Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do I submit as “other” as the reason for appeal in popla and should I use the business details as name as was addressed on the letter from horizon?

Thanks DWMB2

Will convert to pdf and submit to popla.

Have they responded to or rebutted all the points made in the POPLA appeal?

Have they included a copy of the NtK?

Have they provided evidence of posting or delivery of the NtK in the form of a "proof of posting" certificate or a "signed for" receipt?

Have they answered or given any explanations of points #3 and #4 of your appeal?

What evidence of landowner authority have they provided?

I can’t seem to find any other info relating to the points we made.

Popla platform is awful I’m unable to see my previous reply. I remember converting to pdf and submitting.

I did get an email confirmation of submitting appeal that’s all.

Yes the original ntk was attached.

I would like to add link to the whole pdf but it contains a lot of repeated personal info. I’m having a look now if I can blur info by editing the pdf.

I’m using a new phone too so this makes it difficult. I think I have managed to edit the pdf and attached it here.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I don’t remember any available options as to appealing as an individual or company? I’m sure there was no option as such.

You can see in the 35 page pdf my initial appeal. Then I appealed to popla exactly as above which I converted to pdf before submitting.

Only option I remember in the popla portal it asked for my first and last name and I put it down as Mr Home Maintenance.

As far as I’m aware horizon or Popla do not hold my real name. They only have my business name and business address.

OK. Here is your response to the operators evidence pack. You can only use the POPLA webform for responding so simply copy and paste it into there. It is within the 10,000 character limit:

The operator has not adequately addressed the appeal's core issue that the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) was never received. The appellant contacted the operator to report this and was told the NtK was “probably lost in the post.” The operator then dismissed its importance by suggesting the reminder letter could serve as a substitute. This admission directly supports the appellant's position that the NtK was not received, undermining the operator’s claim to hold the Keeper liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The operator has failed to provide meaningful evidence to counter this. While they assert that the NtK was issued on 11/10/2024, they provide no proof of posting, such as a Certificate of Posting or any record to demonstrate the NtK was sent or received. Their reliance on Royal Mail’s standard processes, without specific documentation for this case, does not meet the evidentiary standard required when the NtK’s delivery is disputed.

The reliance on the reminder letter sent on 11/11/2024 further highlights the operator's failure to comply with PoFA. The reminder letter cannot substitute for the NtK, as PoFA requires that the original NtK be delivered within 14 days of the alleged contravention. Without delivery of a compliant NtK, liability cannot transfer to the Keeper.

The appeal also requested the operator provide strict proof of posting or delivery, given their admission that the NtK was “probably lost in the post.” Instead of addressing this, the operator failed to provide any evidence or explanation to support their assertion that the NtK was sent. Their inability to produce verifiable proof undermines the presumption of proper delivery and invalidates their claim.

Without proof that the NtK was sent and delivered, the operator cannot demonstrate compliance with PoFA’s procedural requirements. This is essential for transferring liability to the Registered Keeper, especially as the vehicle is registered to a company, not an individual. The operator’s failure to address this in their response further demonstrates the invalidity of their claim.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to uphold the appeal on these grounds. The operator’s inability to demonstrate delivery of the NtK or provide meaningful evidence of compliance with PoFA makes their claim unsustainable.

The third point of the appeal reserved the right to challenge the compliance of the NtK with PoFA. Upon reviewing the copy of the NtK included in the operator's evidence pack, it is evident the NtK does not fully comply with PoFA's strict requirements.

The key issue lies in how the NtK informs the Keeper about when liability might be transferred under PoFA. The NtK states keeper liability begins "28 days after the second working day after the date of issue." However, this is incorrect under PoFA. PoFA requires the NtK inform the Keeper liability begins "at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given." This difference is critical because it changes the timeline for liability and creates confusion.

The date of the alleged contravention was Monday, 7 October 2024. The NtK was issued on Friday, 11 October 2024. Under postal rules, PoFA considers the NtK "given" two working days later, which would be Tuesday, 15 October 2024. The PoFA-required 28-day period then starts the day after this, on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, and ends on Monday, 11 November 2024. This is the correct date when keeper liability would begin under PoFA.

