Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi InterCity125, and thanks so much for the response,

It's interesting to see how the NTK doesn't appear compliant, yet they continue to send them out anyway...

While I understand and appreciate a response to Popla will be unlikely yield a successful appeal, I will respond with what you have written.

Shall I adapt it and shorten it? Or just copy as is and send it through?

Thanks again all for your time and help

Hi everyone, and thanks again for your time and efforts,

Although I understand ultimately, a POPLA appeal is unlikely to yield any positive results, I provide my draft appeal which I intend to send through tonight.

I have identified some previous appeals I think are most relevant to my case, and altered their content to better reflect my situation.

Hopefully, it's good to go as is:

-----

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds:


1. Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA)
2. No evidence of parking
3. No evidence of landholder authority

1. Non-Compliance with POFA

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.

Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.

What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.

For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.

2. No evidence of parking

Having not received a PCN at all, only a Final Notification Letter, EuroCarParks have failed to provide photos of the vehicle, together with time stamps, as evidence of entering and leaving the site on the alleged date of contravention.

I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have ECP’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.

3. No evidence of Landowner authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.

Section 14 of the COP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name

I therefore respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.

-----

Hello everyone again, and thanks in advance for taking the time to read,


@b789, I followed your instructions and submitted the appeal. This has now been rejected, and I have received the following document.

Page 01 - https://ibb.co/Kz2xWs6Z
Page 02 - https://ibb.co/Ps6M8qpp
Page 03 - https://ibb.co/DfXtfPfp

Frustratingly, this was received as junk via email, and nothing has been received in the post. I only came across it earlier this evening, so I apologise for posting this so close to the POPLA appeal deadline.

I have still not received the original PCN, but nor have I requested a copy of it.

So currently, I have a few questions as to how to proceed.

1. I have gone through the forum, and could probably put together a POPLA appeal based on Keeper liability having not been established, but are there any other points I could add, without having the contents of the PCN to work with?

2. The vehicle in question has a blue badge registered to it. It could well be the original overstay was due to a disabled persons complications. Should I explore this in any way for POPLA? Or is this now mostly irrelevant unless I was to travel to the Sainsburys in question to ask for and hope they cancel this charge?

3. Given all I have read on this forum, as well as the fact I have no PCN to work with… should I even bother with POPLA if, I am assuming, I am pursuing a court claim for this? If I don’t appeal, this will occur sooner, and in turn, this will all end quicker, no? Or is a Popla appeal key to discontinuance later down the line?


Thanks again all for your time and advice, it is all greatly appreciated.