Appeal Summary
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing against the issue of this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. The ANPR photographs fail to display a legible timestamp – breach of Sections 7.3(b) and 7.4 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
2. The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – no invitation to the keeper to pay.
3. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor as required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA.
4. The Notice to Keeper fails to clarify whether the operator is acting as principal or agent.
5. The Notice to Keeper fails to specify the period of parking as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA.
6. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the relevant land as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA.
7. The operator has not identified the driver and cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
8. The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid contract flowing from the landowner in accordance with PPSCoP Section 14.
1. No Keeper Liability – Breach of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
It is important to emphasise that PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) sets out a mandatory and unambiguous requirement. It states that the Notice to Keeper must:
“state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper — (A) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (B) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the creditor with a statement...”
The key phrase here is “invite the keeper...to pay the unpaid parking charges.”
This requirement is not optional, and there is no allowance in law for this obligation to be met by implication or assumption. The law does not say that a notice may merely “imply” that the keeper is being invited to pay, nor does it say that the fact the NtK is addressed to the keeper is somehow enough. The statute uses the word MUST—meaning that an explicit, unambiguous invitation must be present within the wording of the notice itself.
In this case, the Notice to Keeper fails to meet that condition. It does not state anywhere that the keeper is invited to pay the charge. The only references made are to the effect that the keeper should either provide the driver’s details or pass the notice to the driver. There is no direct, clear statement inviting the keeper themselves to make payment. That is a fundamental omission.
To be absolutely clear for the avoidance of doubt:
• The Notice is not compliant simply because it is addressed to the keeper.
• It is not compliant because it implies that someone should take action.
• It is only compliant if it specifically and expressly invites the keeper to pay.
Adjudicators cannot rewrite or gloss over statutory language. Parliament deliberately included this requirement in Schedule 4 to ensure that the transition of liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper only occurs when all strict statutory safeguards are met. These safeguards are not technicalities—they are legal thresholds.
Whilst some assessors choose to simply gloss over PoFA 9(2)(e), they fail to take into account that sub paragraph (i) is also required to be considered. It is a binary matter and here it is clear that it has not been complied with.
In failing to include the required wording, the operator has not met the requirements of PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). It is irrelevant what the operator intended to imply. What matters is whether the statutory wording is present on the face of the notice. It is not.
Therefore, POPLA must find that the NtK does not comply with PoFA and that keeper liability has not been established. The charge cannot be enforced against the registered keeper.
2. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify the creditor, as required by Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states:
“The notice must—identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”
This is a mandatory statutory requirement, and one which this NtK blatantly fails to meet. Nowhere in the Notice does it state who the creditor actually is. There is no sentence—nor even a vague attempt—to say: “The creditor is Highview Parking Ltd,” as required by law.
Instead, the Notice merely refers to “we” throughout, without defining who “we” actually is in a legal context. If the operator intends to rely on this ambiguous term to signify the creditor, then at the very least the Notice must state “we, the creditor” or “we, Highview Parking Ltd, as the creditor.” It does not. The word “creditor” is not mentioned once in the document.
This failure is aggravated by the fact that the payment section refers to “GroupNexus,” which is not the legal name of Highview Parking Ltd but instead a trading name of CP Plus Ltd, a completely separate limited company. This creates serious ambiguity about who is actually pursuing the charge, undermining the legal clarity PoFA was designed to ensure.
The failure to explicitly identify the creditor means the NtK is not compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(h), and therefore the operator cannot hold the keeper liable. As keeper, I cannot be expected to respond to a notice that fails to state, even once, who is legally entitled to the charge.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the charge.
3. The NtK fails to clarify whether Highview Parking Ltd is acting as an agent or principal
Further compounding the breach of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of PoFA, the Notice to Keeper also fails to state whether Highview Parking Ltd is acting:
• as the principal, issuing the parking charge in its own name and right (in which case it must be clearly named as the creditor), or
• as an agent of the landowner, in which case the actual creditor is the landowner and must be identified.
There is no information in the NtK to clarify the capacity in which Highview is acting. This creates a situation where the keeper is being pursued for a payment allegedly owed to an unknown party. This undermines the basic requirements of legal certainty and transparency.
POPLA and courts have consistently held that the operator must identify the creditor and clarify their legal standing in relation to the land. Without such clarification, the Notice is materially non-compliant, and keeper liability cannot be established.