The NtK states liability begins 28 days after the second working day from the date of issue, which the operator calculates as Tuesday, 12 November 2024. This calculation does not align with PoFA’s requirements. By misrepresenting the date when liability begins, the NtK fails to comply with the legal requirement to provide clear and accurate information. The error creates ambiguity and does not meet the strict compliance standards mandated by PoFA.

Since PoFA requires absolute compliance, this discrepancy means the NtK is invalid for transferring liability to the Keeper. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider this significant error and allow the appeal. The operator’s failure to provide a compliant NtK means they cannot hold the Keeper liable under PoFA.

The fourth point of the appeal concerns the operator’s non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which was in effect on the date of the alleged contravention, 7 October 2024. The operator’s response fails to address key concerns and demonstrates non-compliance with several sections of the PPSCoP.

Clause 11.1 requires parking operators to have a documented and accessible complaints procedure to ensure complaints are handled fairly and transparently. The appellant raised a valid complaint about not receiving the original NtK, and instead of properly addressing the issue, the operator dismissed it by stating the NtK was “probably lost in the post” and the reminder letter could suffice. This response lacks the transparency and fairness required under the Code.

Clause 8.1.1 specifies notices must provide clear and accurate information, including details of the appeals process and how the recipient can challenge the parking charge. By dismissing the missing NtK as irrelevant and relying on the reminder letter, the operator fails to ensure the recipient has the legally required information, as the reminder letter does not contain the statutory details required in the NtK.

Clause 8.4.1(c) requires operators to consider mitigating circumstances in appeals. The appellant’s claim that the NtK was not received and the operator’s admission it was “probably lost in the post” should have been treated as mitigating. Instead, the operator’s response indicates they did not consider this and continued enforcement without addressing the appellant’s concerns.

Clause 10.1 states operators must take reasonable steps to ensure correspondence reaches the intended recipient, including verifying address details and re-sending notices if necessary. The operator’s admission the NtK was “probably lost in the post” demonstrates they failed to meet this obligation, as they did not take further steps to ensure delivery.

The operator’s response fails to address these compliance failures and does not demonstrate adherence to the PPSCoP. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to uphold the appeal on this basis, as the operator’s actions show clear breaches of the PPSCoP’s requirements for fairness, transparency, and professionalism.

The operator’s response to point 5 of the appeal regarding evidence of landowner authority is inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of the PPSCoP. The Code requires parking operators provide written confirmation from the landowner demonstrating their authority to issue parking charges and manage parking on the specific site.

The document provided by the operator in Section F of their response pack is labeled "Annex A: Agreed Form of Authority/Witness Statement." This document is heavily redacted and does not meet the required standards for several reasons.

First, the document is generic and lacks specificity. It does not explicitly state it pertains to the location of the alleged contravention. Without a clear link to the specific site, the document cannot serve as sufficient evidence of the operator’s authority to manage parking at that location.

Second, the document is missing critical information. The Code requires agreements of this nature identify the landowner, provide a boundary map defining the managed land, and specify the terms of the operator’s authority, including any limitations or conditions. The redacted document fails to provide this information, making it impossible to verify compliance with the Code.

Third, the signatures and dates on the document have been redacted. This prevents verification of whether the agreement was in effect at the time of the alleged contravention. The lack of verifiable dates and signatures raises doubts about the validity of the document.

Finally, the Code requires operators provide clear, unredacted evidence demonstrating their authority to enforce parking charges on the site. The operator’s response fails to satisfy this requirement, and their reliance on a heavily redacted, generic document is insufficient.

Given these deficiencies, the operator has not demonstrated they have the necessary landowner authority to issue parking charges or enforce terms at the site. I respectfully request the POPLA assessor uphold the appeal on this basis. The operator’s failure to provide adequate evidence of landowner authority invalidates their claim.