Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi folks,

Just to update you all I had made the POPLA appeal and not too long after that PPS have withdrawn the appeal as they knew all too well that they will be fighting a losing battle. This is the response from POPLA:

https://ibb.co/rR3Xnrck

Thanks again to everyone on this thread for your support.

Coming back with an update and as expected PPS have sent a rejection to the appeal.


https://ibb.co/tpS186DJ



I have formed an initial draft appeal below for POPLA, just wanted to know if it's worth adding anything else into it before I send it off to them?




POPLA APPEAL – PPS

PCN: 410887216 • Vehicle: WHZ5275 • POPLA Code: 5663185373
NTK Location: 1 Western Gateway, E16 1XL (incorrect)
Actual Location: 27 Western Gateway
Date: 16/10/2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper (driver not identified)

1. No Keeper Liability – NTK Not Compliant with POFA 2012

PPS cannot pursue the keeper because the NTK fails several mandatory requirements of POFA Schedule 4:
No period of parking (POFA 9(2)(a)) – only a single timestamp.
Incorrect/missing statutory wording (9(2)(e) & 9(2)(f)).
Creditor not identified (9(2)(h)).
Wrong location stated (“1 Western Gateway”) – the vehicle was at 27 Western Gateway.

A materially incorrect location invalidates the notice.
Keeper liability cannot apply.

2. The Alleged Contravention Is Impossible

PPS alleges “Parked on Red Route”, yet:
No double red lines exist.
PPS’s own photos show the vehicle in a marked bay, not on a Red Route.
The alleged contravention could not have occurred.

3. Signage Unreadable, Unlit, and Not Linked to the Bay
PPS’s signage photo is:
Taken in darkness
Unlit and unreadable
Not adjacent to the bay
Not proven to apply to that area

This breaches BPA Code of Practice S.19.7 & S.21.1 (signs must be clear and legible before parking).
No contract can be formed with invisible or irrelevant signage.

4. Contradictory Signage – Terms Cannot Be Enforced

Two conflicting sets of signs exist:
Bay signage: “20 minutes free parking”.
A distant Red Route sign.

Where terms contradict, ambiguity is interpreted against the operator.
The bay signage governs the bay.
No enforceable terms exist for a “Red Route” within a marked parking place.

5. PPS’s Own Evidence Shows 7 Minutes Stopping – Allowed
PPS evidence timestamps:

First photo: ~21:12
Last photo: ~21:19
Total: 7 minutes.

The bay clearly allows 20 minutes free parking. Their evidence proves compliance, not a breach.

6. Authorised Permission – Operator Is Estopped
The driver was expressly told by a PPS warden that:

Waiting to collect passengers was allowed
Up to 30 minutes was permitted
No PCN would be issued

This is a representation by PPS’s authorised agent.
Under estoppel, PPS cannot penalise the driver for relying on permission granted by their own staff.

7. No Site Map – PPS Cannot Prove Any Terms Applied
PPS supplied no site plan, no map, and no evidence showing:
Where signs are placed
Whether the Red Route sign applies to the bay
Whether any sign was seen before parking

POPLA routinely upholds appeals where operators fail to prove signage placement.

Conclusion

The PCN must be cancelled because:
The NTK is invalid under POFA → no keeper liability.
The alleged “Red Route” breach is impossible.
The vehicle was parked for 7 minutes within the permitted 20 minutes.
Signage was unreadable, unlit, contradictory, and not linked to the bay.
PPS stated the wrong location.
A PPS warden authorised the waiting.
PPS failed to provide a site map proving any terms.

For these reasons, this appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.

Thanks for your reply I will see how it goes. But knowing these Private companies they will reject the appeal so after that is there like an independent adjudicator or a tribunal that deals with these matters?

I have also attached a few more pics showing the misleading signs and timings of when the first image was taken till last

https://ibb.co/Q3Prks5w
https://ibb.co/hJH7M2DW
https://ibb.co/vnjNvwy
https://ibb.co/0pG9bmZ3
https://ibb.co/6RQzyMvc