See below draft POPLA appeal:
I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this charge. I have not identified the driver. The charge must be cancelled for the reasons below:
1. No keeper liability – Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails PoFA Schedule 4
2. No evidence of the “period of parking” – ANPR shows only entry/exit timestamps
3. BPA Code: mandatory consideration & grace periods not allowed
4. Inadequate/unclear signage – no contract formed / no ‘adequate notice’ of the charge
5. ANPR: operator failed required manual quality checks & data reliability duties
6. No proof of landowner authority (BPA CoP para 7)
1) No keeper liability – NtK fails Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)The operator is attempting to hold me liable as keeper under PoFA Schedule 4. To do so, every applicable condition in paragraph 9 must be met exactly for an ANPR case. Any defect means no keeper liability can arise.
Typical GroupNexus NtKs have been shown to omit/garble PoFA wording (e.g., mis-stating the 9(2)(f) warning and/or failing 9(2)(e) “invitation to keeper”). POPLA has seen similar defects before. In one GN example, the NtK even claimed: “This charge is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012…”, while failing 9(2)(e). That is not compliant and cannot transfer liability.
In this case the NtK is non-compliant because:
- 9(2)(a) & 9(2)(b): It must specify the period of parking and inform that “the driver is required to pay parking charges” for that period. ANPR entry/exit times are not the “period of parking”.
- The NtK must invite the keeper to pay or to name the driver in the prescribed form. [Explain any wording defect you can quote from your letter.]
- 9(2)(f): The NtK must include the statutory warning that after 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given, the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper, subject to PoFA conditions.
- 9(4)/(5): For ANPR (no windscreen ticket), the NtK must be delivered within 14 days of the parking event. If not, there is no keeper liability in law.
- 9(2)(h): The NtK must “identify the creditor”. If it doesn’t clearly state who the creditor is, it fails PoFA.
Because PoFA requirements are strict and the NtK fails them, liability cannot pass from driver to keeper. POPLA must allow the appeal on this point alone.
2) No evidence of any “period of parking” – ANPR only records drive-through timestampsPoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to specify the period of parking. ANPR systems capture when a vehicle passed a camera, not when/if it parked. Time spent driving in/out, circling to find a bay, queueing, or stopping to read signs is not parking. Using only ANPR “entry/exit” deltas is not compliant with PoFA’s “period of parking” requirement.
3) BPA Code – consideration & grace periods must be allowedThe BPA Code of Practice (v8, Jan 2020) is clear:
- 13.1 – Consideration period (arrival): Drivers must have a reasonable period to read terms before being bound; minimum 5 minutes.
- 13.3 – Grace period (departure): At locations with limited/paid periods, an additional minimum 10 minutes must be added to the end before issuing a PCN.
At motorway services, GN’s ANPR times include arrival/exit driving time. The operator hasn’t shown it added both the 5-minute consideration period on arrival and the minimum 10-minute grace at the end on top of any free period. Absent clear proof of that, this PCN breaches the BPA Code and must be cancelled.
4) Signage was inadequate – no contract / no “adequate notice” of the chargeA contract can only arise if terms (including any parking charge) are clearly brought to the driver’s attention before parking. The BPA Code mandates:
- Proper entrance signs and specific terms throughout the site; signs must be conspicuous, legible, and at least 450mm x 450mm for detailed terms.
- If relying on PoFA keeper liability, operators must give “adequate notice” of the sum payable and bring charges to drivers’ attention
Moto Tamworth’s own pages and third-party site info state 2 hours free then payment by JustPark/location code 625157, etc. If signage failed to clearly communicate the charge, payment points, and how/when payment must be made (and that ANPR is monitoring), no contract was formed. The operator has not provided a dated, scaled site plan showing sign locations, sizes, heights, fonts, or nighttime visibility. Without that, they have not proved a contract.
5) ANPR reliability & data requirements not met
Under BPA CoP 22, operators must:
- Tell drivers ANPR is used and what the data is for;
- Perform manual quality checks before issuing PCNs;
- Keep equipment in good order; ensure data is accurate and secure; and comply with DVLA/ICO guidance.
GN has provided only two images of a plate at entry/exit. That does not evidence a contravention within a defined parking bay nor that equipment and processes met the Code at the material time. POPLA should require proof of: ANPR maintenance logs, manual pre-issue checks, clock synchronisation records, and the full unredacted ANPR data audit trail for my VRM on the day. Absent that, the evidence is unreliable.
6) No landowner authority – BPA CoP para 7If an operator does not own the land, they must hold written authority from the landholder that expressly authorises them to manage parking and to pursue charges and court action. The BPA CoP specifies what that contract must set out (site boundaries, restrictions, who maintains signs, etc.). I put GN to strict proof by producing their full, unredacted contract with Moto for Tamworth in force on the material date. A “witness statement” or heavily-redacted generic document is insufficient.
Context (not grounds): two hours free at Moto services
By policy, motorway service areas provide at least 2 hours free parking. That context is consistent with Tamworth’s published info and with Moto’s general policy pages. It doesn’t legitimise a defective PCN or non-compliant process.
Remedy sought
For the reasons above, POPLA is invited to allow this appeal and direct GroupNexus to cancel the charge. I am the keeper and I have not identified the driver. The operator has failed to establish keeper liability or a valid contract/breach.
