Free Traffic Legal Advice

@InterCity125 I redacted the name incase of any potential privacy issues, but since you ask, their name was Bethany Young.

Hello everyone, and I hope all had a fantastic Easter!

As expected, the Popla appeal failed. I include what was written below:

----------

Decision:
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name:
Redacted
Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the vehicle has overstayed the maximum time period allowed.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) 9(2)(e)(i) states that the notice must invite the keeper to pay and not the driver. • The notice to keeper does not invite the keeper to pay and it only addresses the driver. • The parking operator cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. • They did not receive a PCN at all and the final notification did not contain any timestamped images of the vehicle entering and leaving the site. • This does not conform with section 7.3 of the Code of Practice. • The parking operator has not provided any evidence of landowner authority as per section 14 of the Code of Practice. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
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. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As the driver has not been identified, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the registered keeper. 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 is not identified. For a notice to keeper to be compliant with the PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2)(e) it needs to: “(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;” This is the exact wording in PoFA and explicitly uses the word ‘or’ and not ‘and’. Whilst I appreciate the notice invites the driver to pay the unpaid parking charge rather than the keeper, the notice does contain the second part of this expectation. Therefore, I am satisfied that the PCN meets this obligation under PoFA in order to transfer liability. I am also satisfied that the initial PCN was issued to the keeper within the relevant time period. This means the parking operator has successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who exceed the two-hour maximum stay. The vehicle was captured on site for two hours and 34 minutes. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice sets the standards that parking operators are required to comply with. Section 7.3 of the Code relates to the initial PCN issued. There is no requirement for the final notice to contain the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) images. The initial PCN that was sent did contain the relevant ANPR images to show the period of parking. I cannot hold the parking operator liable for any correspondence that may not have been received by the appellant. If the appellant wishes to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they will need to contact the Royal Mail. Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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 a letter of authority with the landowner. This confirms that the contract commenced in June 2024 and is current. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist overstayed the maximum time period allowed 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. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly because POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge.

----------

I assume I am correct to now wait for further documentation from what is expected to be a claim from DCB Legal?

Thanks again to all in advance.

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.