Free Traffic Legal Advice

Final Demand from CUP recieved today.

I guess the waiting period starts to see what action they take.

Thanks, will get that sent off.

Just had a reply from POPLA. As expected it was unsuccessful. Result below. What are my options now.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and there is no legal obligation to identify the driver. • The parking operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 and there can be no keeper liability. • The period of parking is not specified on the PCN. The images and dates on the PCN do specify the period of parking and POPLA cannot infer what happened between the times on the images. • The signage on the site is prohibitive and not capable of forming a contract. A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance and the parking operator is attempting to impose a PCN for a prohibited act. • The parking operator’s still images cover around 3 minutes. This demonstrates that the mandatory minimum consideration period has not been applied. They quote the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) on relation to this. • They request strict proof of a fully complaint entrance sign on the date, a dated site plan showing the location of signs around the site and photographs from the driver’s position showing the nearest signs. • The request strict proof that the parking operator has a legal standing on this land to issue and pursue PCNs. They refer to section 14.1 of The Code in relation tot this and what must be evidenced. • The parking operator’s rejection letter is unreliable as it refers to PoFA when PoFA has failed. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 PoFA. 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 as a period of parking has not been specified. 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. The PCN shows two timestamped images between 14:22 and 14:29, a duration of 7 minutes. I am satisfied that this shows the period of parking and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The PCN has also been issued within the appropriate dates and includes the appropriate wording to hold the keeper liable. This shows that the PCN sully complies with PoFA. The appellant has stated that the images cover a period of 3 minutes and this shows that the consideration period has not been complied with. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, as this is a no parking area, the consideration period would be “while driving”. As the evidence shows that the vehicle remained stationary here for 7 minutes. As such, the consideration period would not be applicable on this occasion. The appellant has also raised several issues with the signage on the site. They have requested evidence of the signage at the entrance and throughout the site and also stated that the contract is prohibitive and cannot form a contract. Firstly, the terms and conditions are not prohibitive as parking in allowed within this car park. There are multiples signs throughout the site that explain the full terms and conditions but specifically state that parking is not allowed on the roadways. As such, the driver could have parked in an allowed area in order to be allowed to park instead of parking in a no parking area. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. On this occasion, the parking operator has provided evidence of a site map that clearly shows the entrance sign at the entrance to the site. This would establish the parking contract upon entry to the site. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The signage throughout the site fully explains the terms and conditions for parking on the site. The signage clearly explains that there is no parking allowed on the walkways and that a £100 PCN would be issued for any breach of the terms and conditions. The parking sector SIngle Code of Practice states that parking is "a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land". Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it, there is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. As the evidence shows that the driver has parked in this walkway, they have parked here in breach of the terms and conditions. This has resulted in the issuance on the PCN. The appellant has also questioned the parking operator’s authority to issue PCNs on this land. 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 provided evidence of the contract they have with the landowner showing that they have the authority to issue PCNs on this land. The appellant has also explained that the parking operator’s rejection letter cannot be relied upon. It is the remit of POPLA to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly based on the parking contract and this does not extend to complaints regarding the parking operator or how they manage their cases. If the appellant would like to take this complaint further, they could do so directly with the parking operator. I have included a link to their complaints policy here https://www.cupenforcement.com/pay-pcn/appeal-pcn/complaints. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant parked within a no parking area 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.

Just found an email from POPLA in my junk. Dated 20/01 and saying I have 7 days to provide any comments to the info that CUP have provided.

Looks like I'm missing that deadline. Anything I need to do.

details:
Your parking charge appeal against Close Unit Protection - EW.

Close Unit Protection - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here

Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Close Unit Protection - EW.

Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage

Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Close Unit Protection - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.

After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team

CUP have submitted their evidence to POPLA as below; There is a pack as a PDF but I don't have a way of redacting any info without printing (30 pages).

