Free Traffic Legal Advice

Ok that’s fine. I have replied by email as instructed. Can I ask if you think this will actually go to court in the end?

Ok. Thanks for that information.

So I have finally received a response to my POPLA complaint……

Dear ……………
 
Your complaint about POPLA case ***********
 
Thank you for your webform complaint form 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.
 
We offer a single stage determinative 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 consider evidence provided by the motorist. We cannot consider further evidence after the appeal has been completed. We cannot consider further evidence or new grounds of appeal after the appeal has been completed.
 
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 you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal.
 
You state the assessor has failed to apply the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 as no period of parking is specified and as such, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which states that the notice must: “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
 
You explain the Notice to Keeper only provides a single time stamp which is a critical failure as a single moment does not constitute a period of parking or a recorded time span of observation.
 
I note you have referenced Brennan versus Premier Park.
 
You advise the period of parking must exceed the minimum consideration period and section 13.1 of the British Parking Association code of practice must be given a minimum of a five-minute consideration period.
 
You state if UKPC ‘s own evidence only records one minute; it is legally insufficient as it does not demonstrate the vehicle was parked for longer than the consideration period.
 
You explain the assessors reasoning regarding the drivers’ actions are absurd and legally irrelevant as the burden of proof rests entirely with the operator to prove a contravention occurred and if the assessor could not determine if the driver was reviewing the signs, they should be equally unable to determine that they were not reviewing the signs.
You advise by default, UKPC has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show a contract was formed before the motorist left the site.
 
The car park in question is for registered users only. Any motorists that parks on this site must have a valid permit,
 
At the time the vehicle was observed by the warden, the driver was not within the vehicle and as no permit was displayed, the terms and conditions were breached.
 
Section 13.4 of the BPA code states unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g. Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc.
 
Therefore, as motorists cannot pay to park between specific times on this site and the car park does not have a maximum parking period, the single image captured by the warden is sufficient to show the period of parking as required by POFA.
 
I acknowledge your comments regarding the assessor’s reasoning regarding the driver’s actions however, as the vehicle was not authorised to park and was not registered for a permit and therefore, was not entitled to a consideration period, I do not consider this be relevant.
 
You state the assessor disregarded to prohibitory nature of the signage as these state no unauthorised parking which is not an offer of parking under specific terms, it is a prohibition and therefore a contract cannot be formed.
 
You explain a contract require an offer acceptance and consideration, yet the signs do not offer parking it simply prohibits unauthorised vehicles.
The signage on this site only prohibits unauthorised vehicles from parking. The parking contract allows vehicles that are registered for a permit to park on site, therefore, I do not agree that the signage on this site are prohibitive.
 
You advise the signage does not prominently display the parking charge amount in a manner which would make it an obvious and the supreme court ruling in Parking Eye versus Beavis established the terms must be prominent,
 
When considering an appeal, the assessor will review the evidence provided by both parties. They will base their decision on
Relevant law
The British Parking Association's code of practice
Evidence provided by both parties
 
They will then use their own judgment in reaching their outcome.
 
On reviewing the decision, it is clear the assessor has considered this ground, and they were satisfied the parking charge amount was sufficiently prominent and met the requirements of section 19.4 of the BPA code and POFA.
 
On reviewing the evidence provided, I agree with the assessor’s determination.
 
You state that POPLA assessors fail to understand POFA and apply basic law. You advise POPLA consistently favour operators and apply different standards to appellants and operators and POPLA training standards are substandard and exhibit a deficiency in assessors’ knowledge.
POPLA has been appointed by the BPA to consider appeals against its members.
 
We are funded by the BPA. We charge the BPA for each case that we decide, and they pass the costs on to the industry. We charge the same fee regardless of the outcome of the case so our decisions are not commercially driven.
 
Neither the British Parking Association or any operator has any control over our decision-making and, therefore, we are impartial and independent of the sector.
 
You have requested:

A written response acknowledging that the decision contained material legal errors.

On reviewing both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the evidence presented and there are no errors within the decision.
 
