Free Traffic Legal Advice

If the appeal rejection letter was issued on 1st September, then your POPLA code expires 33 days later, which would be 4th October. They allow 5 days for service (28 + 5 = 33 days). So you still have time to submit the appeal.

Use the original appeal as your primary structure. Your POPLA appeal should include:


For evidence:


DO NOT include insurance documents or anything that risks revealing who was driving.

The fact that signage was replaced is relevant. Say that by the time you received the NtK, the signs had already changed, so you were unable to gather any contemporaneous evidence. Emphasise that this makes the process unfair, as only the operator has access to the original signage and you have no way to verify the alleged terms.

Show us your POPLA appeal before you send it.

The insurance document proves nothing. My own insurance gives me third party insurance and allows me to drive any other vehicle with the owners permission. Anyone can drive any other vehicle with the owners permission as long as they have a minimum of third party cover for any vehicle.

I repeat, DO NOT send any copies of insurance documents. It is irrelevant to the matter in hand. It proves nothing. All you are doing is responding as the Keeper. The burden of proof is on the operator to show that the Keeper was the driver and they cannot do that unless the Keeper blabs that fact to them.

From looking at the PoFA it doesn't seem like there is a requirement that the NtK be issued by the creditor, only that it states who the creditor is? I left that out for now, but do let me know if I misunderstood.

I instead added failure to specify period of parking, and inflated demand amount in the NtK as PoFA non-compliance reasons.

Also.. do they have to provide evidence with the NtK, and would the lack of any such evidence render it non-compliant?

This is what I have drafted so far..

POPLA APPEAL

⸻
POPLA Verification Code: ...
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Reference: ...
Vehicle Registration Number: ...
Date of Alleged Contravention: ...
Parking Operator: P4Parking (UK) Ltd ("the Operator")

⸻
Grounds for Appeal:
This appeal is made on the following independent grounds, any one of which is sufficient to cancel the PCN:
    1. Lack of Landowner Authority: The Operator’s authority cannot override a resident's pre-existing rights granted by lease.
    2. Primacy of the Lease: The lease is the supreme legal instrument governing parking rights and does not permit the issuance of a penalty charge for the alleged conduct.
    3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA): Non-Compliant Notice to Keeper
        a.  Failure to specify the period of parking.
        b.  The amount demanded in the NtK exceeds that permitted under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.
    4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal: The keeper has been unable to mount a full appeal as evidence was removed before notice was received.


1 & 2. Lack of Landowner Authority & Primacy of the Lease
The Operator’s claim is predicated on authority it does not possess. The landowner, Southern Housing, cannot grant authority to a third party that it does not hold itself—namely, the power to penalise a resident for exercising a right already conferred by a legally binding lease.

The lease grants the resident the right "to use the Common Parts for the purposes for which they were designed or intended," with no clause requiring permit display or authorising financial penalties for parking.

Any contract between the Operator and the landowner is subordinate to this lease. Under the principle of non-derogation from grant, the landowner cannot delegate powers that diminish leaseholder rights. The Operator’s enforcement of a permit scheme not contained within the lease interferes with the resident's right to quiet enjoyment and is ultra vires.

The judgment in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [EWCA Civ 2011] affirms that a landlord cannot regulate in a way that extinguishes a granted right.

Please find attached a copy of the lease, and a signed letter from my father Paul Charman, the leaseholder, confirming that I am allowed to live at the property and park the vehicle there, and that he did not consent to third-party parking enforcement.

⸻

3. No Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

a) Failure to specify the period of parking
Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 mandates that a compliant Notice to Keeper must "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."
The Notice to Keeper issued by the Operator only states a single "parking charge date & time." This is not a "period." A period, by definition, has a duration with a start and an end. A single point in time fails to establish the duration of parking for which the alleged contravention occurred.
As the Operator has failed to meet this mandatory condition of PoFA, the Notice to Keeper is invalid.

b) Inflated Sum Demanded in Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper is invalid as it demands a sum exceeding that permitted by PoFA 2012. The original charge was £100, but the Notice to Keeper demands £125.

Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of PoFA 2012 states:

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to driver..."

By demanding more than the original charge, the Operator has failed to comply with PoFA 2012, rendering the Notice to Keeper non-compliant and thus the keeper cannot be held liable.

⸻

4. Removal of signage preventing a fair appeal
A fair appeal has been made impossible due to the removal of signage before the Notice to Keeper was received:
• Evidence Removed: On 29/07/2025, all P4Parking signage was permanently removed from the site.
• Notice Issued Post-Removal: The Notice to Keeper was received on 08/08/2025, ten days after the signage—the basis of the alleged contract—was removed.

This sequence prejudiced the keeper’s position. It is impossible to inspect or photograph the signage to challenge its adequacy, placement, or compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. This obstructs the right to a fair appeal and is further grounds for the PCN to be cancelled.

⸻
Conclusion
The PCN is unenforceable for multiple reasons:
• The Operator acted without authority, violating the primacy of the resident's lease.
• Clear defects under PoFA 2012 regarding the NtK issuer and the sum demanded.
• Procedural unfairness preventing a fair defence.

For all these reasons I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

For point 3 of your appeal, you may want to reference the persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) to the OPLA assessor which definitively pointed out that a single timestamp is not a "period of parking" so, does not comply with the requirements of PoFA.

As for the LoA, that should be good to go, but I've tweaked is slightly:

[Father’s Full Name]
[Full Address]

[Date]

Subject: Confirmation of Residency and Parking Rights – [Your Full Name], [Vehicle Registration]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am the leaseholder of the property at [full address] and confirm that my son, [Your Full Name], resides at this address with my full permission.

I also confirm that he is entitled to park the vehicle with registration [VRN] on the premises in accordance with the terms of my lease.

The lease permits residents to use the common parts, including access roads and parking areas, for their intended purposes. It contains no requirement for permits, nor does it authorise third-party enforcement. I have not consented to the imposition of any parking enforcement scheme, nor agreed to any lease variation enabling third-party operators such as P4Parking (UK) Ltd to issue parking charges to authorised residents.

This letter is provided in support of a POPLA appeal relating to PCN reference: [insert PCN number].

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]

Housing association finally responded to my request to help with cancelling the PCN..

Hi xxxxx

Our car park management company has responded.

They have advised that you have submitted an appeal to the independent regulator, POPLA and advice that you withdraw the appeal with POPLA.  Then send them confirmation that the case has been withdrawn, and they we will proceed with cancelling the parking charge.

Umm.. sounds like a trap to me 

Respond to the housing association with the following:

Subject: Re: PCN – Ongoing POPLA Appeal

Dear [Housing Officer's Name],

The suggestion that I should withdraw a live POPLA appeal in order for your contractor to “consider” cancellation is as absurd as it is inappropriate.

Let me be clear:

•The appeal stands.
•POPLA is the correct and only relevant channel at this point.
•If your agent now wishes to concede, they are free to inform POPLA accordingly.

 That is how the process works. No further nonsense is required from me.

Any attempt to pressure or induce a withdrawal is not only procedurally defective but legally reckless. You, as the principal, remain jointly and severally liable for the conduct of your appointed contractor.

If this PCN is not withdrawn, and your agent continues to pursue it despite having no legal standing to do so, the record of this correspondence will be used as evidence of unreasonable and obstructive behaviour.

I trust that brings this ridiculous suggestion to a close.

Yours sincerely,


[Your Full Name]

It's a win. The grammar in that notice shows you the level of intellectual malnourishment you are dealing with here.