Free Traffic Legal Advice

Updated to try and make the "double dip" my main point:

1. The Operator Has Failed to Prove a Single Continuous Parking Event
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.

The Operator's case relies entirely upon two ANPR images recording a vehicle entering and exiting the site. From those two isolated timestamps, the Operator asks POPLA to infer that a single continuous parking event occurred.

I dispute that inference.

In my original appeal to the Operator, I specifically advised that the vehicle entered and exited the site on more than one occasion within a short timeframe and requested that the Operator review its full ANPR records, including any unmatched or orphan captures.

Despite this, the Operator's subsequent correspondence failed to address the point. The rejection letter contains no discussion of the multiple-visit issue and provides no evidence that any investigation of additional ANPR records was undertaken.

ANPR systems record vehicles passing camera locations. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, where it was parked, how long it remained stationary, or whether multiple visits occurred during the relevant period.

The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating:

* that all ANPR captures relating to the vehicle were reviewed;
* that multiple entry and exit events were excluded;
* that orphan or unmatched records were checked;
* that the timestamps relied upon represent a single continuous stay rather than separate visits.

The Operator's case therefore depends entirely upon an assumption that the two ANPR images relied upon represent a single continuous parking event.

I submit that this has not been proven.

Where a specific challenge regarding multiple visits has been raised and the Operator has failed to demonstrate that the issue was investigated, POPLA cannot safely conclude that the ANPR evidence establishes a single continuous period of parking.

Accordingly, the alleged contravention has not been proven.

2. The Notice to Keeper Does Not Establish Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper.

As I have not identified the driver, the Operator must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

The Notice to Keeper relies upon ANPR-generated "From" and "To" timestamps.

However, PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.

Entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations. They do not identify a period of parking.

The Operator has not demonstrated that the requirements of Schedule 4 have been met and therefore has not established keeper liability.

Accordingly, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.

3. The Operator Has Not Proven Any Actual Period of Parking
Even if POPLA were satisfied that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove that a parking contravention occurred.

The evidence supplied consists only of ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.

Those timestamps do not establish:

* when parking commenced;
* when parking ended;
* whether the vehicle was parked at all;
* how much time was spent driving within the site;
* whether the driver was locating signage, turning around, or exiting.

The Notice to Keeper itself refers only to ANPR-derived "From" and "To" times and does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking.

The Operator has therefore failed to prove the duration of any actual parking event.

4. Failure to Properly Consider the Appeal and Submitted Evidence
After receiving my appeal, the Operator requested additional information.

The Operator directed that this material be submitted via its online portal.

The portal did not permit the requested upload and the material was therefore submitted by email instead.

Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:

"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."

The rejection letter contains no acknowledgement of the emailed submission and no discussion of the substantive issues raised.

Furthermore, the Operator's earlier correspondence referred to "emergency circumstances" allegedly raised in my appeal despite no such circumstances having been mentioned.

The subsequent rejection letter also included wording stating:

"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."

The site concerned is located in England.

These inaccuracies raise legitimate concerns as to whether the appeal was individually reviewed and whether the specific points raised were properly considered.

Whilst I do not rely upon this as a standalone ground of appeal, it is relevant when assessing the weight that should be attached to the Operator's unsupported assertion that it investigated and verified its ANPR evidence.

5. Inadequate Evidence of Contract Formation
The Operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent and legible to bring the contractual terms to the attention of motorists before any contract was formed.

The Operator must demonstrate that:

* signage was clearly visible on entry;
* signage was prominent throughout the site;
* the terms were capable of being read and understood before any contractual agreement was formed.

Absent such proof, no contract can be established.

6. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to:

* manage parking at this site;
* issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name;
* pursue unpaid charges; and
* defend appeals relating to those charges.

As the Operator is not the landowner, I require it to demonstrate that it possesses sufficient authority to undertake these activities at the material location.

Conclusion
The Operator has failed to prove that a single continuous parking event occurred.

The Operator has failed to address or investigate the specific multiple-visit issue raised in the original appeal.

The Operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.

The Operator has failed to prove any actual period of parking.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Civil Enforcement have provided their POPLA Pack, I'm not sure quite what to make of it, but want to comment on it as I have the chance. I don't believe they have fully engaged with the @InterCity125 point, but then they've produced Confirmation of Authority from 2017 at the back of the evidence pack.

CE POPLA Pack

My comments for what they're worth:
My comments are restricted to the Operator's evidence and matters arising from it.

The Operator has failed to answer the central issue: whether this was a single continuous parking event
My primary appeal point was that the ANPR evidence relied upon by the Operator may represent two separate visits to the site rather than one continuous parking event.

