1
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: April 03, 2026, 08:50:08 pm »
Even though my popla appeal failed. You think ignore them. Anyone else ignored CUP and they have gone away?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: April 03, 2026, 04:02:22 pm »
Hi all, i have now had the final demand charge. Its gone from £60 within 14 days at the start to £100 if not paid after that. I get i loose the right to pay the £60 for doing my appeal. But now they have raised it to £140. which is totally unacceptable.
Any advice on this? I have 2 days before i need to pay it as ive been away.
Any advice on this? I have 2 days before i need to pay it as ive been away.
3
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: February 19, 2026, 07:23:38 pm »
So i have had my appeal rejected. See below.
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • They raised that the PCN doesn’t meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in relation to keeper liability. • The PCN refers to “failed to make a valid payment” and refers to a date of issue. • They raised the PCN doesn’t have the correct warning, “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…”. • They raised landowner authority. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. • They raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). • They feel the PCN doesn’t refer to period of parking. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. and raised new grounds of appeal that they never raised in the grounds like signage, PCN amount, other vehicles in breach and the generic initial appeal response. The appellant included photographic evidence of their initial appeal response and two images of the PCN, in support of their appeal. The evidence has been included in my assessment.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in this car park states that the area is a no parking area at any time. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included PCN and the initial appeal response which is noted but does not add value to the appeal. 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 issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 7/8/9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period. Therefore, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. Furthermore, the PCN doesn’t mention not paying for parking. The PCN reason is for parking in a no parking area. The warning the operator added in the motorist's comments about the 28 days is slightly different, but it is still acceptable as it has the same meaning and is acceptable and still meets POFA. 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 state parking operators must have written authority from the landowner before the PCN can be issued. I can see the operator included a copy of the landowner contract. They raised entry and exit or snap shot times are not the same a ‘period of parking’ and raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). POPLA do not accept civil court decisions as they don’t set legal precedent and only accept Supreme Court Rulings. Additionally, ‘period of parking’ wouldn't be considered in this case as the terms and conditions read that parking isn't permit on roads, footpaths or on yellow lines, however, the appellant's vehicle remained in a ‘no parking’ area for 8 minutes. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have not been considered in this appeal response. Ultimately, the crux of this case is, regardless of who was driving the car on the date in question, they driver breached the terms and conditions, by parking in a no parking area for 8 minutes. The PCN met all aspects of POFA and the keep is responsible for the PCN as the driver hasn’t been named. Upon consideration of the evidence supplied, the driver was not permitted to park where they did and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for parking in a no parking area.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • They raised that the PCN doesn’t meet Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 in relation to keeper liability. • The PCN refers to “failed to make a valid payment” and refers to a date of issue. • They raised the PCN doesn’t have the correct warning, “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…”. • They raised landowner authority. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. • They raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). • They feel the PCN doesn’t refer to period of parking. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section. and raised new grounds of appeal that they never raised in the grounds like signage, PCN amount, other vehicles in breach and the generic initial appeal response. The appellant included photographic evidence of their initial appeal response and two images of the PCN, in support of their appeal. The evidence has been included in my assessment.
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage on site forms the basis of the contract. The signage in this car park states that the area is a no parking area at any time. Firstly, I will discuss the photographic evidence the appellant has included PCN and the initial appeal response which is noted but does not add value to the appeal. 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 issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. Section 7/8/9 states the PCN must be issued within 14 days. In this case I can see that PCN was issued within the relevant period. Therefore, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. Furthermore, the PCN doesn’t mention not paying for parking. The PCN reason is for parking in a no parking area. The warning the operator added in the motorist's comments about the 28 days is slightly different, but it is still acceptable as it has the same meaning and is acceptable and still meets POFA. 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 state parking operators must have written authority from the landowner before the PCN can be issued. I can see the operator included a copy of the landowner contract. They raised entry and exit or snap shot times are not the same a ‘period of parking’ and raised Brennan v Premier Parking (2023). POPLA do not accept civil court decisions as they don’t set legal precedent and only accept Supreme Court Rulings. Additionally, ‘period of parking’ wouldn't be considered in this case as the terms and conditions read that parking isn't permit on roads, footpaths or on yellow lines, however, the appellant's vehicle remained in a ‘no parking’ area for 8 minutes. It should be noted that the motorist comments section is a place to expand upon the original grounds given and not to be used as a platform to introduce new grounds that the operator has not had the opportunity to review. As such, the new grounds of appeal given within the motorist comments section have not been considered in this appeal response. Ultimately, the crux of this case is, regardless of who was driving the car on the date in question, they driver breached the terms and conditions, by parking in a no parking area for 8 minutes. The PCN met all aspects of POFA and the keep is responsible for the PCN as the driver hasn’t been named. Upon consideration of the evidence supplied, the driver was not permitted to park where they did and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Accordingly, I have refused this appeal.
4
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 15, 2025, 07:05:28 am »
We are writing to update you about your appeal.
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us will be the decision on your appeal.
Kind regards
POPLA Team
5
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 15, 2025, 07:03:11 am »
Brilliant, thank you so much for your help. Ill update you with my appeal decision.
If this goes the right way for me is there anywhere i can donate for the help supplied here?
If this goes the right way for me is there anywhere i can donate for the help supplied here?
6
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 14, 2025, 07:40:54 am »
its only a 10000 word response. So i cant fit this in part in if i remove the first line sentence of the appeal.
