Free Traffic Legal Advice

When submitting the challenge, do I include photos of the signage in the pdf, or just make my points about the signs not complying and let them look for themselves?

Dear Assessor,

The contract that we are seeking payment on has arisen from a breach of the notified terms and conditions of parking stated on the signs that the landowner has requested us to erect and permitted to remain erected at this location. The evidence demonstrates that the signage, including the entrance signs, is clearly located to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions and the potential consequences of non-adherence to the terms have been made fully available "PRIVATE ROAD, MONITORED PARKING IN OPERATION SATURDAY 11am – 12pm, 1pm-2pm, 3:30-4:30pm and 7-8pm.
UNAUTHORISED PARKING BY MEANS OF NOT SHOWING A CLEARLY DISPLAYED VALID PERMIT IN THE WINDSCREEN WILL RESULT IN A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE OF £100 BEING ISSUED".
The charge was issued because the appellant's vehicle was parked without a valid permit on Saturday between 1pm and 2pm, which directly contravened the terms and conditions of parking.
The evidence demonstrates that the entrance sign makes it clear that motorists enter private land managed by our company on behalf of the landowner. It is also clear in its communication that terms and conditions apply. The terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention. The signage stands out from the surroundings of the site. The signage is displayed as black text on a white background, making it prominent to all motorists when they park. The sum payable for unauthorised parking is printed in larger bold letters, which is more than visible when reviewing the signage. The signage at the location in question is BPA compliant and would have been visible when the driver arrived on site. Whilst we note the appellant has raised lighting within their grounds of appeal, the signage on site is made of retro-reflective material, ensuring visibility if illuminated by vehicle headlights. However, the contravention took place during daylight hours, and therefore, the driver had sufficient lighting to review the terms and conditions of parking. It was then the driver's responsibility to ensure they sought out and adhered to the advertised terms. By instead choosing to ignore the terms and remain without a valid on display, the driver became liable for a parking charge.
It is important to note that the operator does not have to issue a notice directly to the driver of the vehicle, as it can hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. For a Notice to Keeper to be compliant with PoFA 2012, as detailed in section 9(2)(f) “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) 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.” The Notice to Keeper correctly conveys this information. It states the keeper has ‘If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details’, which is the equivalent of ‘28 days beginning the day after the that on which the notice is given’. This is compliant with PoFA Act 2012 requirements, and therefore, the parking charge is BPA and POFA 2012 compliant. The evidence does not indicate that the keeper provided us with the relevant information to transfer liability to the driver. By failing to provide the driver's details, the appellant has assumed liability for this PCN.
The appellant also says that the PCN does not comply with paragraph 9(2) (a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, which states: “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The PCN states the location, the date and time of the contravention and also contains images of the vehicle parked at the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The PCN is therefore PoFA compliant.
Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the site's terms in order to avoid the possibility of a PCN being issued."

Hi, sorry to chase. Just seems a shame to end up being rejected just because I haven't replied to their response
Or do they make a good arguement that should spur me to back down?

Here is a rebuttal you can use by simply copying and pasting into the POPLA response webform. I tis under 10,000 characters but only covers 3 points they haven't fully answered but may be enough to make the assessor take note:

POPLA Rebuttal:

1. The operator claims their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) by stating:

"If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper."

This statement does not comply with the requirements set out in PoFA 9(2)(f)2. PoFA requires strict compliance, and the operator's failure to use the prescribed wording renders the NtK invalid for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper.

What Does PoFA 9(2)(f) Actually Require?

Paragraph 9(2)(f) states that the NtK must:

"Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) 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."

This wording is legally significant and must be included in the NtK in its entirety and without alteration. The operator’s paraphrasing fails to meet this requirement.

Why the Operator’s Wording Fails to Comply:

The operator's NtK incorrectly states:

"If after 29 days we have not received full payment or driver details, we may seek to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper."

This wording is inadequate for the following reasons:

The operator has incorrectly altered the statutory timeline. PoFA requires the notice to state that liability may be transferred if payment or driver details are not received "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given." The operator’s version simply says "29 days," which is not the same thing and is legally incorrect.

The operator’s wording fails to clearly convey the legal consequences of failing to identify the driver. PoFA requires a clear warning that the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper if the conditions are met. The operator’s statement is vague and fails to adequately communicate this point.

The operator’s wording removes essential context. PoFA specifies that liability only transfers if the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. The operator has omitted this critical information from their NtK.

Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required

PoFA is clear that parking operators must follow its requirements strictly in order to hold a registered keeper liable. The courts have consistently upheld that strict compliance is mandatory. The operator’s failure to comply with Paragraph 9(2)(f) means they have not met the legal requirements necessary to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

This failure renders the NtK invalid. The operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge when their notice does not comply with the law.

Conclusion

The operator’s NtK does not comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f). The operator’s attempt to paraphrase and simplify the required wording has resulted in a material failure to meet the statutory requirements. As a result, liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper.

2. The operator also claims that the NtK is compliant with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(a) because it includes a date and time of the alleged contravention and photographs of the vehicle. The operator states:

"The PCN states the location, the date and time of the contravention and also contains images of the vehicle parked at the site, which is sufficient to identify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The PCN is therefore PoFA compliant."

This is incorrect and misleading. The operator is attempting to brush off a mandatory legal requirement by arguing that a single timestamp is sufficient to meet the requirement to specify the “period of parking.” This is not what PoFA requires.

What Does PoFA 9(2)(a) Actually Require?

PoFA 9(2)(a) clearly states:

"The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The key requirement here is that the NtK must specify the “period of parking” — this refers to a duration of time during which the vehicle was parked.

This is a fundamental requirement under PoFA because the length of time the vehicle was parked is critical to determining whether any contravention actually occurred. A single timestamp (e.g., "12:30 PM") is not the same as a period of parking and does not meet the legal requirement to specify the vehicle’s presence on the land for a defined period of time.

Why a Single Timestamp Fails to Meet the Requirement:

The operator’s NtK only provides a single point in time (the moment their ANPR system captured an image of the vehicle). However, the law requires them to specify a continuous period of time that the vehicle was allegedly parked.

For example:

A compliant NtK would state, "The vehicle was parked from 12:00 PM to 12:45 PM."

A non-compliant NtK (like the one provided by the operator) simply states, "The vehicle was photographed at 12:30 PM."

A single point in time (such as the moment the vehicle was photographed) does not indicate how long the vehicle was parked or whether it was parked at all. The vehicle could have simply been passing through the site, briefly stopping, or momentarily idling.

Without a period of parking being specified, the NtK fails to establish whether a parking contravention occurred at all.

What the Courts Have Said About This:

The requirement to specify a period of parking has been tested in court. In ParkingEye Ltd v Ms X (Altrincham County Court, 2017), the judge confirmed that a single timestamp does not meet the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a). The judge held that:

"A single timestamp does not constitute a 'period of parking.' The law requires a duration of time to be specified in order to transfer liability to the keeper."

The judge further stated that:

"The Protection of Freedoms Act is a statute that must be adhered to strictly by parking operators in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper. Deviating from the requirements, even slightly, renders the notice invalid."

Why This Failure Renders the NtK Invalid:

Because the operator has failed to specify the period of parking as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a), the NtK does not comply with PoFA. As such, the operator cannot hold the registered keeper liable for this parking charge.

In the absence of PoFA compliance, the only person liable would be the driver. However, the operator has not identified the driver and therefore cannot pursue the registered keeper.

The Operator’s Attempt to Brush This Off Must Be Rejected:

The operator is trying to gloss over a clear and significant failure in their NtK by claiming that a single timestamp is sufficient. It is not.

They have no basis in law to support this claim, and their interpretation of Paragraph 9(2)(a) is entirely incorrect. PoFA compliance is not a matter of opinion or "close enough" — the law requires strict compliance.

Example of How a Compliant NtK Should Look:

To further illustrate this point to the assessor, here’s an example of what a compliant NtK should specify:

Compliant NtK: "The vehicle was parked from 12:00 PM to 12:45 PM on 21st December 2024."

Non-Compliant NtK (What the operator provided): "The vehicle was photographed at 12:30 PM on 21st December 2024."

As shown, the operator’s NtK only specifies a single moment in time. This does not meet the legal requirement to specify a period of parking as required by PoFA.

POPLA Must Dismiss This Parking Charge

Given the operator’s clear failure to comply with PoFA, this NtK is invalid, and the operator cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper for this charge.

3. One of my original grounds for appeal was that the operator had failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary contractual authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at this site. The operator has not adequately responded to this point.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires parking operators to have a valid written contract with the landowner or person entitled to grant such authority. This contract must provide clear authorisation to manage parking on the land and issue parking charges. It is also a requirement that this authority must be produced in the event of a dispute.

The operator has not provided any evidence of such a contract. It is not sufficient for the operator to claim that they are authorised by the landowner. They must produce a copy of the contract or agreement, even in a redacted form, to prove they have this authority.