4. The NtK fails to specify the actual “period of parking” as required under Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA 2012
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires the Notice to Keeper to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
The operators NtK does not comply. It merely states:
“The vehicle was recorded on our client’s property at New Street Retail Park from 16/03/2025 09:33 to 16/03/2025 10:44.”
This refers to presence on private land, not a stated period of actual parking. The law requires a parking period—not merely an ANPR-detected presence interval.
In the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), His Honour Judge Mitchell clarified that PoFA 9(2)(a) does not require the full duration a car was present; even a shorter recorded window may suffice as a “period of parking.” But the judgment still requires:
• a defined period (even a minimum) where the vehicle was stationary and parked, and
that this be clearly communicated on the notice.
In Brennan, the appeal succeeded precisely because a timestamp alone could not establish such a period. Judge Mitchell stated at para 29:
“...the period of parking does not refer to the whole period a vehicle is in situ. It could be less than that. ...that is the period to which the Notice relates.”
He did not hold that an “entry and exit time” from ANPR was enough in itself. Nor did he say that simply being “recorded on property” was equivalent to being parked.
The issue here is that the NtK does not state any actual period of parking at all. It doesn’t say “parked from X to Y.” It says “recorded on our client’s property from X to Y”—which is vague and not synonymous with being parked. The difference matters because PoFA’s keeper liability provisions must be strictly interpreted. Mere presence on land is not the same as parking.
If Highview wish to rely on a defined “period of parking,” they must explicitly state it, not rely on inference. If they mean to say the vehicle was “parked from X to Y,” then they should write that. They didn’t.
Therefore, the NtK is non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(a), and the operator has no right to pursue the keeper under PoFA.
5. The Notice to Keeper fails to identify “the relevant land” as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to PoFA 2012
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires that the Notice to Keeper:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
In this case, the Notice to Keeper merely states that:
“The vehicle was recorded on our client’s property at New Street Retail Park.”
This vague reference to “New Street Retail Park” fails to identify the relevant land. It does not include a postcode, a city, a county, a street number, or even a map reference. This omission makes it impossible for the registered keeper—or indeed a POPLA assessor—to understand exactly where the alleged contravention is said to have occurred.
It is impossible to determine the exact number of retail parks with the address “New Street” without more specific information. There are many streets named “New Street” across the UK, and knowing the location (e.g., town, city, or postcode) is crucial to identify the specific site. As there are over 1,500 retail parks in the UK, a general descriptor such as “New Street Retail Park” is wholly inadequate as it fails to anchor the location to any identifiable land. Even with a search engine, one would need at a minimum:
• the city or town name, and
• the full postcode or boundary description.
In the absence of this, the notice could refer to any number of potential sites nationwide. There may also be multiple car parks within a retail park, each potentially under different management, enforcement rules, or even different operators. The term “our client’s property” only adds ambiguity, as it fails to establish who owns or manages the land or whether it even falls under the operator's legal remit.
This vague reference to "New Street Retail Park" is nothing more than a generic trading label and does not constitute a legally identifiable parcel of land. It utterly fails to inform the registered keeper of where the vehicle was actually parked—a requirement that is fundamental to the enforcement of any parking charge under Schedule 4. POPLA assessors are reminded that PoFA is not a guideline; it is legislation. It demands strict and literal compliance, not best efforts or loose interpretations.
A failure to identify the “relevant land” is a fatal defect in the Notice to Keeper. This is not a minor omission—this goes to the very heart of the operator's claim. Without a precise, uniquely identifiable location stated on the NtK, no liability can transfer to the keeper.
6. The operator has failed to identify the driver and cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper
It is a fundamental principle of English contract law that liability for a breach—such as overstaying in a car park—rests with the party who entered into the alleged contract. In the case of private parking enforcement, that person is the driver.
Highview Parking Ltd has not identified the driver. Nor have they provided any evidence or admission as to who was driving the vehicle on the day in question. There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper is the driver, and the courts have consistently ruled that liability cannot be imposed by inference alone.
It is therefore incumbent on the operator to either:
• Produce evidence of the driver’s identity, or • Strictly comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper.
