Free Traffic Legal Advice

Response to MET’s “keeper liability / 5-minute observation” claims:

1. Keeper liability rises or falls on the NtK itself
Keeper liability is a narrow statutory exception (PoFA Sch 4 para 4). It applies only if the operator has given a fully compliant NtK. PoFA para 9(2) uses mandatory language (“must”) and the assessment is confined to the NtK as given. Later materials (portal images, extra timestamps, Section C narratives or “evidence packs”) cannot retrospectively supply a missing statutory element or cure a defect.

2. PoFA 9(2)(a) failure on the face of the NtK
PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking”. MET’s NtK cites a single time and vague wording about “immediately prior”. A single timestamp is not a “period of parking” and does not meet para 9(2)(a). See Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) (appeal) confirming that an instant in time cannot evidence a “period of parking”. If the period is not specified in the NtK, keeper liability cannot arise.

3. “Observed over 5 minutes” does not prove contract formation or cure PoFA
MET’s Section E claim that the vehicle was “observed for over 5 minutes” is (a) not part of the NtK and (b) does not evidence a parking duration beyond the mandatory consideration period. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (17 Feb 2025) s5.1 requires a minimum five-minute consideration period to find, read and decide on the terms. An observation of ~5 minutes cannot exclude time spent reading signage or choosing to leave; it does not prove that a contract was accepted or that any charge became payable.

4. Statutory content must be in the NtK; assertion is not evidence
PoFA 9(2) also requires the NtK to describe “the circumstances… that made [the charges] payable” (para 9(2)(d)). If MET wished to rely on keeper liability, the NtK itself had to set out the parking period and the facts said to constitute breach. Post-hoc photos and narratives in Section B/C/E are not the NtK and cannot be imported to fix omissions.

Conclusion
The NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(a) on its face. Keeper liability therefore does not arise. The driver has not been identified. MET’s later “evidence pack” and portal material cannot cure a defective NtK or prove contract formation beyond the consideration period. On keeper liability alone, this appeal must be allowed.

Host their evidence, especially the landowner contract, on Google Drive or similar so we can review it.

Quote

For the avoidance of doubt: This is not one bay with three lines, this is one
standard-size parking bay with a pedestrian walkway next to it.

The fact that they feel the need to state this "for the avoidance of doubt", and to use bold, red underlined text to do so, might suggest there is considerable room for doubt...

I gave you the text to copy and paste into the POPLA response to the operators evidence. Beyond that, there is nothing more to do but wait for the decision.

If it’s not successful, so what? The decision is not binding on you and you move on to the next phase of the fight.

POPLA Appeal was unsuccessful 
</b>
<p>
Here's POPLA's decision: </p>
<p>
Assessor summary of your case:

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below. • Failure to Comply with The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, no period of parking specified. • No contract could have been formed, no period of parking evidenced. • No evidence the keeper was the driver, keeper cannot be held liable • Inadequate and ambiguous signage. • Landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal.
</p>
<p>
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. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. While I note the appellant has mentioned various county court cases within their appeal, as a county court case cannot set a precedent these will not be considered. 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. The information within the PCN contains the period parked, as it displays a photo of the vehicle concerned, date, time, and address of the site, as the vehicle was parked out of the bay, they are not required to provide a consideration period. The parking operator does not need to provide evidence of who the driver of the vehicle was on the day; it is the registered keeper’s responsibility (in this case the appellant) to provide details of the driver to the parking operator. As the appellant failed to provide details of the driver to the parking operator, the parking operator was unable to transfer liable for the PCN, therefore, the liability for the PCN remains with the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. By parking by the site, the motorist became subject to the terms and conditions, and a contractual agreement was formed. 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 requirement to park within a marked bay. The parking operator has provided a series of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. 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. The bay markings are sufficiently clear at the site. 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. 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. In this case the period is five minutes. The consideration period nor the grace period constitutes free parking and should not be treated as such. As mentioned above, there would no consideration period as the driver parked in breach of the terms as they failed to park within a bay. 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 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. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the 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.

If further evidence that POPLA assessors, especially this moronic feckwit, are not legally trained and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are intellectually malnourished, this decision is clear evidence that they are not fit for purpose.