I specifically requested that the Operator review its complete ANPR records, including any additional captures, unmatched reads or orphan entries, to establish whether multiple visits had occurred.

The Operator's response is simply that it has checked its ANPR footage and that:

"If there has been any further entrances/exits on that day, these would be shown on our photographic evidence."

This does not answer the issue raised.

The Operator also relies upon a screenshot in support of its assertion that there were no further entries or exits for the vehicle on the date in question.

However, the screenshot itself provides no meaningful context as to what information it displays. The Operator has not explained:

what system the screenshot has been taken from;
what search parameters were used;
whether it represents the complete ANPR record for the vehicle on that date;
whether unmatched or non-chargeable movements have been included; or
whether any filtering has been applied.

A screenshot without this supporting explanation cannot, by itself, prove that no additional vehicle movements occurred. This is particularly relevant because my appeal specifically challenged whether the ANPR evidence represented one continuous visit or multiple visits.

The Operator has also not provided evidence demonstrating:

what ANPR records were reviewed;
whether all vehicle movements on the date in question were checked;
whether unmatched or orphan ANPR captures were considered;
how the possibility of multiple visits was excluded.

The Operator has simply relied upon the two images already used to issue the Parking Charge Notice.

My appeal was not that those two images do not exist. My appeal is that those two images, without further evidence, do not prove a single continuous parking event.

The burden remains on the Operator to prove the alleged contravention occurred.

The Operator incorrectly states that additional evidence was not provided
The Operator states that my appeal was rejected because I failed to provide the additional evidence requested.

This is incorrect.

The Operator requested further information through its appeals process. When attempting to comply, the online portal did not allow the requested evidence to be uploaded. I therefore submitted the information by email to the Operator's published data protection email address.

The Operator's evidence pack does not acknowledge receipt of that email, explain why it was disregarded, or explain why it continued to state that no evidence had been provided.

The Operator cannot reasonably rely upon an alleged failure to provide evidence where the evidence was submitted following a failure of its own portal.

The Operator's evidence contains multiple objective inaccuracies
The Operator's evidence pack contains several factual inconsistencies which undermine confidence in its reliability.

The evidence refers to correspondence allegedly issued on:

5 August 2025; and
18 August 2025.

However, the alleged parking event occurred on 18 March 2026.

More significantly, the Operator states:

"The Appellant's details as the registered keeper were obtained from the DVLA on 28/06/2025 and the PCN was sent on 28/06/2025."

This is a chronological impossibility.

The alleged parking event had not occurred at that time, meaning the Operator could not have obtained my keeper details or issued a Notice to Keeper in relation to this alleged incident approximately nine months before the event.

The Operator's correspondence also refers to "emergency circumstances", despite no such circumstances forming part of my appeal.

Additionally, the Operator's rejection letter incorrectly states:

"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland..."

The location of the alleged incident is Redbridge Institute of Adult Education, Ilford, England.

Whilst individual administrative errors can occur, the number of inaccuracies within the Operator's evidence pack raises concerns as to whether this appeal has been individually reviewed or whether template material has been applied without proper verification.

The Operator has not demonstrated that keeper liability has been established
I appeal as the Registered Keeper only.

I have not identified the driver and I am under no legal obligation to do so.

The Operator therefore relies upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.

The Operator is required to demonstrate compliance with all mandatory requirements of Schedule 4.

The Notice to Keeper was received by me on 7 April 2026 following an alleged event on 18 March 2026. The Operator is therefore put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the statutory timeframe required by paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4.

A date printed on a Notice to Keeper is not, by itself, proof of the date of posting or delivery.

Furthermore, the Operator has not demonstrated that the land falls within the definition of "relevant land" for the purposes of Schedule 4.

Accordingly, keeper liability has not been established.

The Operator has not proven the duration of any actual period of parking
The Operator relies upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps.

These timestamps record vehicle movements past cameras but do not, without further evidence, establish an actual period of parking.

The evidence does not demonstrate:

when any parking commenced;
when any parking ended;
that the vehicle remained parked continuously;
that no intervening visit occurred.

Given the specific challenge regarding multiple visits, the ANPR evidence should not be accepted as proof of a single continuous parking event without further supporting evidence.

Conclusion
The Operator has not addressed the central issue raised in my appeal: whether the ANPR evidence represents one continuous parking event.
Instead, it has relied upon unsupported assertions and evidence containing multiple factual inaccuracies.
The Operator has also failed to demonstrate that keeper liability has been established.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows the appeal and directs Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.