precedent”. Correct: they’re not binding. But they are persuasive—and directly on point about “period of parking”. Ignoring them because they’re not binding is an intellectual cop-out.

6. “Curing” NtK defects with an evidence pack
They treat later photos/narrative as if they can retrofit missing NtK content. PoFA compliance is determined from the NtK itself. Post-hoc material cannot mend an omission in a statutory notice. The assessor never engages with that.

7. Signage: transitional rules over-stretched
Referring to legacy BPA signage provisions during the transition does not displace other live Single Code duties (like consideration). The assessor uses signage compliance to sidestep the separate questions of formation and PoFA content. That’s a non sequitur.

8. Landowner authority: relevance blurred, Beavis misused
Beavis says nothing about whether a redacted “licence” actually confers authority to issue and litigate in the operator’s own name for this site. The assessor accepts a highlighted, redacted document at face value without testing mandatory particulars the Code requires.

9. Evidential threshold: photos ≠ strict proof
“Series of photos” showing a tyre over a line may evidence the alleged posture of the vehicle. They do not evidence (a) the period of parking for PoFA, or (b) that a contract was actually formed after adequate opportunity to read terms. The assessor conflates breach proof with liability route.

10. Failure to engage with the core point
The appeal’s fulcrum was narrow and statutory: no period of parking on the face of the NtK. The decision ducks that question, replaces it with generalities about signage, and pronounces keeper liability as if it were automatic. It isn’t.

Bottom line
This decision is legally unsound. It misstates PoFA, ignores directly relevant persuasive authority, confuses formation with breach, and tries to graft later evidence onto a defective NtK. In short: assertion in place of analysis, conclusions in place of reasoning.

The decision is not binding on you and you DO NOT pay anything. I will draft a formal complaint to POPLA, which will not get them to reverse their decision, irrespective of whether they are with the complaint but it puts them on record as to their utter incompetence and that it will not be soon enough when they become an irrelevance once the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is eventually brought into play.

From now on, you can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. Come back if/when ou receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will advise on how to bring this to a conclusion without having to pay a penny to these scammers.

In the meantime, I advise you to send the following formal complaint about this idiot POPLA assessor with the following to info@popla.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote

Subject: Formal Complaint – Incompetent and Legally Defective Adjudication by POPLA Assessor [assessor name]

To: POPLA Complaints Team

Dear POPLA Complaints Team,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint about the standard of adjudication in my recent POPLA appeal against MET Parking Services. The assessor’s decision is not merely wrong in law; it is so bereft of legal reasoning that it raises serious questions about the competence, training, and impartiality of your adjudication staff.

While I am fully aware that POPLA’s complaints process never overturns a decision — regardless of how egregiously flawed — I require a written response to this complaint for submission to my Member of Parliament and other oversight bodies. The manner in which this appeal has been handled exemplifies why public confidence in POPLA has collapsed: decisions are routinely reached by individuals who appear neither legally trained nor intellectually equipped to apply the very legislation they cite.

1. Statutory Illiteracy – PoFA 9(2)(a)
The assessor treated a single timestamp on the Notice to Keeper as satisfying the statutory requirement to “specify the period of parking”. This is legally absurd. A single timestamp represents an instant, not a duration, and therefore cannot constitute a “period”.
This is not a matter of interpretation — it is a matter of plain English and binding statutory drafting. The point has been clarified in persuasive appellate authority, Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), where the judge expressly ruled that an instant in time cannot evidence a period of parking.

By failing to grasp that fundamental distinction, the assessor has demonstrated a level of incompetence that is wholly incompatible with any adjudicative role.

2. Reversal of the Burden of Proof
The assessor stated that it was the keeper’s “responsibility” to name the driver and that liability “remains with the registered keeper”. That is the opposite of what PoFA provides. The Act creates a narrow and conditional statutory exception allowing keeper liability only if the operator has issued a fully compliant NtK.

The keeper has no legal duty whatsoever to identify the driver. The assessor has completely inverted the law. This is not a borderline interpretative issue — it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative scheme POPLA was created to apply.

3. Refusal to Acknowledge Persuasive Authority
The assessor’s refusal to consider Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions and VCS v Edward on the grounds that “county court cases cannot set precedent” betrays a lack of even the most rudimentary legal training. These were appellate decisions, which, while not binding, are persuasive — a concept clearly beyond the assessor’s comprehension.

To summarily dismiss them rather than engage with the reasoning within those judgments is intellectually negligent and incompatible with the role of an adjudicator purporting to apply statutory law.

4. Post-Hoc “Evidence” Used to Cure a Defective NtK
The assessor accepted that later evidence in the operator’s “evidence pack” could retrospectively fix omissions in the original NtK. That is simply wrong.

PoFA compliance is judged on the face of the notice as issued. The Act does not permit later materials to “cure” a statutory defect. This is basic procedural fairness. The assessor’s failure to understand this undermines the entire purpose of the PoFA regime.

5. Misunderstanding of the Consideration Period
The assessor dismissed the argument regarding the mandatory consideration period under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, asserting that none applied because the driver “was parked out of a bay”. This is nonsensical.

The consideration period exists before a parking contract is formed and applies regardless of where the vehicle stops. It is designed to give a motorist time to locate, read, and understand the terms before deciding to stay. The assessor’s logic that “no consideration period applies if the terms were breached” is circular, incoherent, and wrong in law.

6. Blind Acceptance of Operator Assertions
The assessor’s entire reasoning rests on unverified assertions from the operator — including redacted, unsigned “contracts” and generalised claims of signage adequacy. The evidence was accepted at face value, while every legally grounded argument from the appellant was ignored. This asymmetric scrutiny is not impartial adjudication; it is de facto advocacy for the operator.

7. Institutional Lack of Accountability
I am under no illusion that POPLA will ever reverse this decision, regardless of how obvious the assessor’s failings are. However, this complaint is being lodged formally so that the resulting correspondence can be placed on record and provided to my MP and the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG).

POPLA’s refusal to revisit defective decisions, even where basic statutory requirements have been misapplied, reinforces the widespread public perception that it functions not as an independent adjudicator but as an industry shield — an extension of the very trade body it purports to regulate.

8. Requested Actions

1. A full written response addressing each of the points above.
2. Confirmation that the assessor’s legal understanding and decision-making will be reviewed by a senior adjudicator or legally qualified manager.
3. Disclosure of what retraining or disciplinary action, if any, will be taken.
4. A clear statement of POPLA’s position on whether assessors are expected to be legally trained before adjudicating statutory keeper liability cases.

9. Conclusion
This decision is an embarrassment to POPLA and a disservice to the public. It misstates statutory law, disregards persuasive appellate authority, and displays a level of analytical incompetence that renders it unfit for purpose.

If the assessor cannot be retrained to a minimum acceptable standard of legal literacy, then the only appropriate outcome is removal from post. POPLA cannot credibly claim independence or professionalism while tolerating adjudicators who cannot interpret a statute written in plain English.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your POPLA Verification Code / Case Reference]

When you get a response from POPLA, please show it to us.