Free Traffic Legal Advice

what is wrong with "OTHER"

Given i can only do this once, i would rather ask than make a silly mistake. Especially as i haven't done it before.


May I thus assume that its OK to give an overview in the written text box, and upload the appeal in its entirety as its own document?

Many thanks

Whenever I've used POPLA, in the actual box where it asks for your appeal, I just put something like "See attached document for full appeal".

thank you.

We had exactly the same response to a request for proof of authority from the landowner to operate at the location a couple of days ago for a different operator at another location. See the response I advised they submit here:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/highview-parking-exceeded-maximum-stay-new-street-retail-park-ashford-kent/msg71916/#msg71916

Just make sure you change "point #8" in that response to "point #9" according to your appeal.

The operator has failed to respond to Point #9 of my POPLA appeal– no landowner contract, no legal standing, no case to answer

Point #9 of my original appeal put the operator to strict proof that they hold landowner authority to operate at this location and to issue PCNs in their own name. Not only was this clearly set out, it itemised exactly what that proof would need to include—such as an unredacted, in-force contract identifying the land in question and confirming that the operator has enforcement rights in its own name. The appeal also made reference to Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which sets these evidential standards in black and white.

In response to all of this, the operator’s only rebuttal is:

“We can confirm that we have the authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The onus is on the appellant to provide evidence to support their claim that we do not.”

That is not a rebuttal. That is [a joke].

This infantile response completely ignores the very concept of a burden of proof. They are the operator. They are pursuing a charge. They are alleging breach of contract. They must prove standing. Instead, they’ve essentially said: “we’re not showing you anything—prove we’re lying”.

That is not how evidence works. It is not how POPLA works. It is certainly not how contract law works. This is not a playground argument. It is a formal legal dispute requiring proper evidence, and the operator has shown precisely none.

Their suggestion that the presence of signs somehow proves they have landowner authority is absurd, beyond ridiculous. Even if signs were legally placed at some point, that tells us nothing about whether any contract still exists, is in force, or even covers the relevant part of the land. The contract could have expired, been revoked, terminated, or amended. There is no signature, no term, no scope, no content. There is no contract. Period.

To suggest that “signs are up, so there must be authority” is an argument so shallow it would struggle to float in a puddle. It’s a fantasy of convenience, and one that would be ridiculed in any proper courtroom. Any assessor buying into that fiction would be wilfully disregarding both the evidential standards under the PPSCoP and basic legal common sense.

This is not a technicality. This is the core foundation of any operator’s right to issue charges. Without proof of landowner authority, they are nothing more than a third party with a camera and a set of stickers. The fact that they’ve arrogantly sidestepped Point #9—despite it being clearly laid out—speaks volumes.

And frankly, because this one failure is so catastrophically fatal to their case, I won’t even waste time responding to the rest of their generic, boilerplate “evidence.” If they can’t get this basic requirement right, then they have no business enforcing anything against anyone.

No contract. No standing. No case. Appeal must be upheld.

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Heidi Brown
Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist exceeded the maximum stay.
Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements outlined by the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They state there is no evidence to demonstrate the individual they are pursuing is the driver. - The appellant states the signage does not give adequate notice in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. - The appellant states the operator has not confirmed if Group Nexus is the agent or principal. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds. The appellant has provided copies of the correspondence with the operator, images of the signage and documents containing their full appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. The operator stated in the case file that the landowner contract was in section F however upon looking through the documentation, there is no landowner contract. As such, I am unable to confirm that the operator has the appropriate authorisation to enforce charges on the land. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.




Many thanks.