The burden is on the operator to prove authority, not on an appellant to disprove it.
There are many real-world reasons why signage might be present even where authority is absent or deficient, including:
(a) authority expired or was terminated but signs remain in place
(b) authority is limited to certain bays/areas but the operator is ticketing outside that scope
(c) authority is held by a different entity than the one pursuing the charge
(d) a managing agent or contractor installed signs without the landowner’s informed consent or without a compliant written confirmation
(e) authority exists in some form, but not in the form required by the Code (missing mandatory items).
Because the operator relies on its alleged standing to issue and pursue charges, POPLA should require the operator to actually prove it with a contemporaneous, verifiable, dated, signed agreement and supporting confirmation that covers all mandatory elements. If they do not, POPLA cannot be satisfied they have standing for this site and this specific area.
11. Net result: the operator’s pack does not rebut the appeal.
It does not show PoFA compliance because the Notice to Keeper does not specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and later CCTV stills cannot cure that defect. It does not evidence a contract because it does not evidence an entrance sign, does not evidence prominence/readability from the driver’s position, and relies on prohibitive “no parking” wording without explaining what offer and consideration supposedly created a contract in a prohibited area. It does not properly evidence landowner authority meeting the mandatory PPSCoP requirements and POPLA must not fill that evidential gap by making assumptions.
For those reasons, the appeal should be allowed and the charge cancelled.
The burden is on the operator to prove authority, not on an appellant to disprove it.
There are many real-world reasons why signage might be present even where authority is absent or deficient, including:
(a) authority expired or was terminated but signs remain in place
(b) authority is limited to certain bays/areas but the operator is ticketing outside that scope
(c) authority is held by a different entity than the one pursuing the charge
(d) a managing agent or contractor installed signs without the landowner’s informed consent or without a compliant written confirmation
(e) authority exists in some form, but not in the form required by the Code (missing mandatory items).
Because the operator relies on its alleged standing to issue and pursue charges, POPLA should require the operator to actually prove it with a contemporaneous, verifiable, dated, signed agreement and supporting confirmation that covers all mandatory elements. If they do not, POPLA cannot be satisfied they have standing for this site and this specific area.
11. Net result: the operator’s pack does not rebut the appeal.
It does not show PoFA compliance because the Notice to Keeper does not specify the period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and later CCTV stills cannot cure that defect. It does not evidence a contract because it does not evidence an entrance sign, does not evidence prominence/readability from the driver’s position, and relies on prohibitive “no parking” wording without explaining what offer and consideration supposedly created a contract in a prohibited area. It does not properly evidence landowner authority meeting the mandatory PPSCoP requirements and POPLA must not fill that evidential gap by making assumptions.
For those reasons, the appeal should be allowed and the charge cancelled.
7
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 14, 2025, 07:35:55 am »
Wow, what a response. Appreciate this. Thank you.
8
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 13, 2025, 08:00:41 am »
client details have been obscured, but there is the contractor details on the last page.
Is this relevant?
Is this relevant?
9
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 12, 2025, 06:06:27 pm »
Please see link to drop box folder.
As you can see by all the evidence CUP Provided there is multiple people parked the same way. So the signage is not clear and obvious.
Where the vehicle was parked the nearest sign was on a bike rack at the back of a the area. Which is not a clear an obvious position for a sign. The walking route sign was also under the car behind the vehicle in question and probably was not spotted.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yy37ixyeekcn8waa60g45/AF0pSxhDNRGCTYCGEYDqXSE?rlkey=jk4qx91yvdzhxvg87xru8qjbk&st=4zo6guoa&dl=0
As you can see by all the evidence CUP Provided there is multiple people parked the same way. So the signage is not clear and obvious.
Where the vehicle was parked the nearest sign was on a bike rack at the back of a the area. Which is not a clear an obvious position for a sign. The walking route sign was also under the car behind the vehicle in question and probably was not spotted.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yy37ixyeekcn8waa60g45/AF0pSxhDNRGCTYCGEYDqXSE?rlkey=jk4qx91yvdzhxvg87xru8qjbk&st=4zo6guoa&dl=0
10
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 12, 2025, 05:22:12 pm »
I have had the CUP Response to my Popla Appeal. Its a PDF how do i post that please?
11
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 10, 2025, 05:09:14 pm »
You star. Ill send this off and ill update the outcome.
12
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 10, 2025, 12:08:01 pm »
Ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.
Is the POPLA appeal sufficient as it was wanted for checking over before sending.
Is the POPLA appeal sufficient as it was wanted for checking over before sending.
13
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 09, 2025, 09:38:06 am »
Hows this response to POPLA?
14
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 09, 2025, 09:37:30 am »
"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 “failed to make a valid payment” 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 inform us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.”
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. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.
The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued).”
This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can be invoked.
4. 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 merely asserts that the land is “managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name, company number and registered address. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
5. 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), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, CUP 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.
In Addition
I 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."
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 “failed to make a valid payment” 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 inform us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.”
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. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.
The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued).”
This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can be invoked.
4. 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 merely asserts that the land is “managed by Euro Car Parks Ltd (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name, company number and registered address. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
5. 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), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, CUP 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.
In Addition
I 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."
15
Private parking tickets / Re: Split: PCN Appeal - Trade City Romford - CUP Enforcement
« on: December 09, 2025, 08:28:46 am »
Good morning, is there any help towards my appeal statement to Popla please. As i need to send this off very soon. Any help is much appreciated.
Pages: [1] 2