Free Traffic Legal Advice

That POPLA appeal is a single point appeal. Throw the kitchen sink at it. Use signage and put them to structure proof of a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to operator and issue PCNs at the location.

There are plenty of recent POPLA appeals you can get that from if you search the forum.

Reply #10 above explains that no period of parking is specified.

All good. However, I would strengthen the PoFA failure by also showing that in Brennan, no observation period also counters any claim that a contract was ever formed...

The appeal judgment in Brennan v PPS (2023) confirms that PoFA requires a specified “period of parking,” not merely a timestamp. HHJ Mitchell stated: “Even if a minimum period was recorded, that would be enough”.

This must be read in light of the minimum consideration period (typically 5 minutes). Without evidence that the vehicle was parked for longer than this, there is no basis to infer contractual acceptance. A timestamp alone is insufficient to establish liability.

Otherwise, good to go.

You can copy and paste the following into the POPLA response webform:

Appellant comments on operator evidence – UKPC

This is a response to the operator’s evidence. The operator has failed to rebut the core grounds of the appeal: (i) the driver has not been identified; and (ii) the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Their own evidence confirms the PoFA defect relied upon in the appeal.

1. Keeper liability cannot arise because the NtK does not specify a “period of parking”

- PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” A “period” means a duration, not a single instant.
- UKPC’s evidence explicitly states: “The period of parking is the time in which the vehicle was parked, which was at 19:23.” That is a single timestamp, not a period.
- In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], the court held that merely recording an instant in time is insufficient: there must be at least a short period of parking specified. Without a period of parking, PoFA is not satisfied and keeper liability cannot arise.
- Because PoFA is not met, only the driver could be liable. UKPC has not identified the driver.

2. No presumption that the keeper was the driver

- The keeper has exercised the right not to name the driver.
- There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver (see VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9CC]).
- With PoFA non-compliance and no identified driver, liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

3. Consideration period: no evidence it was exceeded or that terms were accepted

- UKPC relies on the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) clause 5.1 and Annex B, which confirms a motorist must be allowed a reasonable consideration period to read the terms and decide whether to stay or leave.
- UKPC asserts the consideration period “may end earlier… where there is evidence that the driver has accepted the terms,” but provides no such evidence. Stating that the vehicle was “near to the signage” and citing a single time of 19:23 does not evidence contractual acceptance or any duration beyond the minimum consideration period.
- Without evidence of duration, UKPC has not shown that the driver remained on site after considering the terms. A single timestamp cannot show the driver exceeded the consideration period or accepted a contract.

4. “Near signage” does not prove contract formation or prominence of the charge

- Contract formation requires clear offer, knowledge of terms, and acceptance. Simply being “near to the signage” proves neither acceptance nor a stay beyond the consideration period.
- ParkingEye v Beavis requires that the charge be clearly and prominently brought to the motorist’s attention. General assertions that signage is “ample, clear and visible” do not cure the lack of evidence of duration or acceptance at the material time.

5. BPA Code boilerplate does not cure a statutory omission

- Whether or not signage aligns with a trade association code cannot repair a failure to meet PoFA Schedule 4. PoFA compliance is a statutory requirement for keeper liability; it is not optional.
Conclusion and requested outcome
- UKPC’s own evidence confirms that the NtK does not specify any “period of parking,” only a single timestamp. That is fatal to PoFA compliance under paragraph 9(2)(a). Keeper liability cannot arise.
- The driver has not been identified and there is no presumption that the keeper was the driver.
- UKPC has not proved that any consideration period was exceeded or that a contract was accepted and then breached.

For these reasons, the appeal should be allowed.

The POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. See report below.

Is there anything further I can do to fight this? Thanks.

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case:
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to not parking correctly within the markings of the bay.

Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK)) fails to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • No presumption that the Keeper was the driver. • Inadequate signage, no contract formed, the amount of the PCN is not clear. • Lack of landowner authority, no proof of the parking operator’s right to operate. • The appellant has mentioned various county court cases. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal, and raises new grounds of appeal not mentioned within their initial submission.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signs make it clear that motorists using the car park must park within a marked bay, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The parking operator has provided a series of photos of the parked position of the vehicle on the day; it is evident the vehicle was not parked wholly within the markings of a bay. As mentioned above the appellant has raised a new ground of appeal, which they did not mention within their initial submission when commenting on the parking operator’s evidence. When extending an invitation to the appellant to comment on the operator's evidence, it wasn't intended as an opportunity for the appellant to introduce new grounds for appeal or submit additional evidence. Consequently, any new grounds for appeal mentioned in their comments cannot be considered. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. 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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As the appellant failed to provide details of the driver to the parking operator, the parking operator was not able to transfer liability for the PCN to the driver, therefore, the liability remains with the appellant as the registered keeper. While the appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal, however, as county court cases cannot set a precedent, these will not be considered. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as the requirements to park wholly within a marked bay. The parking operator has provided a series of the site. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. A parking operator is not obligated to places signs at each and very bay. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking at the site and entered into a contract with the parking operator. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online (www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html) should the appellant wish to read it. The signage at the site is clear that failure to park within a marked bay, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park outside of a marked bay, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not park within a marked 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Typical intellectually malnourished response for another POPLA moronic assessor. That decision is riddled with legal and factual errors. It shows the assessor either didn’t understand PoFA or ignored it entirely. Here’s a breakdown of where it went wrong and how you could frame a complaint to POPLA and to your MP for evidence of why POPLA’s independence is questionable):

Key errors in the POPLA decision

1. Fundamental misunderstanding of PoFA keeper liability
The assessor states: “The PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper”. This is factually wrong.

PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a) expressly requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The operator’s own evidence says: “The period of parking is the time in which the vehicle was parked, which was at 19:23.”

That is a single timestamp, not a period. In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), the appeal court confirmed that a single moment does not meet this requirement, and without it, keeper liability cannot arise. The assessor has therefore failed to apply statute correctly. Whilst no binding, it is in fact persuasive.

2. Misapplication of the burden of proof
PoFA places the burden entirely on the operator to meet each statutory condition before transferring liability to the keeper.
The assessor wrongly assumes liability automatically transfers if the keeper doesn’t name the driver. That is contrary to law. If the operator hasn’t met PoFA, there is nothing to transfer.

The correct legal position is: if any element of Schedule 4 is not satisfied, only the driver can be liable — and if the driver isn’t identified, the case fails.

3. Failure to address the appellant’s primary ground
The central issue — lack of a “period of parking” — was the first and most critical point of appeal. The assessor did not address it at all. They simply stated that PoFA “has the necessary information” without analysing what that information was. That’s not adjudication; it’s rubber-stamping.

4. Improper dismissal of relevant case law
The assessor’s statement that “county court cases cannot set a precedent” misunderstands their persuasive value if they are appellate decisions. POPLA routinely relies on county court authorities such as ParkingEye v Beavis (which itself arose from the county court).

Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions is a persuasive authority directly interpreting the same paragraph of PoFA in identical circumstances. It should have been considered.

5. Procedural unfairness regarding rebuttal comments
POPLA’s process allows appellants to comment on operator evidence. The assessor incorrectly stated that any new points could not be considered.

In reality, appellants are entitled to rebut new assertions raised by the operator. That is not introducing “new grounds” but directly responding to the operator’s evidence. Refusing to consider that response deprived the appellant of a fair hearing.

6. Irrelevant focus on signage and bay markings
The issue of PoFA compliance is a statutory gateway question. If keeper liability fails, all signage and “driver conduct” arguments become irrelevant because the keeper cannot be held liable. This morons decision skips over that entirely.

Summary (for complaint wording)
The decision fails to address or apply the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The assessor wrongly concluded that keeper liability transferred despite the NtK lacking a “period of parking”, contrary to paragraph 9(2)(a) and confirmed by the persuasive appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023). POPLA also misapplied the burden of proof, ignored the central issue, and refused to consider rebuttal comments that directly addressed the operator’s evidence. The outcome therefore lacks legal and procedural validity.

So what now? You DO NOT pay. The POPLA decision is NOT binding on you. This will now progress through debt recovery to a county court claim, which if you follow the advice you receive here, will end up being discontinued if it is not struck out first.

You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters you will now receive. Debt collectors are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Come back when ou receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).