PCN Details • Parking operator: CUP Enforcement • PCN number: 116522 • VRM: TON13X • Method of issue: PoFA Notice to Keeper Postal Notice MNPR • Date of contravention: 19/11/2025 • Date notice sent: 27/11/2025 • Location: Trade City • Reason for issue: Parked on or within a no-parking area. Parking Policy: CUP Enforcement has a valid rolling contract in place with their client at the location. A copy has been included within this evidence pack, along with the site map. The site is private land and parking conditions signage is on display at the location. The parking area is monitored by wardens. Any vehicle found parked within a no-parking area be issued with a PCN. Case Summary ● The vehicle was observed parked at the site on 19/11/2025 in a no parking area; on a yellow-lined pedestrian pathway. Such areas are universally recognised as spaces where parking is not permitted. Photographic evidence was captured on the day. ● As the motorist had accepted the terms by parking their vehicle at the location, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle by post. ● An appeal was received from the keeper on 08/12/2025 wherein the appellant’s statement confirmed he was the keeper and that he would not be naming the driver. ● No evidence was submitted to support any authority to use the no-parking area. ● As a PoFA had been issued, the keeper was confirmed, the evidence confirmed the vehicle was parked in a no parking area in view of the terms and conditions, the vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian pathway, the vehicle was not exempt from parking conditions and no evidence was submitted to support any authorisation to use the space, the appeal was rejected. • A reminder was issued on 29/12/2025. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that operators are required to have signage that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Signs are displayed to give notice to motorists that they are entering private land and terms and conditions are in place for parking. CUP Enforcement is not required to set out individual terms for motorists’ notification. The responsibility is with the motorist when they enter the site to look for the signs detailing the full terms of parking. Additionally, there are clear floor markings at the site. Parking terms and conditions signs were on display at the location. Signage can be seen within the sample images, site map (enclosed within this evidence pack) and supporting images. The images combined with the site map show the signage was in view and in close proximity to the vehicle, and the vehicle was parked on the no-parking area, on the yellow lined pedestrian pathway markings. o Within the POPLA, the keeper submitted multiple new grounds of appeal, which we understand is not permitted at the POPLA stage as the appellant is only required to expand on the appeal points that were initially submitted at the initial appeal stage. We submit the following: o The evidence shows that adequate signage was present. o A PoFA was issued therefore the keeper is now liable for the charge as he has refused to name the driver. o The photographic evidence confirms the vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian pathway. o The area is a no-parking area, therefore parking is not permitted in the area where the vehicle was parked. o The grace period allowance is not a period of free parking, refers to parking spaces where payment has been made for use of the parking area, for a particular amount of time, or where/if parking is permitted. The location above is private land and a signposted no-parking area where no payment was made, there was no maximum parking time frame and motorists that are not exempt are not permitted to utilise the space, therefore, the grace period is not applicable in this instance. o The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets the standards with which parking operators that are regulated by The British Parking Organisation and The International Parking Community need to comply. Section 2.19a of SCoP sets the definition of parking as: a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land. Section 2.19b of SCoP defines the action of being parked as: a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has vacated the vehicle/turned off the ignition. The photographic images captured the vehicle parked for 7 minutes and 30 seconds. As parking was prohibited in this area, there was a breach of the terms and conditions indeed. Parking standards at the location are a matter of safety, security and etiquette. The motorist failed in their responsibility after they parked in a no-parking area. The regulations of parking on the site clearly state the requirements. CUP Enforcement has a written and signed agreement with the landowner giving it rightful authority to fulfil their duty in carrying out enforcement on this land. All CUP enforcement on the site is in full compliance with BPA parking regulations. The parking charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was made within 14 days, and held at that amount after the appeal response. No payment has been received. The charge now stands at £100. When parking on private land, the contract formed is between the motorist and the parking operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they have sought out, read and complied with the parking operator’s terms and conditions, which are stated on the signage if they want to use land that does not belong to them. As can be seen from the images and the site map provided in this evidence pack, the signboards and yellow lined areas are clear, legible and in prominent positions. The motorist had the opportunity to observe the terms. As a PoFA was issued; the keeper has been confirmed; utility of the site was gained; the vehicle was parked on private land in a no-parking area, adequate signage, floor markings and parking terms were on display; the vehicle was not exempt; and no evidence to support authorisation to use the no parking area was submitted; we stand by the decision to issue the PCN and request the refusal of the appeal. Please see the uploaded items for the operator images and the evidence pack complete with supporting documents.

Many thanks. POPLA appeal submitted.

I have managed to appeal direct on their site. Thanks for help so far.

The PCN says to appeal at cupenforcement.zatappeal.com.

When I put in my details it says they are not recognised and to email info@alliance-parking.co.uk. I did this and the reply was as above.