Confirmation that this complaint has been recorded.
Your complaint has been recorded in line with the POPLA process.
 
You state that POPLA assessors fail to understand POFA and apply basic law. You advise POPLA consistently favour operators and apply different standards to appellants and operators and POPLA training standards are substandard and exhibit a deficiency in assessors’ knowledge.
And would like confirmation of:
 
An internal review of how POFA training is delivered to POPLA assessors.
 
A response explaining why POPLA continues to misapply POFA, despite these issues being raised in multiple formal complaints.
 
I note your comments, and I can confirm that all POPLA assessors receive appropriate training on the relevant laws and the BPA code or practice.
 
All assessors must also pass an accreditation process following their training programme and receive regular internal quality audits as well as coaching and personal development.
 
If an assessor is found to misunderstand POFA, they will receive appropriate additional training and support.
 
You state you understand that POPLA decision has no legal weight and is not binding on you. Therefore, should the operator try and litigate over this, you will argue this case before a properly trained judge in court, where the assessors legally flawed determination will be exposed.
 
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 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
 
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.
 
Yours sincerely,

Paul Garrity
POPLA Complaints

So here is the reply I received from DCB legal…..

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

 

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office dated 8th July 2025.     

 

We have made a record of the contents of your correspondence and noted this on your file accordingly. We now respond to the same as follows.

 

Prior to the issue of the parking charge, our Client applied to the DVLA for the details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. Your name and address (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) were provided. Our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address. Having not received payment, address verification was carried out prior to the Letter of Claim being sent. Your address was located and as such the Letter of Claim was issued to you at the traced address, which has remained unchanged.

 

Further to the above, Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”) states “The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”. For the purpose of the Act; “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper. The DVLA confirmed that you were the Registered Keeper at the time the parking charge notice was issued and as such you are presumed to be the Keeper. Our Client therefore has the right to recover the parking charge from you as the Keeper of the vehicle.

 

It is our position that on the balance of probabilities, if you were not the driver, you would have nominated.

 

The initial parking charge was not affixed to the vehicle, at the material time but was however observed by a warden. After the parking contravention was observed the Notice to keeper was sent to your address.

 

 

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. The breach in contract would make you liable for a parking charge.

 

The signage on site, is erected in line with our Clients regulators (BPA) in order to allow a reasonable driver to be notified of the terms and conditions operating on the site prior to them parking their vehicle. As such the signage on site, is sufficient given the size and capacity of the car park. Images of the signs are enclosed.

 

The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit/ticket, or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. A valid permit/ticket was not on display on the date of contravention and as such the parking charge was issued correctly.
 
 
You should always be vigilant when entering any land that you are not familiar with or that you know is privately owned and there are parking terms in place. As the driver of the vehicle it is your responsibility at all material times to ensure you understand the terms and conditions operating on the land prior to exiting your vehicle. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have read and understood the terms operating prior to parking your vehicle.     

 

An appeal with our client directly which was unsuccessful. To date our clients position remains the same and as such your appeal and their response is enclosed within this correspondence.

 

 In regard to the debt recovery fee of £70.00 being claimed, you would have been made aware of this through the signs available on the car parks site as previously mentioned above. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

 

The HMRC ‘VAT Supply and Consideration manual’ (VATSC06140), which was last updated on 02 September 2020, confirmed that parking charge notices falls out of the scope of VAT. There is no requirement for a VAT invoice to be issued to you.

 

You may wish to seek independent legal advice in this regard. Our client pursuing this matter through the Small Claims Court is the correct course of action.

 

DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.

 

 

You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.


Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
Sort Code: 20-24-09
Account Number: 60964441
 

You must quote the correct case reference (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

 

We would ask that you kindly furnish us with your most up to date telephone number and email address, this can be emailed to us at info@dcblegal.co.uk.

 

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

Kind Regards,
 
Isabel Mwamba
Administration Associate
DCB Legal Ltd

Thank you, I will send that over to her.

Please find attached all evidence we currently have on file. 

What was attached?

Should I reply to them? I’m surprised they didn’t put the offer of the settlement in the email.