Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ok great, thank you so much!

Operator Name:
RCP Parking Limited - Parent Organisation - EW

Operator Case Summary:

Parking Charge Notice [PCN] was issued to vehicle [VRM] for the Contravention of ‘non-payment’ on 20th June 2025 at our Rochdale Road car park. The vehicle entered the car park at 17:30pm on and exited at 22:18pm on 20th June 2025 as per the ANPR cameras. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 26th June 2025, attached. A Reminder Notice was sent on 24th July 2025, attached. The Final Demand was sent on 11th August 2025, attached. The Parking Charge was passed to Debt Recovery on 8th September 2025 as there had been no appeal submitted, or payment made against the Parking Charge. The appeals portal would have allowed ana appeal to be submitted right up until this date. We received an email regarding [PCN] on 30th September 2025, Freshdesk Ticket #[TICKET]. This entire thread is attached and during this exchange the appellant denies receiving the Notice to Keeper, requests evidence of the Notice to Keeper being sent, claims that we have failed to meet PoFA requirements on two counts and requests that we provide him with a POPLA Code. The appellant refused to comment on why they let the matter reach Debt Recovery despite confirming receiving the Reminder Notice and Final Demand and did not provide any evidence or mitigating circumstances as to why they did not make a valid payment for parking on 20th June 2025. Nor has the appellant provided us with the full name and serviceable address for the driver to transfer the liability. We added this an appeal on our system on 10th October 2025 following the emails on 9th October 2025. We declined the appeal on 10th October 2025, attached, as vehicle [VRM] was parked with a valid payment in breach of the Terms & Conditions. The Terms and Conditions state ‘You must have a valid Online Booking, Pre-Booking, Pay & Display Ticket or Permit at all times and the vehicle details must match the vehicle parked’. As you can see from the attached ‘All Payments for [VRM] at Rochdale Road’ the appellant parks there semi regularly. The discounted amount of the Parking Charge was reduced to £20.00 in line with the spirit of the Sector Single Code of Practice Appeals Charter. Please see attached the ANPR photos for this Parking Charge (Entry photo, entry plate, exit photo and exit plate), all Bookings for Rochdale Road car park for 20th June 2025, there is no payment made for a vehicle registration ending in “[VRM]”, the Rochdale Road Site Plan and Rochdale Road Landowner agreement (redacted version). In their appeal to POPLA they have 4 points 1. The Operator has not shown that the keeper was the driver and keeper liability has not been established in line with PoFA. 2. The Operator has not proved delivery of the Notice to Keeper in line with PoFA or even that the Notice to Keeper was posted. 3. The Operator is required to prove Landowner authority. 4. The Operator has inadequate signage and terms and has not proved a valid contract was formed. Our response to their POPLA Appeal. 1. Our Notice to Keeper is PoFA compliant and this was confirmed in other POPLA cases, including recently in case 7161985047. 2. The Notice to Keeper was posted on 26th June 2025, as per the date at the top of the Notice to Keeper and therefore deemed to arrive two working days after this date would have been 10 days after the Contravention and in line with PoFA guidelines, this was also clarified as compliant by POPLA in case 7161985047. In that case the “Certificate of Postage” was also provided as evidence. Even if this was delivered on the 3rd, or even 4th, working day, it would still be deemed to arrive within 14 days specified in the guidelines of PoFA. The appellant confirms in their emails to us that they received the Reminder Notice and Final Demand letters, their certificates of postage are also attached. RCP Parking Ltd cannot be held responsible for the postal services failure to deliver letters. 3. Please see attached a redated version of our Rochdale Road Landowner Agreement giving authorisation to RCP Parking Ltd to operate a car park on the land and carry out enforcement in line with this operation. This agreement continued beyond the initial 6-month lease and RCP Parking Ltd still have permission to operate on this land. Please see POPLA case 7162405019 which recognised that a Landlord would not look on quietly while someone operates on their land without permission. 4. Our signage is displayed throughout the car park, as per our Rochdale Road Site Plan, and the signage is compliant. The Rochdale Road car park has not been changed since this Site Plan was created. The motorist parked beyond the Consideration Period provided and by remaining parked agrees to the Terms & Conditions of the car park and by not making a valid payment for vehicle registration [VRM] the vehicle is in breach of the Terms & Conditions and the Parking Charge has been issued correctly. The Rochdale Road car park is an online payment only car park, this vehicle has made multiple payments at this car park before and after the date in question, the signs with the unique Location Code to make the online payment are displayed in the car park. In conclusion. The Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued for ‘non-payment’ as there was no payment for vehicle registration [VRM] on 20th June 2025 and therefore the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms & Conditions of the car park. The appellant has provided no evidence of a valid payment or even an attempt to make a payment to be considered on the original appeal or their appeal to POPLA. The appeal was declined and reduced to £20.00, if paid within 14 days, well in line with spirit of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Appeals Charter.

Assessor summary of operator case:

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to non payment.

Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. For the purposes of my decision, I have summarised these below. • The operator has not shown the keeper was the driver and has not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA)2012. • The Noice to Keeper was not given within 14 days. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • The signage is inadequate. On reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their initial grounds of appeal. The appellant also states the operator has relied on a previous POPLA decision. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided a postage certificate. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. When parking on private land, the signage sets out the contract formed between motorist and operator. While I note the operator has provided photographic evidence of signage, these images are of such poor quality I am unable to read the terms and conditions of this site or the PCN charge amount. In this instance, I acknowledge the reason the PCN was issued, however I am not satisfied that the operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds for appeal to my satisfaction. Therefore, I cannot conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.

Thank you both. I've submitted comments based on b789's suggestions along with the point DWMB2 made about the agreement being expired on 20th June 2025.

Thank you for the replies so far.

Here is the Land Owner Agreement, I'm working on redacting the rest of their "evidence".

Ok, I've submitted now. Thank you very much.

@b789: Pardon the late reply, it's been a week. I was getting ready send off the appeal, but I just wanted to check where points 3 and 4 come from as I don't think they have been mentioned before. Is 3 just something they are required to do in the NtK that they failed to? With 4, I don't think they ever provided pictures of their signage.

@roythebus: Yeah, it did feel that way.

Actually just a quick note about:

Your “Unity5 hybrid mail” printout does not prove posting, delivery, or even correct addressing.

Under the Recipient header it does have my address, I just blanked it out on here cause it's personal information. So should I drop the "event correct addressing" or were you referring to something else?

They have replied:

Good morning, [redacted]

Thank you for your email.

Before I upload this and treat it as an appeal, as you request, I notice there are no comments as to why payment for parking was made for [redacted - incorrect VRM] at the Rochdale Road car park on 20th June 2025 that covered parking for 17:30am to 22:18pm.
Please can you provide the circumstances that led to there being no valid payment for parking?

Also, you state that you became aware of this Parking Charge 'mid-August' however you did not contact us regarding it until 30th September 2025 after you had heard from Trace.
Our appeals portal has been active and working through that time so there is no reason you'd not be able to log in to submit an appeal.
Is there any reason you did not contact us via email between receiving the letters 'mid-August' and the Parking Charge being passed to Debt Recovery?

I look forward to hearing about your circumstances that prevented payment on 20th June 2025 so it can be passed onto our appeals team for review.

Kind regards

So they haven't followed either outcome provided. They also mentioned the incorrect VRM in the email.

As far as their questions. I mentioned this in the first post:
1. It's hard to say as the keeper why the payment didn't go through from the driver.
2. I tried their portal and it couldn't find the PCN (maybe cause it had gone to debt recovery by this point?)