Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

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.

client details have been obscured, but there is the contractor details on the last page.

Is this relevant?

I have had the CUP Response to my Popla Appeal. Its a PDF how do i post that please?

Ok, thanks for pointing that out to me.

Is the POPLA appeal sufficient as it was wanted for checking over before sending.

"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."

I think i used this statment.

Dear CUP Enforcement,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Thanks.

Ok, thanks. Do you have a standard appeal template that i can send to Popla please?