Free Traffic Legal Advice

I got the second one through today, had to call them to ask them to change the email address as I wasn't getting their emails.

Apparently they don't need the period of parking on the letter, it just needs to be hidden in microscopic metadata decipherable only with forensic tools or an assessor with superhuman visual acuity able to extract a time from the printer spool file 4 months ago with ultra time warping X-ray vision.


"Hi "my name",

Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for your appeal.

We have now reached the end of the appeal process for the Parking Charge Notice number: CP30364562

The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.

If an appeal is Allowed, this means that your appeal has been successful, and the operator should cancel the parking charge.
When an appeal is Refused, this means that your appeal has been unsuccessful, and to avoid further action by the operator, payment of the Parking Charge Notice should be made within 28 days.
POPLA is not involved with the payment or refund of charges and any questions should be directed to the parking operator.
The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties. The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:
Assessor summary of operator's case: The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for causing an obstruction to other road users.

Assessor summary of appellant's case: The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal  
• Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning keeper liability does not arise.
• 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.
• The operator has failed to provide decipherable timestamped evidence or demonstrate that the minimum consideration period was exceeded.
• The NTK is fundamentally invalid and does not establish a contravention.
The appellant has provided the letter of appeal the operator, a copy of the PCN, rejection letter, and a screenshot of the operator’s website as evidence to support their appeal.
The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor summary of reasons: 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.

The appellant states the Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning keeper liability does not arise.
I have reviewed the copy of the original PCN and can see the alleged breach happened on 11th March 2025.
Section 9. (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 states, “The relevant period for the purposes of sub paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. (6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales”.

The PCN was issued to the keeper on 17th March 2025. As such, I am satisfied the PCN was issued within the appropriate timeframes
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that:
“The notice must –
f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid”.

I have reviewed the PCN, and I am satisfied the PCN does contain this information as such, is compliant in this respect. Therefore, liability can be transferred to the registered keeper.
The appellant states 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. They also state the operator has failed to provide decipherable timestamped evidence or demonstrate that the minimum consideration period was exceeded.

Within the operator’s case file, CP Plus has provided images taken by the warden on the date of the contravention. From reviewing these, I am satisfied that these are date and timestamped from 22:55:27 to 22:56:29 and therefore, I am satisfied these show the period of parking which was in breach of the terms and conditions. These date and time stamped images are also on the NTK therefore, this is compliant.

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 and if they were parked in compliance with the terms and conditions.

Within the operator’s case file, CP Plus has provided evidence of the signage present on site. From reviewing this, it confirms that a £100 PCN would be issued for causing an obstruction to the site, other visitors and/or car park users.

In this case, the vehicle was parked on the road and therefore, ultimately caused an obstruction to other road users. As the vehicle was not parked in compliance with the terms and conditions, they were not entitled to a consideration period and establishes the contravention clearly.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was parked causing an obstruction and therefore the appellant 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.

Kind regards

Sarah

POPLA Assessor"

Number 3 was successful.

"Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Richard Beaden
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver parked in an area where parking is not permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant dispute that the operator has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They advise that they have not been provided with evidence that a breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. They explain that the operator’s evidence does not show that a consideration period has been allowed. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal, a copy of the operator’s rejection letter, a copy of the PCN, their appeal to the operator. The appellant has also provided a further document containing their comments.

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. I am allowing this appeal. I will explain my reasons below. The operator must show that the PCN has been issued in accordance with the Single Code of Practice. Section 5.1 of the code requires the operator to allow a consideration period. Section B.1 advises that this should be five minutes unless the area is a no stopping area when the consideration period can be reduced to while driving. In order for this to be the case the operator must show that there was sufficient signage for the driver to have been able to read the no parking requirement while driving. Having reviewed the signage there is no dispute that the signage advises that vehicles must park within a bay but I am not satisfied that a driver could have read this while driving as such the operator is required to allow a reasonable consideration period of five minutes so the driver could have exited the vehicle, reviewed the signage, returned to their vehicle and then moved it to a more appropriate location. While the PCN does have date and time stamped images on it which show the duration of the parking event these do not show that a relevant grace period was allowed. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal.

I'm assuming all three appeals were identical. If so, you can't make up the kind of reasoning used by some POPLA assessors. No standardisation. Government regulation of this corrupt industry can't come soon enough.

Yeah the appeals were near identical, the only difference was with where they were parked, the first one was in a coach only bay, second one was stopped at the side of the road in the service station and this third one I believe was stopped behind the HGVs in the HGV bays waiting for a space. The next 3, 2 of them are coach bays and another is stopped at the roadside in the services. All of them have the same compliance issues with the NtK having no parking period stated, all of them have no evidence the consideration period was exceeded, the time stamps on the images on the letter in all cases were not legible, just yellow smudged lines.

In all 3 outcomes so far the assessor has used the high quality original digital version of the Notice to Keeper uploaded by the operator to say the NtK has time stamps and therefore has a parking period. All 3 failed to acknowledge that the version I received and the one I uploaded a copy of does not have legible timestamps, even under a microscope. They should not be allowed to use that as evidence as that is not a true representation of what I received. I did make it clear in my comments on the operator evidence that it is crucial the assessor differentiates between the operator’s digital version and the version I actually received. But they didn't. Easier for them to skim read and only look at the operators evidence I guess 🤷‍♂️

But I'll ask my MP if they can decipher the timestamps lol, that should be fun.

I thought under PoFA a time period had to be stated on the NtK? The assessors are saying the timestamps of the warden's images the operator provided as evidence to POPLA are sufficient in meeting that requirement. Surely there has to be a legible unambiguous parking period on the Notice itself?

I didnt already know but I sure do now.

And nope, driver has not been identified with any of them. With all of the PCN's the timespan of the timestamped photos of the vehicle submitted in the operators evidence is less than a minute, I think they range with 17 seconds being the shortest timespan and 56 seconds being the longest, so yes I guess there is no evidence of formation of contract by conduct.

Your employer has voluntarily paid £100 that they did not owe. At face value, that would seem to be their problem, not yours.

Ask your employer why they rushed to pay a speculative invoice? I'd love to know who the firm is, as I can easily print out some speculative invoices and tempt the gullible into paying them with a discount they can't refuse.

This was the second POPLA appeal where they agreed that there was no Keeper liability or evidence of a contract formed with the driver because they failed to state a period of parking.

Feel free to put them in touch with me and I will give them discounted consultation on how to save themselves £1,000s a year in wasted payments that only serve to fund the scammers.