Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA decisions are only binding on the operator. So, if your appeal is successful, the operator must cancel the PCN. If not, then the POPLA appeal is not binding on you.

POPLA is not some authority and have very little respect from myself or anyone else who assists in these matters. They are a company that exists because of the funding they get from the BPA members, the very same ones they are supposed to adjudicating on. Do you see the conflict of interest here?

If your POPLA appeal is unsuccessful... so what? You move on to the next phase which is ignoring all the useless debt collector demands and wait for a Letter of Claim (LoC) and subsequent N1SDT Claim Form where you will be able to defend the claim with our assistance. The odds of an actual claim ever reaching an actual hearing are very low as almost all claims are either struck out or discontinued. The very few that make it as far as an actual hearing in the ultimate dispute resolution service which is with a judge, are won.

Okay, I hadn't actually seen your last response, on page 2, duh 🙄 

Doesn't matter. They have no evidence that the vehicle wasn't parked for longer than the minimum consideration period for a contract to have been made with the driver.

Here is a draft of your POPLA appeal:

I am acting as the authorised agent of the registered keeper of the vehicle. The keeper was not the driver and is under no legal obligation to identify the driver. The Keeper has a fleet that includes over 700 vehicles and more than 900 drivers. Vehicles regularly have multiple drivers each day, especially on motorway routes. Without any indication of the time of the alleged contravention, it was impossible for the keeper to investigate or determine who the driver was. This is entirely due to the operator’s failure to include the required details in the Notice to Keeper.

This appeal is made on the following grounds:

1. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning keeper liability does not arise.
2. The NtK breaches the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) due to the absence of a time of contravention and the failure to specify a period of parking.
3. The operator has failed to provide decipherable timestamped evidence or demonstrate that the minimum consideration period was exceeded.
4. The NtK is fundamentally invalid and does not establish a contravention.

1. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA 2012

Under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA, a Notice to Keeper must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” GroupNexus’s NtK fails to do this. It merely provides a date and includes two undated photographs. A single moment in time or a single date is not a period of parking. This point was confirmed in the persuasive appellate decision of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions [2023] H6DP632H, in which the judge ruled that PoFA requires more than a single moment in time recorded and this NtK does not even have that. A period must be stated.

Because this requirement has not been met, the operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

2. The NtK breaches the PPSCoP

Under section 2.24 of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), it states that a "parking period is:

"the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period.
NOTE: A parking charge must not be enforced where the consideration period has not expired."

Therefore, a parking charge notice must not only include both the date and time of the alleged contravention but also at least the minimum period of the alleged contravention. The NtK in this case includes neither a time of contravention nor a period of parking. This is a direct breach of the Code.

Section 8 of the PPSCoP confirms that in order to pursue keeper liability, operators must comply fully with PoFA. The NtK does not meet these requirements and therefore fails both the statutory and code-based obligations.

Additionally, Section B1 of the PPSCoP requires a minimum consideration period to be allowed before any parking charge is issued. For car parks with over 500 spaces, the minimum is 10 minutes. No evidence has been provided to show that this 10-minute period was exceeded and that a contract could have been formed with the driver.

3. No timestamped evidence and no proof the consideration period expired

The NtK contains two photographs of the vehicle, allegedly in a coach bay, with no evidence to back that assertion. However, neither photo has a decipherable timestamp. There is no entry time, no exit time, and no ANPR data showing duration. The operator’s online portal does not provide additional evidence.

There is simply no way to determine whether the vehicle was parked where they claim or at all, or whether it was just stationary briefly. No elapsed time has been demonstrated. Without this, the operator has failed to prove that the minimum 10-minute consideration period was exceeded.

4. The NtK is not a valid PCN

A valid Parking Charge Notice must contain enough information to allow either the keeper or the driver to understand what is being alleged. This NtK fails to state a time of contravention, does not specify any period of parking, and does not include timestamped evidence to support any claim of breach.

The absence of these basic elements renders the NtK fundamentally invalid.

Conclusion:

This NtK fails to comply with PoFA, breaches the PPSCoP, lacks evidence, and does not show that the consideration period was exceeded. The operator has not established that any contravention occurred, and keeper liability does not arise. The appeal must be upheld.

If you think it helps or will make a difference, then put what you want in the appeal. Thos two images you've shown us are not going to prove anything.

1st one of 6 appeals came back all appealed with the same non-compliance issues. Not quite sure how liability can be transferred to the keeper 🤔

"Decision

Unsuccessful



Assessor Name

Heidi Brown



Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist parking in a coach bay.



Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They further state it fails to establish the contravention. - The appellant states the PCN does not define the period of parking. - The appellant states the operator has failed to provide photo evidence to demonstrate that the consideration period was exceeded. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds. The appellant has provided copies of their appeal, a copy of the PCN, a screenshot of the operator’s portal and correspondence with the operator.



Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state Coach parking only...HGV parking is allowed between the hours of 19:00 - 07:00 and only when the HGV area is full. The operator has provided warden images which show the HGV in question parked in the coach bay at 16:16. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for Ł100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. They further state it fails to establish the contravention. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. The parking operator is holding "the company" liable as the registered keeper.

I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper (NTK) and can confirm that it contains all the relevant sections of PoFA, and it was issued within the relevant timeframe. Therefore, it is a compliant NTK, and the operator is permitted to pursue "the company" as the keeper. It should be noted that the PCN clearly state the reason for issue as: Parking in a coach bay. As the vehicle is a HGV it is clear what contravention occurred. - The appellant states the PCN does not define the period of parking. I have reviewed the NTK, and the period of parking is defined by the date and the warden images are timestamped. Therefore, the period of parking was defined. - The appellant states the operator has failed to provide photo evidence to demonstrate that the consideration period was exceeded. The appellant continued to dispute this in the motorist comments. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. The vehicle in question was left unattended in a bay where it was not permitted to park. Whilst the observation period is short, as the vehicle was not permitted to park in the area, the consideration period does not apply. It should be noted that the PCN images are timestamped, whilst the timestamp is small, the yellow timestamps are visible on the appellant’s own evidence of the PCN. The appellant has stated in the motorist comments that they were not afforded the opportunity to see the timestamped warden images on the operator’s portal, they provided a screenshot to support this.

POPLA’s sole role is to assess if the terms were breached and if the charge was issued correctly. It is not within our remit to comment on the operator’s internal appeals process, if the appellant wishes to make a complaint about this, they can contact the operator. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked in a coach bay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal."

I know people say that but ffs I expected more than that, I didn't realise it was going to be that bad.

They falsely concluded that the NTK was POFA-compliant, based on what reasoning? 🤔🤷‍♂️
They effectively said: "It was a company vehicle. We think POFA was followed. Therefore, the company is liable."

They also said “The yellow timestamp was visible in your own screenshot of the PCN.” it was there but it's not legible, and even in the operators original digital version they submitted was only visible when magnified beyond what the eye could see on an A4 page."

And apparently you don't get a consideration period for a coach only area, even though, HGV's can park there sometimes... if you read the signs... that you are not allowed to read... as there isn't a consideration period. Make it make sense. 🤦‍♂️

I wasn't actually notified of the outcome of this I just happened to check, so I'll wait and see the other outcomes and see if they notify me before doing anything. You think they will likely all be the same outcome? Are all the assessors this bad?

I also put in a formal complaint with GroupNexus about 75 days ago now, and a follow up email 30 days ago and have had no response. I put in a complaint to BPA 30 days ago and got a response on Monday asking if I had a response from the parking operator yet.

Quote from: TheParkingmeister on June 18, 2025, 09:10:46 pm

Are all the assessors this bad?

I think you were particularly unlucky - some are bad, some are alright.

I'd be tempted to complain to POPLA - they won't reverse the decision under any circumstances, but they might (if you're lucky) admit that the assessor made a mistake.

There's often a certain amount of interpretation involved with PoFA, so their conclusion on that is unsurprising, but the idea that the vehicle being "unattended" means that no consideration period required is a baffling conclusion to reach - how is a driver meant to consider the terms on offer without leaving his vehicle unattended to go to the nearest sign and read said terms?

The more I read it, the more it really boils my p*ss.

I'll wait for the outcome on some of the others first before I complain. I know they won't change it, but I'd really like an actual explanation for what they have written. Like how "the consideration period does not apply." as the vehicle is not permitted in the area... but it is sometimes... but you have to read the signs to know that and be able to consider the terms to know this? Isn't that precisely what a consideration period is for? 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ rhetorical question, of course it is.

I'd also like an explanation for the assessors statement "I have reviewed the NtK, and the period of parking is defined by the date and the warden images are timestamped. Therefore, the period of parking was defined." A date is not a period of parking, and the warden images on the NtK have no legible timestamp it is a blurred yellow stripe. I could put the NtK under a magnifying glass, or a microscope, and I still wouldn't be able to read what it says.

It's actually just untrue what she says and that's what really p*sses me off.