1. PoFA 9(2)(a): basic statutory error
They equate a single timestamped photo with a “period of parking”. That is plainly wrong. A period requires a duration. Saying the NtK “contains the period parked” because it shows a date/time is legally indefensible.

2. Keeper liability: burden flipped and law misstated
They assert it’s the registered keeper’s “responsibility” to name the driver. It isn’t. The operator can pursue the keeper only if (and because) the NtK is fully PoFA-compliant. No compliance, no keeper liability. The assessor reverses that scheme.

3. Consideration period: concept misunderstood
They claim no consideration period applies because the vehicle was “out of bay”. Consideration is about pre-contract opportunity to find and read terms. Whether a breach later occurred is irrelevant to whether that minimum five-minute window had to be allowed and evidenced. The assessor’s position is circular.

4. Contract formation: assumption standing in for analysis
“By parking on site a contract was formed” is a conclusion, not reasoning. Formation depends on opportunity to see and digest the terms. One timestamp cannot prove acceptance—especially when the operator’s own case tops out at “~5 minutes observed”.

5. Persuasive authority: wrong standard, wrong dismissal
They dismiss cited County Court appeal decisions wholesale as “cannot set a precedent”. Correct: they’re not binding. But they are persuasive—and directly on point about “period of parking”. Ignoring them because they’re not binding is an intellectual cop-out.

6. “Curing” NtK defects with an evidence pack
They treat later photos/narrative as if they can retrofit missing NtK content. PoFA compliance is determined from the NtK itself. Post-hoc material cannot mend an omission in a statutory notice. The assessor never engages with that.

7. Signage: transitional rules over-stretched
Referring to legacy BPA signage provisions during the transition does not displace other live Single Code duties (like consideration). The assessor uses signage compliance to sidestep the separate questions of formation and PoFA content. That’s a non sequitur.

8. Landowner authority: relevance blurred, Beavis misused
Beavis says nothing about whether a redacted “licence” actually confers authority to issue and litigate in the operator’s own name for this site. The assessor accepts a highlighted, redacted document at face value without testing mandatory particulars the Code requires.

9. Evidential threshold: photos ≠ strict proof
“Series of photos” showing a tyre over a line may evidence the alleged posture of the vehicle. They do not evidence (a) the period of parking for PoFA, or (b) that a contract was actually formed after adequate opportunity to read terms. The assessor conflates breach proof with liability route.

10. Failure to engage with the core point
The appeal’s fulcrum was narrow and statutory: no period of parking on the face of the NtK. The decision ducks that question, replaces it with generalities about signage, and pronounces keeper liability as if it were automatic. It isn’t.

Bottom line
This decision is legally unsound. It misstates PoFA, ignores directly relevant persuasive authority, confuses formation with breach, and tries to graft later evidence onto a defective NtK. In short: assertion in place of analysis, conclusions in place of reasoning.

The decision is not binding on you and you DO NOT pay anything. I will draft a formal complaint to POPLA, which will not get them to reverse their decision, irrespective of whether they are with the complaint but it puts them on record as to their utter incompetence and that it will not be soon enough when they become an irrelevance once the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is eventually brought into play.

From now on, you can safely ignore all useless debt recovery letters. Debt collectors 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 if/when ou receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and we will advise on how to bring this to a conclusion without having to pay a penny to these scammers.

In the meantime, I advise you to send the following formal complaint about this idiot POPLA assessor with the following to info@popla.co.uk and CC yourself:

Quote

Subject: Formal Complaint – Incompetent and Legally Defective Adjudication by POPLA Assessor [assessor name]

To: POPLA Complaints Team

Dear POPLA Complaints Team,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint about the standard of adjudication in my recent POPLA appeal against MET Parking Services. The assessor’s decision is not merely wrong in law; it is so bereft of legal reasoning that it raises serious questions about the competence, training, and impartiality of your adjudication staff.

While I am fully aware that POPLA’s complaints process never overturns a decision — regardless of how egregiously flawed — I require a written response to this complaint for submission to my Member of Parliament and other oversight bodies. The manner in which this appeal has been handled exemplifies why public confidence in POPLA has collapsed: decisions are routinely reached by individuals who appear neither legally trained nor intellectually equipped to apply the very legislation they cite.

