Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA outcome received - appeal unsuccessful.  Their arguments below, does anyone feel these hold water? 

If I don't pay now I guess it's the usual debt collector waiting game, followed by the small claims court process for which a successful outcome depends on the competence of their solicitors.

I'd be interested to hear the expert views out there on the path likely to lead to the best outcome.

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper.

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant has stated that the PCN does not comply with PoFA on multiples grounds. PoFA 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.

Firstly, they state that the period of parking is not detailed on the PCN and the ANPR entry/exit images are not synonymous with a period of parking. Whilst I acknowledge the PCN only includes ANPR entry/exit times, I am satisfied that this is the period of parking in question as a motorists must consider the full duration of their stay, including any time to find a space or leave the site, from entry to exit when parking on the site. There is also no evidence to suggest that the appellant’s vehicle was on any other site during this time.

I note the appellant has referred to Brennan v Premier Parking (2023) however, this is not a Supreme Court case and as such, does not set a precedent for parking.

The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper invitation to the keeper. The PCN states, “If you were not the driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice on to the driver.” I am satisfied that this is a clear invitation from the parking operator to the keeper to identify the driver.

The appellant has also stated that the creditor has been identified as both “Euro Car Parks” and “Euro Car Parks Ltd” and this creates confusion. Whilst I acknowledge the minor differences here, I am satisfied that this is same parking operator and suitable identifies the creditor.

The appellant also mentions that there is no evidence as to how and when the PCN was delivered. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. PoFA states that the NTK must be issued and received with 14 days and it is assumed, unless proven otherwise, to be delivered within 2 working days from the date it was issued. For this to happen the NTK needed to have been received by 05/11/2025, as the date of contravention was 22/10/2025. As it was issued on 28/10/2025, I would expect the PCN to be received 2 working days later on 30/10/2025. As such, the PCN complies with PoFA and the parking operator is within their rights to seek the PCN from the keeper.

The appellant has also requested evidence of the landowner contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 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 parking operator has included a copy of the contract they have with the landowner that shows they have the authority to issue and enforce PCNs on this land.

On this site, the signage explains that this is a guest only car park and guests must register their full and correct vehicle registration on the console inside the pub. The signage also explains that a £100 PCN would be issued for any breach of the terms and conditions. The parking operator has included a redacted list of vehicles that shows the appellant’s vehicle was not registered on the site. As such, the vehicle was parked here in breach of the terms and conditions and this has resulted in the issuance of a £100 PCN.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was unauthorised to park 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.

Thanks @coffee pot.

Yes all docs are in order - pothole report ID (includes photos of the pothole), map of pothole location, photos of damaged wheel, email from the wheel specialist that a repair is not road safe due to crack extending beyond the structural line, quote for OEM replacement from manufacturer, insurance cert.  I have MOT too although I don't think Herts insurance claim form required that to be included.

Good suggestion, I'll make the FOI request and share results here.

HM Courts Mediation call took place earlier, played out as described above:

• Other party confirmed they were a Case Manager and had authority to settle but wouldn't provide a name on basis it's not required for mediation
• He offered to settle for a slightly reduced amount than the amount being claimed.  I offered £0, invited to discontinue at no order as to costs.
• He refused to discontinue, mediator concluded a settlement was not reached
• Mediator sent email confirming attendance and advised it's up to 9 months wait for court to hear the case due to backlog

Any steer on the typical wait time until the case is reviewed and potentially struck out?

@jfollows Thank you, please see v2 of POPLA appeal below incorporating feedback (main changes are consistent use of "NtK" abbreviation; latest text copied from PoFA legislation online; latest text copied from PPSCoP Section 14 online and expanded for completeness covering all points (a)-(j)).

@b789 Noted re. chance of POPLA success.  Happy for the process to play out in full, doesn't seem like much, if any, downside.

---

POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be drawn.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:

1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

This NtK contains no “period of parking”.  It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to park” and refers to a date of issue.  ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary.  The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting.  The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).

2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the NtK to “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper- (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver"

The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the driver".  This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.

3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made”.

The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)".  The the full legal entity name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and registered address are ommitted.  Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).

4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case)” in Paragraph 9(2)(i) and defines when it is deemed “given” in Paragraph 9(4) as "(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."

The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.

Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

Other Considerations
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice ("PPSCoP") titled "Relationship with Landowner", which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land:

"Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges"

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

My sample POPLA appeal below, I would very much welcome expert advice.

Other POPLA appeals on the forum refer to "3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))" in relation to the PoFA requirement to warn that the keeper will become liable "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given", but I note on the original NtK ECP did use the correct wording so I have excluded this from the appeal.

---

POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be drawn.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:

1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

This NtK contains no “period of parking”.  It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to park” and refers to a date of issue.  ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary.  The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting.  The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).

2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”

The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the driver".  This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.

3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”

The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)".  The the full legal entity name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and registered address are ommitted.  Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).

4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.” The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.

Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

Other Consideration
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.

A couple of updates. 

A little while after proactively submitting the DQ a very formal letter arrived, essentially warning that the DQ must be submitted.  I'm putting this down to some lag in the system.  However, MoneyClaimOnline transaction history now shows:

• DQ sent to you on 17/09/2025
• DQ filed by claimant on 17/09/2025
• General sanctions order was made on 18/11/2025
• You filed a DQ on 22/11/2025

I assume the "General sanctions order" refers to the formal letter received.  Does this entry matter?  Any action required on my part now they've received my DQ?

Since then an email from HM Courts & Tribunals Service has landed - "Your telephone mediation appointment".  It advises a contact number must be provided to scmreferrals@justice.gov.uk and any delegation of authority.

I'm assuming the mediation call is mandatory.  Could someone advise on impact of delegating (does it introduce any material risk?) and a steer on how to drive the mediation call?  Many thanks as always

Thanks @jfollows, much appreciated.  DQ has been filed.

(I should have searched the forum first, apologies)

Thank you @b789, appeal submitted