Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi Wizards,

I have got an email from POPLA that Parking eye has provided their evidence in response to our appeal and we have 7 days to provide any comments on the evidence they have provided.

Here is the link of the word file provided by Parking eye to POPLA:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18pm8KF_J9oo3MbjLxNyqWETT_AFF4FNm/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=108665786253586483300&rtpof=true&sd=true

Can you please advise the next step?

Thanks.

Out of their 39 pages of stuff,

• what points that you made are not addressed, so they are implicitly agreed?
• what points that are made do you disagree with, and why?

These seem to be the primary points in your arguments against them. If you leave their statements unchallenged it will be used against you.

This is the draft I'm planning to submit?
=================================================
I. Delivery/unloading is not “parking”

The operator has failed to rebut the core issue: the vehicle was engaged in parcel deliveries to residents, a brief unloading activity, not parking.

In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC held that:

“Parking” is not the same as “stopping”; temporary stopping for the purpose of delivery or loading/unloading is not parking.

The operator’s evidence shows only ANPR entry and exit times (17:18 to 17:42) — but ANPR cannot show any period of stationary parking. The vehicle was moving between buildings for deliveries. There is no evidence of the vehicle being left unattended or parked. POPLA must apply Jopson and conclude that no contract to “park” was formed, and therefore no contravention occurred.

II. Signage – no allowance for deliveries or visitors

The operator’s own evidence shows signage referring only to “Residents Only”.
Nowhere does it state that delivery vehicles, tradespeople, or short-term visitors are permitted or given instructions for lawful unloading. This omission makes the signage ambiguous, unreasonable, and incapable of forming a fair contract.

This falls foul of Consumer Rights Act 2015, ss.62–68 (terms must be fair and transparent). A reasonable driver performing a legitimate delivery to residents could not have consented to a £100 penalty simply for briefly stopping.

Further, under Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, contractual terms must be brought to the driver’s attention before the contract is formed. No signage was visible or readable from a moving delivery van at the point of entry, especially when the driver’s purpose was to reach residents for a delivery.

Because the signage did not give any reasonable notice or mechanism for legitimate delivery stops, no fair contract was formed.

III. Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – breach of fairness and grace requirements

The operator claims compliance with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, yet the evidence contradicts this.

Section 5.1 requires a consideration period to allow drivers to read signs and decide whether to stay.
Section 5.2 requires a minimum 10-minute grace period at the end of parking.

However, the operator issued a charge for a total stay of only 23 minutes, which includes arrival, parcel delivery to multiple flats, and departure. This was within a reasonable grace/unloading period and clearly consistent with legitimate short-stay activity.
Their claim of “0 hours 0 minutes allowed” shows a failure to provide any consideration or grace period, breaching PPSCoP and BPA standards of fairness.

IV. No keeper liability – operator admits PoFA not used

ParkingEye explicitly admits in their evidence pack:

“Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

Accordingly, the keeper cannot be held liable. Only the driver could be pursued. As the appellant is the keeper and has not identified the driver, POPLA must allow the appeal on this ground alone.

V. No standing / defective landowner authority

The operator provides only a generic “Letter of Authority”, not a contemporaneous, signed, site-specific contract meeting PPSCoP §14.1(a–j).
The document is redacted and lacks:

The landowner’s identity and signature,

The precise boundaries of the site,

The terms of the operator’s authority to issue and enforce PCNs.

This fails the evidential standard required by POPLA and the PPSCoP, and the operator is therefore put to strict proof of their legal standing.
Without proper landowner authority, the operator has no locus standi to enforce charges or pursue them in their own name.

VI. Beavis is distinguishable

The operator relies on ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, but that case concerned a retail car park with a legitimate interest in space turnover and a prominently signed 2-hour limit.
This case involves a residential estate where the driver was performing a short delivery to residents — not occupying a space for personal use or overstay.

There is no comparable “legitimate interest” in penalising essential service vehicles performing brief unloading tasks. The charge therefore operates as a penalty and is unenforceable on the facts.

VII. Summary

No period of parking has been evidenced – only ANPR entry/exit timestamps.

Jopson v Homeguard establishes that unloading is not parking.

Signage fails to communicate terms for deliveries and applies only to residents.

No keeper liability – the operator admits PoFA does not apply.

No evidence of landowner authority in compliance with PPSCoP.

No legitimate interest comparable to Beavis; the charge is punitive.

Failure to comply with PPSCoP grace and fairness provisions.

For all these reasons, the appeal must be upheld and the Parking Charge cancelled.

Thanks all for your suggestions, @b789 thanks to you for reviewing and polishing the draft, much appreciated.

I have submitted the rebuttal, Ill keep you all informed when I receive the outcome.

Typical of a moronic and intellectually malnourished, poorly trained POPLA assessors. Do not pay. The decision is not binding on you.

This will never reach a hearing in court if you follow the advice. This will be farmed out to DCBL for debt recovery and DCB Legsl to issue a claim.

You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. They are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). In the meantime. You should send a formal complaint to POPLA for this obvious failure to address the appeal properly. Not that they will ever reverse a decision, even when they acknowledge they were wrong, but for the record.

