Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you so much b789.

All done. When I hear back I’ll update here.

If further evidence was needed of the utter incompetence of some POPLA assessors, you have it in that response.

Whilst a POPLA decision is not binding on you and you must not pay this, it does warrant a formal complaint to POPLA about such blatant ineptitude, even though they will not reconsider the appeal. It provides a paper trail that they cannot ignore.

Send the following to POPLA as a pdf attachment to an email to info@popla.co.uk and CC in yourself:

To: Lead Adjudicator
POPLA Complaints

To: info@popla.co.uk

Subject: Formal Complaint – Appeal Decision [Insert POPLA Verification Code]

Dear Lead Adjudicator,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the decision issued in appeal verification code [INSERT CODE], assessed by Larenz Gumbs. The decision reflects a total failure to engage with the grounds of appeal or apply even basic principles of contract law, PoFA, or the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The following details each specific error, as demonstrated by a point-by-point review of the assessor's language compared against the content of the appeal and rebuttal.

1. Failure to engage with the core issue of non-receipt of the NtK

"The appellant has stated that there was no notice to keeper received... they have stated that the operator was not compliant with POFA 2012."

The assessor merely summarised this without addressing the legal consequences of non-receipt under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraphs 9(1) and 9(6). There was no recognition that proof of delivery is required to establish Keeper liability. Issuance is not the test; delivery is. This is a basic error in statutory interpretation.

"The operator has provided the landowner agreement... The date of the parking charge incident was on 7th October 2024 and the Parking Charge Notice was issued to the registered keeper on 11th October 2024 which is within the time limit allowed via PoFA."

This statement is misleading. Issuance alone is not sufficient. Under Paragraph 9(6), the NtK must be given (i.e., delivered or deemed delivered). The assessor treated the issue date as if it alone satisfied compliance, which it does not.

2. Uncritical acceptance of the operator’s assertions

"From the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude the parking charge notice is not compliant with POFA."

This shifts the burden of proof wrongly onto the appellant. The operator failed to prove delivery. The appeal explicitly put the operator to strict proof. They did not provide any such proof—no Certificate of Posting, no delivery record—nothing. The assessor’s logic assumes that the absence of evidence is acceptable. That is legally and procedurally incorrect.

"This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they will be liable to pay the Parking Charge."

Wrong. Belief that liability might exist is not the same as legally established liability under statute. Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA only transfers liability if every statutory requirement is fulfilled. The assessor ignored this.

3. Misinterpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA

"Information is also given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle."

This glosses over a central point raised in the rebuttal: the NtK stated liability begins "28 days after the second working day after the date of issue", which is not what PoFA requires. PoFA says liability arises "at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day AFTER that on which the notice is given." The operator's calculation is wrong and inconsistent with the law. The assessor completely ignored this fundamental defect.

4. Dismissal of the rebuttal evidence

"The appellant has stated that they had a call with the operator which discusses the parking charge notice not being received and being lost within the post. I am unable to comment on this further as I was not privy to this conversation."

This is unacceptable. The operator's own staff reportedly stated the NtK was "probably lost in the post"—a clear admission that delivery did not occur. It was not denied or countered. Rather than treating it as evidence, the assessor dismissed it with a blanket disclaimer. This shows a complete failure to weigh probative value of uncontested admissions.

5. Superficial treatment of landowner authority

"The operator has provided the landowner agreement to manage the car park. This shows that the operator has a legitimate interest in the parking incident."

This is a superficial and legally insufficient assessment. The appeal rebuttal pointed out that:

• The agreement was heavily redacted;
• It lacked site specificity;
• It omitted boundary plans;
• It contained no visible execution dates or signatures.

The assessor did not address these at all. They accepted a redacted, generic document without examining whether it met PPSCoP standards for valid landowner authority.

6. Misapplication of POPLA’s role

"Our role at POPLA is to consider if the PCN has been issued correctly..."

That is an unacceptably narrow definition. POPLA’s role is to assess if the charge is enforceable, which includes checking compliance with PoFA, the Code of Practice, and fairness under contract principles. Issuing a PCN does not equate to establishing liability. This statement reveals either a misunderstanding of POPLA’s remit or an intentional mischaracterisation to sidestep the need to assess enforceability.

Summary

This decision reflects a complete failure in competence, judgment, and legal understanding. Larenz Gumbs either lacks the training to assess PoFA-based cases or did not read the appeal properly. I am aware that POPLA does not rescind adjudications, but this matter must be escalated to senior level.

I expect:

• A formal review of this decision;
• Clarification of POPLA’s official position on Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA;
• Confirmation of retraining or disciplinary action for the assessor involved;
• Written assurance that cases involving disputed PoFA compliance will be assessed by trained staff with working knowledge of the legislation and Code of Practice.