As demonstrated in the preceding grounds of appeal, the NtK issued by Highview Parking Ltd fails multiple core requirements of Schedule 4:
• It does not identify the creditor (9(2)(h)),
• It does not invite the keeper to pay the charge (9(2)(e)(i)),
• It does not specify the relevant land (9(2)(a)),
• It does not specify a proper period of parking (9(2)(a)),
• It does not state whether the operator is principal or agent.
Just as someone cannot be partial or even mostly pregnant, an NtK cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It is a binary matter. It is either fully PoFA compliant or it is not. In this case, as shown, it definitely is not.
As a result, Highview Parking Ltd has no lawful basis to hold the registered keeper liable. In such circumstances, the burden remains entirely on the operator to pursue the actual driver. They have not done so.
Therefore, the charge cannot be enforced against the registered keeper, and POPLA is respectfully urged to uphold this appeal.
7. ANPR images fail to display a legible timestamp – Breach of PPSCoP Sections 7.3(b) and 7.4
The photographic evidence included in the Notice to Keeper fails to display any clear or legible timestamp. If a timestamp exists, it is either obscured or presented in such poor resolution that it cannot reasonably be read or verified. This is a direct breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which sets mandatory evidential requirements.
Section 7.3(b) of the PPSCoP states:
“Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless: b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp;”
Highview Parking Ltd relies on ANPR images as the basis for issuing this charge, yet those images do not bear visible, verifiable timestamps on the face of the evidence provided. That alone is sufficient to disqualify this charge as non-compliant under the Code.
In addition, Section 7.4 of the PPSCoP explicitly prohibits unauthorised alterations to photographic evidence:
“Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than: a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with their GDPR obligations; or b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.”
In this case, the absence of a visible timestamp raises a serious question as to whether the images have been altered or manipulated in breach of Section 7.4. If timestamps once existed but have since been cropped, obscured, or digitally removed, the evidential chain is broken. Such tampering—whether by omission or design—renders the images inadmissible as credible evidence.
If no timestamp was ever present, then the evidence should never have been used to issue a PCN in the first place.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the operator has either:
Used unverified images without timestamps (contravening 7.3(b)), or
Altered the images to remove, obscure, or otherwise compromise the timestamp (contravening 7.4).
Either outcome renders the PCN null and void for lack of compliant, timestamped photographic evidence.
8. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority to issue PCNs in their own name
It is a well-established requirement under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and longstanding POPLA precedent that a private parking operator must have clear, current, and contractual authority flowing from the landowner to manage parking and issue PCNs in their own name.
Highview Parking Ltd is therefore put to strict proof. The operator must produce, but not limited to:
• A contemporaneous, unredacted contract or agreement with the landowner (or the landowner’s agent, with written proof of such agency),
• Confirmation that the contract permits the operator to issue PCNs in their own name and to pursue unpaid charges,
• Proof that the contract is still valid and in force as of the date of the alleged contravention,
• Identification of the exact land covered (including “New Street Retail Park”),
• Disclosure of all material terms, including the scope, duration, enforcement conditions, and authority limits,
• Confirmation of any variations agreed since the contract was first executed.
Importantly, any redactions of critical parts of the contract—such as the validity term, the agreed parking conditions, the times of enforcement, or the names, signatures, and dates of the signatories—renders the evidence incomplete and unreliable. These elements are essential to proving that a valid, enforceable contract existed at the material time.
Excessive or unnecessary redactions serve only to raise suspicion that the operator has something to hide. It is not sufficient for an operator to say “there is a contract” or to supply a heavily redacted version that fails to meet the standards set out in Section 14 of the PPSCoP. That section sets clear expectations about what a compliant contract must contain.
A simple assumption that “there must be a contract because signs are in place” is not acceptable. That position shows a total disregard for the PPSCoP and POPLA’s evidential standards. Signage presence is not proof of legal authority. If the operator cannot prove that all required contractual points under Section 14 have been satisfied, then any suggestion that they have a valid contract must be treated as null and void.
Unless Highview Parking Ltd produces full, unredacted contractual proof meeting all the criteria of the PPSCoP, they cannot demonstrate any legal standing to issue or pursue this charge. The appeal must therefore be upheld.
Conclusion
The Parking Charge Notice fails on multiple substantive grounds, both statutory and procedural. Highview Parking Ltd has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As the operator has failed to establish keeper liability and has not evidenced a valid authority to issue the charge, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct the operator to cancel the PCN.