The necessity for the operator to provide this evidence is further supported by case law. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court confirmed that a parking operator must be able to demonstrate that they have a valid contract with the landowner to enforce parking charges. Without this, the parking charge is not valid.

I request that the POPLA assessor requires the operator to submit a copy of their contract with the landowner, redacted only for commercially sensitive information. If the operator is unable to provide this evidence, the appeal must be upheld.

It is important to note that the operator has not even claimed to have provided such evidence. This is a critical omission. Their failure to demonstrate landowner authority must be taken seriously, as it calls into question the legality of the entire parking charge.

In summary, the operator’s failure to provide evidence of landowner authority is a fundamental failure. I request that the appeal be upheld on this point alone.

You'd need to be careful not to exceed the 10,000 character limit. The text I provided is 9,974 characters. You can easily remove some of the waffle I've included, just to make the assessor earn their pay.

Hey I'm back
Popla just messaged rejecting my appeal

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to display a valid permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • As the registered keeper they are not responsible for the requested fee. • Due to improper signage and lack of compliance with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), they neither believe that any contract was entered into, nor that there is any burden on them to identify the driver or pay on their behalf. • The signage is not illuminated. • The operator does not have authority to issue charges on the site. In the comments the appellant reiterates and expands on their grounds of appeal in that the PCN does not comply with PoFA 2012. They say that in their original appeal that the operator had failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary contractual authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at this site. They say that the PCN does not clarify the period of parking and the single timestamp is not sufficient. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal which includes images of signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site on the day in question. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. The 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 British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The appellant advises that the signage is inadequate and not illuminated. Section 19.2 advises that entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided a site map and multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.2 and 19.3 of the Code of Practice. The signage on the site clearly advises that failing to display a valid permit in the windscreen will result in a PCN being issued. I note that the appellant has advised that the signage is not illuminated however as they had parked on the site during daylight hours I am satisfied that the operator is not required to rebut this The images of the vehicle provided by the operator show that the permit on view is not the relevant permit for the site. The appellant states that the PCN Is not PoFA compliant. 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. The appellant questions whether the operator has authority to issue PCNs on the site. 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. The operator has provided a contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue and pursue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information. After considering the evidence from both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to display a valid permit and therefore the driver did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Thoughts on where to go from here?
Thanks as always
E

It means that you now move on to the next phase. You are not bound by a POPLA appeal rejection. Do not pay anything.

Before we move on, I agree with the comments in the post above. What is the name of the POPLA assessor. It is in the public domain so no need to withhold it. I keep a record of POPLA assessors who are quite clearly in need to further education on the law and their use of language.

In this case, that closing sentence needs a formal complaint about the assessor to the POPLA management:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Misleading and Legally Inaccurate Language in POPLA Decision

Dear POPLA,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the final sentence of the decision issued in my appeal reference [INSERT POPLA REFERENCE], which reads:

“This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.”

This statement is legally inaccurate, misleading, and beyond the remit of POPLA’s powers. POPLA is not a court of law and cannot impose a legal requirement to pay. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides a statutory route for a parking operator to pursue a keeper in court, but no legal requirement to pay arises from a POPLA decision. At best, a POPLA rejection simply removes the operator’s obligation to offer the reduced payment amount and leaves them the option to pursue the matter through civil proceedings.

The phrase “required to pay” implies a binding obligation resulting from the POPLA outcome, which grossly misrepresents the legal position and may mislead vulnerable or uninformed appellants into believing they no longer have the right to challenge or dispute the parking charge.

I request that this matter be reviewed, and that:

1. The language used in future decisions be corrected to reflect the actual legal implications of a POPLA outcome.
2. POPLA issue clarification on the non-binding nature of its decisions.
3. The assessor responsible for this decision receives appropriate feedback or retraining.

I look forward to your response confirming that this complaint has been logged and investigated.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]

As for the rest of this moronic assessment by an obviously incompetent assessor, just ignore it. There are so many other flaws in their assessment and failures to fully address the points raised in the initial appeal and the subsequent rebuttal, that I am not going to waste more time on this.

You can now expect a flurry of powerless debt recovery letters which you can safely ignore. We don't need to know about them and you can shred them into hamster bedding for all anyone cares.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) or an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNCB, come back and show us so that we can advise on how to deal with it.

When you receive a response to the formal complaint to POPLA, please show us their response.

I find it so annoying that we cannot do anything to hold ridiculous individuals and (apparently) independent adjudication forums like POPLA and IAS accountable.