Send the following to POPLA:

FORMAL COMPLAINT – REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ASSESSOR MISCONDUCT, GROSS INCOMPETENCE, AND PROCEDURAL FAILURE

POPLA Verification Code: 6062555711
Assessor: Nazia Mohammed
Decision Date: 20/11/2025

To the POPLA Complaints Team,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the conduct and competence of POPLA assessor Nazia Mohammed. After reviewing her decision in full, it is clear that the assessor failed to apply even the most basic principles of evidence assessment, failed to engage with the statutory framework, and made findings that are factually and legally impossible. The standard displayed in this assessment is so poor that it raises serious questions about the integrity and reliability of POPLA’s decision-making process.

This complaint is not about the outcome. I am fully aware POPLA does not overturn decisions. This complaint is about the assessor’s fundamental inability to correctly interpret evidence, apply the law, or demonstrate even minimal professional competence. The response to this complaint will be forwarded in full to my Member of Parliament and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as this level of failure requires external scrutiny.

1. The assessor misapplied PoFA against the operator’s own evidence
The operator explicitly stated in its evidence pack: “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”
This is an unequivocal statement. It means there is no keeper liability. It means only the driver could be pursued. It means POPLA should have allowed the appeal immediately.

However, the assessor instead wrote:

“In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information, and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.”

This is not a misunderstanding. It is a direct contradiction of the operator’s own position. The assessor invented legal applicability where none existed and declared keeper liability where it was legally impossible. This alone demonstrates a complete collapse of the decision-making process.

2. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
I raised that the Notice to Keeper did not include the statutory requirement to “invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges”. The operator did not dispute this. The assessor ignored it entirely. Instead, she relied on the fiction that PoFA applied at all, which the operator had already disavowed.

3. The assessor failed to evaluate PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a)
The Notice to Keeper does not specify any period of parking. It only contains ANPR timestamps, which PoFA expressly rejects as insufficient. This was a central point of appeal, and the assessor again ignored it.

4. The assessor disregarded Jopson v Homeguard
I cited binding persuasive authority confirming that unloading is not parking. The assessor did not distinguish it, apply it, acknowledge it, or appear even to recognise it. This omission indicates either a lack of legal understanding or a refusal to engage with relevant authorities. Neither is acceptable in an adjudicative role.

5. The assessor demonstrated a complete failure to apply the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
I raised breaches of the consideration period requirement, the grace period requirement, and the landowner authority requirements. The assessor failed to meaningfully address any of these. Her reasoning shows no understanding of the Code beyond quoting generalities. She failed to assess the site’s “0 hours 0 minutes allowed” condition against mandatory provisions.

6. The assessor accepted defective and incomplete landowner authority without scrutiny
The operator submitted redacted documents lacking several mandatory elements required by PPSCoP section 14. The assessor declared herself “satisfied” without performing any analysis or referencing the requirements. This is not assessment; it is rubber-stamping.

7. The assessor’s reasoning is illogical and internally inconsistent
The assessor claimed the appellant “entered into a contract” by “remaining on site for 23 minutes”, ignoring the fact that contract formation cannot occur until terms are communicated, and that contractual terms cannot be enforced where PoFA is not engaged and the identity of the driver is unknown. She contradicted her own quoted Code sections and ignored the prohibition-based nature of the signage.

8. The decision demonstrates a level of incompetence that undermines POPLA’s credibility
The decision displays:

• Failure to consider evidence
• Failure to consider statutory requirements
• Misapplication of PoFA
• Refusal to engage with case law
• No evaluation of contractual formation
• No evaluation of landowner authority
• No evaluation of grace or consideration periods
• Internal contradictions
• Incorrect statements of law
• Incorrect statements of fact

This is not the work of a competent assessor. It brings POPLA’s process into disrepute.

Requested action
Given the seriousness of these failures, I request:

1. A formal investigation into the competence and conduct of assessor Nazia Mohammed.
2. Confirmation of what legal training assessors receive before ruling on PoFA matters.
3. A detailed explanation of how an assessor can apply PoFA where the operator expressly stated it was not used.
4. A full review of this assessor’s decisions for similar errors.
Confirmation that this complaint will be retained for audit and provided to MHCLG if requested.

Next steps
Your response will be forwarded to my MP and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as evidence of systemic inadequacy within the POPLA adjudication process.

I expect a full, detailed reply addressing each point above.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

The LoC will be sent to the registered keeper using the details obtained from the DVLA by the claimant parking company originally. They’re actually not allowed to ask for this information more than once anyway.

Hi all,

Happy new year, I hope all of you had good break.

I have received a letter today, I'm not able to figure out if it's a Letter of Claim or not.

Front: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dHSMD_Z55_N27woCi8IfRO3bNCd6xHlC/view?usp=drive_link
Back: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cfqdcoGsimiNMW5L0QBv0tjAZ8J3KtFB/view?usp=drive_link

They have referred in the letter to read paragraph 8 which talks about a supreme court case of Mr Beavis which they think is the basis for them to get a verdict in county court?

I thought I get input from wise and not just simply ignore it

Also if it's not Letter of Claim, will it come from court or some nominated agency of Parkingeye?

Thanks in advance.

You might want to hide your home address from that document.