If this is not addressed meaningfully, I will escalate the matter to Ombudsman Services, as POPLA’s administrator, and to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which is the designated competent authority responsible for regulating ADR bodies under the ADR Regulations 2015. This is not just about one bad decision—it is about systemic failure within POPLA to ensure its assessors are competent, impartial, and capable of applying statutory consumer law, particularly the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. I will also be raising these concerns with the DVLA, given the potential misuse of Keeper data based on decisions that fail to assess the legal validity of liability transfer.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Contact details]

Apart from that, you now wait for the inevitable debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. Never, ever communicate with a debt collector. They re powerless except to try and make the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree pay up out of ignorance and fear. They are powerless. Ignore them.

Come back when you get a response to your POPLA complaint and when you receive a Letter of Claim (loC). You won't be paying a penny to Horizon.

Please send that formal complaint to POPLA. they need to be alerted to some of there atrocious decisions some of these assessors make, and this one is a classic example.

Hopefully your friend can get the PCN cancelled anyway. However, unless you have it in writing from an official source, don't hold your breath until it is actually cancelled.

Hi I have had a written email response today.

Copy pasted below:

Thank you for your email received 23 April 2025, outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.
 
POPLA is a one-stage process, and we would not change a decision because either party disputes the assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack. My role as a complaints handler is to determine whether a procedural error has occurred during the assessment of your appeal.
 
It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.
 
The crux of your complaint is that the assessor failed to address the legal consequences of non-receipt of the Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and there was no recognition that proof of delivery is required to establish keeper liability as issuance is not the test, delivery is, therefore the assessor has made a basic error in statutory interpretation.
 
You advise the assessor has misinterpreted Paragraph  9 (f) of POFA as they stated information is given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver, however the Notice to Keeper stated liability begins 28 days after the second working day after the date of issue which is not what POFA requires.
 
POFA states liability arises at the end of the period of 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given and therefore, the operator calculation is wrong and inconsistent with the law which the assessor ignored.
 
I have now reviewed the appeal and I can confirm Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the notice to keeper 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”…“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.”
 
Paragraph 9(6) then defines the given date as: “the second working day after the day on which it is posted”.
 
In this instance, as the notice was issued on Monday 11 October 2024, the given date is Wednesday 16 October. As POFA states that motorists must be given 28 days from the day after the notice is given, the 28 days should have begun from 17 October.
 
The Notice to Keeper states “You are advised that if, after a period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge…”, therefore it does not meet the requirements of POFA.
 
It should be noted within POFA Paragraph 9 (6) it states a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered:
 
image001.png
You explain the assessor accepted Horizon Parking’s assertions without criticism which wrongly shifts the burden of proof onto the appellant as the operator failed to provide proof of delivery such as certificate of posting and or delivery record.
 
You state the assessor dismissed evidence by stating they were unable to comment on a call they were not privy to which is unacceptable as the operators own staff reportedly stated the Notice to Keeper was probably lost in the post which is a clear admission that delivery did not occur and was not denied or countered which the assessor dismissed rather than treating this as evidence.
 
You explain the assessor stated they were satisfied the operator provided a land owner agreement and on reviewing this, they were satisfied the operator has a legitimate interest in the parking event which you state Is superficial and legally, an insufficient assessment.
 
You advise the document was heavily redacted did not specifically confirm the site omitted boundary plans and did not have a visible execution dates or signatures which the assessor failed to address and they accepted a redacted generic document without examining whether it met PPSCoP standards for valid landowner authority.
 
You state the assessor provided a narrow definition of POPLAs role by stating our role is to consider if the parking charge notice has been issued correctly.
 
You explain that POPLAs role is to assess if the charge is enforceable which includes checking compliance with POFA, the code of practice and fairness under contract principles. You advise issuing a parking charge notice does not equate to establishing liability and the assessor statement reveals either a misunderstanding of POPLAs remit or an intentional mischaracterisation to side step the need to assess enforceability.
 
To clarify, POPLAs remit extends only to determining if the parking charge notice has been issued correctly based on the evidence presented at the time of the appeal. We accept evidence from both parties in good faith unless the opposite is proven.
 
The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the parking charge notice correctly. If they do that by providing evidence that support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant.
I acknowledge in the appeal it was stated the operator advised on a call the Notice to Keeper was possibly lost in the post, however, as no evidence of this call was provided with the appeal to POLPLA, the assessor was unable to comment further.
There is no requirement in both POFA or the Single Code of Practice that an operator must send the Notice to Keeper by recorded delivery or provide proof of postage or delivery of the notice.
Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that a parking operator must obtain written confirmation from the landowner confirming it has the relevant authority to pursue charges on a car park.
 
This authority must confirm the site and provide a boundary map.
 
Within its case file, Horizon Parking provided a copy of the contract it has with landowner. Contracts with the landowner may contain commercially sensitive information, therefore, we will accept redacted landowner documents as long as the assessor is satisfied it meets the requirements of Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice.
 
I note the operator also provided a site map within it case file showing the location of the signage and the site boundary.
 
In this instance, as no evidence was provided to cast doubt on this contract, the assessor was satisfied Horizon Parking has the appropriate authority to issue charges on this land.
 
