Not a problem and as expected. You now have 33 days from the date of the appeal rejection (POPLA codes are valid for 33 days as they allow 5 days for service) to submit your POPLA appeal. Have a search of the forum for other recent POPLA appeals to see the format. Just remember that the POPLA assessor my be intellectually malnourished and you need to lead them by the nose to the conclusion you are trying to make.
In this case, you have several grounds fro your appeal. The very first is that the operator must prove that the person they are pursuing is liable. As long as the driver is not identified, and their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of para 9(2) subsections, then they cannot transfer liability to the known Keeper.
IN this case, the NtK is not compliant with para 9(2)(c) as it doesn’t describe the circumstances that made the charge payable (e.g. which term was breached).and para 9(2)(e)(i) as it does not contain any invitation to the Keeper to pay the charge.
Para 9(2)(c) requires the Notice to Keeper to describe (i) the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of the period of parking, (ii) the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose (including the means by which that requirement was brought to drivers’ attention), and (iii) the other facts that made the charges payable.
This Notice to Keeper does not do that.
1. No description of the “circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose”
The notice does not allege any specific breach or identify any conduct that triggered liability. It merely recites generic statements about signage and then asserts that “the Parking Charge is now payable”. It does not say whether the allegation is (for example) parking without authorisation, failing to display a permit, parking outside an allocated bay, or any other concrete breach. Without identifying what the driver supposedly did wrong, the notice fails to “describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay…arose”, as the statute demands.
The wording on the notice is illustrative:
• “The signage…states that this is private land… and parking tariffs apply or a Parking Charge will be incurred…”
• “The use of this Car Park is for Residents Only… the Parking Charge is now payable to Green Parking Ltd as the Creditor.”
Neither sentence identifies the actual contravention. They are circular assertions that a charge is payable because signs exist and because the operator says so. That is not a description of circumstances.
2. No description of the “means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers”
A bare assertion that signage is “clearly displayed” is not a description of the means; it tells the keeper nothing about what term on the signs created a requirement to pay in this case. A compliant notice would at least summarise the operative term said to apply (e.g. “permit must be clearly displayed in the windscreen” or “tenants must park only in their allocated bay”). This notice does not do so; it provides no description of the relevant term at all.
3. No “other facts that made [the charges] payable”
The notice provides only ANPR entry/exit timestamps. Those do not, in themselves, make any charge payable in a residents/permit-controlled car park. Unless the operator identifies the missing authorisation/permit (or other concrete fact) that turned this parking event into a chargeable one, the “other facts” limb remains unmet.
4. Internal inconsistency compounds the lack of description
The notice claims “Residents Only”, whereas the site signage states that parking is for authorised tenants and permit holders only in allocated bays, with permits to be clearly displayed. The notice neither alleges lack of permit, nor wrong bay, nor lack of tenant/permit-holder status. This inconsistency underscores that the operator has not described the circumstances at all, merely asserted liability
Because the Notice to Keeper fails to describe (a) the specific circumstances/contravention, (b) the means by which any requirement to pay was brought to the driver’s attention, and (c) the other facts that made a charge payable, it does not satisfy PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(c). The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. On this ground alone, the appeal must be allowed.
Now for the next PoFA failure:
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.
So, as far as the POPLA assessor is concerned, they must first establish whether the Keeper can be liable if the driver is not identified. As long as the driver has not Benn identified, then there is no case to answer for the Keeper and irrespective of any alleged contractual breach (there isn't one), the PCN should be cancelled.
Now we come to the signage. The ONLY contractual sign states that the car park is for authorised permit-holders; not for unauthorised drivers.
1. No compliant entrance signageThere is no entrance sign of any kind. The only “notice” at the threshold is faded road paint (“Private Parking”), which does not identify the operator and does not inform the driver that terms and conditions apply to parking in the car park or that they should seek any terms signs. In a site that is a seamless continuation of a free Waitrose car park, a compliant entrance sign is essential. Without it, no terms were brought to the driver’s attention on entry.
2. Single green terms signThe headline terms are plainly forbidding: “Parking for authorised Tenants and Permit Holders only … No Unauthorised parking”. That is not an offer to the public to park for £85 on certain terms; it’s a prohibition. A driver without permission cannot “accept” anything, so no contract arises with them. Any remedy would be trespass, and only the landholder (not the parking company unless expressly assigned) could pursue that, generally for nominal loss.
For authorised users (tenants/permit-holders), the sign can form contractual conditions (e.g., display permit, park in allocated bay). Breach by an authorised user could, in principle, sound in contract—subject to the usual tests (clarity, prominence of the charge, authority/standing, and compliance with consumer law).
Additional weaknesses visible on the sign (go to weight/enforceability even against authorised users):
• The £85 charge is present but the dense block of small text contains key terms, which undermines transparency and prominence at the point of decision.
• Clauses such as “Parking is at the absolute discretion of the landlord” and threats of adding “costs of recovery” create unfairness/uncertainty and are inconsistent with current industry rules.
Conclusion: This signage cannot create a contract with an unauthorised driver; it is, at most, a trespass notice. Inconsistency: the operator’s rejection letter says “Residents Only”, while the green wall sign refers to “authorised Tenants and Permit Holders only in allocated bays”. Any contractual case would have to be against someone already authorised to park, and even then there are transparency/consumer-law issues.
3. Red warning signsThere are two non-standard (do not conform with the BPA CoP requirements) and are not positioned to form a contract.
Both red signs are located inside the site, not at the approach or entry. One is deep within (at the far end) the car park; the other is largely hidden by foliage. Neither is positioned where a driver would see and read it before deciding to park.
Obscured, illegible, and non-prominentThe foliage-covered sign is plainly unreadable. Core information (who the operator is, what conduct is allowed/prohibited, the charge, how terms apply) is not legible from a driver’s seat at typical approach speeds or from a bay. Signs must be clear, conspicuous, and easy to read before parking—these are not.
Forbidding wording (no offer to unauthorised drivers)The red signs use prohibitory language (“Warning! Strictly Authorised Parking Only”, “Permits must be clearly displayed”). This does not constitute an offer to non-permit holders; it is a prohibition. A driver who is not “authorised” is not invited to park on terms—so there is no contract by performance. Any remedy would lie in trespass for the landholder, not a contractual charge for the operator.
Mandatory information missing or inconsistentEven taken at face value, the red signs fail basic requirements typically expected on core signage:
• No compliant operator identification and branding (no operator name/logo visible, no AOS/BPA branding).
• No clear, prominent statement of the parking charge.
• No clear summary of the key term said to be breached (e.g., “permit must be displayed in windscreen” / “tenants only in allocated bays”).
• No clear ANPR transparency at entry (who is collecting data and why), despite ANPR images being used.
The red signs add different wording to the green terms sign. Conflicting messages cannot found a clear contract.
Night-time/low-light inadequacyFrom the photographs, these signs are unlit and rely on dark/red backgrounds with dense white text. In dusk or darkness they would not be readable. Where enforcement is 24/7, terms must be legible at all material times.
Therefore,no terms were prominently communicated at the point of entry or before parking. The red “warning” signs are obscured, internally inconsistent, and forbidding in nature; they do not convey an offer that a non-permit holder could accept, and they do not meet baseline industry signage obligations. This supports (a) no contract with the driver and (b) the separate PoFA 9(2)(c) failure: the NtK cannot “describe the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose” because the operator never communicated any such circumstances to the driver in the first place.
Finally, you would put the operator to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. You should refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, you should put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Armed with the above, put something together and show us before you send it.