1. Statutory Illiteracy – PoFA 9(2)(a)
The assessor treated a single timestamp on the Notice to Keeper as satisfying the statutory requirement to “specify the period of parking”. This is legally absurd. A single timestamp represents an instant, not a duration, and therefore cannot constitute a “period”.
This is not a matter of interpretation — it is a matter of plain English and binding statutory drafting. The point has been clarified in persuasive appellate authority, Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023), where the judge expressly ruled that an instant in time cannot evidence a period of parking.

By failing to grasp that fundamental distinction, the assessor has demonstrated a level of incompetence that is wholly incompatible with any adjudicative role.

2. Reversal of the Burden of Proof
The assessor stated that it was the keeper’s “responsibility” to name the driver and that liability “remains with the registered keeper”. That is the opposite of what PoFA provides. The Act creates a narrow and conditional statutory exception allowing keeper liability only if the operator has issued a fully compliant NtK.

The keeper has no legal duty whatsoever to identify the driver. The assessor has completely inverted the law. This is not a borderline interpretative issue — it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative scheme POPLA was created to apply.

3. Refusal to Acknowledge Persuasive Authority
The assessor’s refusal to consider Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions and VCS v Edward on the grounds that “county court cases cannot set precedent” betrays a lack of even the most rudimentary legal training. These were appellate decisions, which, while not binding, are persuasive — a concept clearly beyond the assessor’s comprehension.

To summarily dismiss them rather than engage with the reasoning within those judgments is intellectually negligent and incompatible with the role of an adjudicator purporting to apply statutory law.

4. Post-Hoc “Evidence” Used to Cure a Defective NtK
The assessor accepted that later evidence in the operator’s “evidence pack” could retrospectively fix omissions in the original NtK. That is simply wrong.

PoFA compliance is judged on the face of the notice as issued. The Act does not permit later materials to “cure” a statutory defect. This is basic procedural fairness. The assessor’s failure to understand this undermines the entire purpose of the PoFA regime.

5. Misunderstanding of the Consideration Period
The assessor dismissed the argument regarding the mandatory consideration period under Section 5.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, asserting that none applied because the driver “was parked out of a bay”. This is nonsensical.

The consideration period exists before a parking contract is formed and applies regardless of where the vehicle stops. It is designed to give a motorist time to locate, read, and understand the terms before deciding to stay. The assessor’s logic that “no consideration period applies if the terms were breached” is circular, incoherent, and wrong in law.

6. Blind Acceptance of Operator Assertions
The assessor’s entire reasoning rests on unverified assertions from the operator — including redacted, unsigned “contracts” and generalised claims of signage adequacy. The evidence was accepted at face value, while every legally grounded argument from the appellant was ignored. This asymmetric scrutiny is not impartial adjudication; it is de facto advocacy for the operator.

7. Institutional Lack of Accountability
I am under no illusion that POPLA will ever reverse this decision, regardless of how obvious the assessor’s failings are. However, this complaint is being lodged formally so that the resulting correspondence can be placed on record and provided to my MP and the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG).

POPLA’s refusal to revisit defective decisions, even where basic statutory requirements have been misapplied, reinforces the widespread public perception that it functions not as an independent adjudicator but as an industry shield — an extension of the very trade body it purports to regulate.

8. Requested Actions

1. A full written response addressing each of the points above.
2. Confirmation that the assessor’s legal understanding and decision-making will be reviewed by a senior adjudicator or legally qualified manager.
3. Disclosure of what retraining or disciplinary action, if any, will be taken.
4. A clear statement of POPLA’s position on whether assessors are expected to be legally trained before adjudicating statutory keeper liability cases.

9. Conclusion
This decision is an embarrassment to POPLA and a disservice to the public. It misstates statutory law, disregards persuasive appellate authority, and displays a level of analytical incompetence that renders it unfit for purpose.

If the assessor cannot be retrained to a minimum acceptable standard of legal literacy, then the only appropriate outcome is removal from post. POPLA cannot credibly claim independence or professionalism while tolerating adjudicators who cannot interpret a statute written in plain English.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]
[Your POPLA Verification Code / Case Reference]

When you get a response from POPLA, please show it to us.