You state you expect a formal review of the decision, clarification of POPLAs official position on POFA, confirmation of retraining or disciplinary action for the assessor and written assurance that cases involving disputed POFA compliance will be assessed by trained staff with working knowledge of the legislation and code of practice.
 
When considering POFA, POPLA assessors will consider whether the notice to keeper has been issued correctly and meets the strict requirements set out in Paragraph 9 (f).
 
Assessors will make decisions based on:
 
Relevant law
The Single Code of Practice
Evidence provided by both parties
 
Assessors have been trained on these areas and our decision-making guidelines. They have also passed an accreditation process following our training programme and receive regular internal quality audits as well as coaching and personal development.
 
In this instance, while I am disappointed to note the assessor has misinterpreted POFA and fully accept that the assessor is wrong to state that the notice is complaint with POFA and I would like to apologise for this error, on reviewing the case, it is clear the assessor has misinterpreted POFA rather than missed evidence provided.
In order to improve the quality of future appeal decisions, I will, of course provide the relevant feedback to the assessor. However, as all of the evidence provided has been considered, no procedural error has occurred and therefore, the outcome will not change.
 
You advise if your complaint is not addressed, you will escalate the matter to Ombudsman Services as POPLAs administrator and to the Charted Trading Standards Institute.
 
Complaints about POLA are reviewed and responded to by the complaints team. TAG Services (Formerly Ombudsman Services) have no involvement in our complaints handling procedure.
 
It is worth explaining that POPLA was previously audited externally by Independent Scrutiny board for Parking on Private Land Appeals (ISPA) at one stage. Unfortunately, funding stopped for ISPA and they ceased to continue which means that POPLA does not currently have an independent body reviewing our appeals or dealing with complaints about our service. As such there is no platform for you currently to complain about POPLA externally. If you wish to take the matter further, you will need to seek independent legal advice. 
 
I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.
 
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice, please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Paul Garrity​​​​
POPLA Complaints
complaints@popla.co.uk
flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk

That response from POPLA is notable for two things:


You should submit a formal regulatory complaint to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), which regulates ADR providers such as POPLA under UK law. CTSI is empowered to investigate ADR non-compliance, particularly in cases of:


You can email the following to adr@tsi.org.uk and CC in yourself:

Subject: Regulatory Complaint – Non-compliance by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals)

Dear CTSI ADR Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct and operation of POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is operated by TAG Services (formerly Ombudsman Services) and approved as an ADR entity under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.

POPLA recently handled my appeal under verification code [INSERT CODE]. I later submitted a formal complaint regarding serious legal and procedural errors in the decision. The POPLA complaints handler has since admitted that the decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and that the Notice to Keeper in question did not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f).

Despite this, POPLA have stated they refuse to reconsider the outcome, asserting that it is a “one-stage process.” They further state that no external complaints process exists, and that TAG Services (the ADR entity administrator) “have no involvement in our complaints handling procedure.”

This raises several regulatory concerns:

• POPLA admits its decision was incorrect in law, yet refuses to reconsider the outcome or offer any remedy.
• The internal complaints system lacks independence or escalation, directly contradicting the spirit of the ADR Regulations.
• POPLA claims that neither TAG Services nor any external body can investigate complaints, suggesting a complete lack of accountability.
• POPLA assessors appear untrained or improperly supervised, as the admitted legal error concerns one of PoFA's most basic requirements.
• POPLA’s refusal to reassess a clearly flawed decision undermines consumer protection and confidence in the ADR system.

Under the ADR Regulations 2015, ADR entities must:

• Ensure decisions are reached by impartial and legally competent assessors;
• Have a transparent and accessible complaints process;
• Offer effective redress in the event of a serious procedural or legal error;
• Allow complaints about the ADR service to be handled independently.

I request CTSI urgently investigate POPLA’s non-compliance with its statutory duties as an approved ADR provider and advise whether it remains suitable to continue handling parking appeals without an effective external accountability mechanism.

I am happy to supply copies of the original appeal, the rebuttal, and POPLA’s full complaint response, including their admission of legal error.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Full Name]
[Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone – optional]

adr@tsi.org.uk (adr@tsi.org.uk)
Your message was rejected by the recipient's domain because the recipient's email address isn't listed in the domain's directory. It might be misspelled or it might not exist.

Thanks for that email. Just sent it off now.

Will they even do anything?

Paul Garrity mentioned as such there is no platform that I can currently complain to about POPLA externally.

From what I understand, given that POPLA should have decided in my favour but made a mistake and denied the appeal.

After making a formal complaint POPLA now accept the errors made by the adjudicator however the appeal denied can not be overturned.

If it helps others in the future I personally think it’s worth putting the point across as suggested by b789. I accept the point made and happy to follow through.

I’ve had great help from here many times and if I could AT THE LEAST buy some fizzy cola bottle sweets for everyone as a token of appreciation for their time and help, I’d happily do so.

Yes luckily I managed to get the fine cancelled by a Tesco staff. I assume the store manager had to authorise it.