Free Traffic Legal Advice

Welcome to FTLA.

To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

They cannot use ANPR to try and identify anyone, no matter how clear the image. They will have no idea of the identity of the person in the photo. There is no magical unicorn database they can shove a photo of someone into and out will spew that persons details.

We already have an ongoing case for this exact location.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and they have breached the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). You have until Tuesday 4th March to appeal, which they will reject but will get you a POPLA code.

Easy one to deal with... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CEL has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

So you now have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit an appeal to POPLA. ( know it says you have 28 days but the code is actually valid for 33 days).

Let's see what we have to work with. The driver was not aware of the requirement to purchase a permit within 10 minutes of arrival until they went to actually purchase the permit. So, we have a problem with the signage at the location. Looking at the most recent images on GSV from October 2024, there is a scarcity of signs at this location.

However, the car was on site from 0933 to 1121. That's a period of 1:48. A permit for 1:30 of parking was purchased, albeit after the supposed 10 minutes of having entered the car park. Even allowing a 10 minute grace period, that is still 8 minutes over the permit period. So, the "payment was not made in accordance with the notified terms", which is what they are alleging on the NtK.

What is not clear is which "notified term" they are referring to. Is it because the permit purchased did not cover the period of parking or is it because the permit was not purchased within 10 minutes of entering the car park? This lack of clarity could be useful.

POPLA will not consider anything except breaches of the law or the PPSCoP. Mitigation does not come into it.

So, the signage at the location is defective because it does not adequately bring to the motorists attention, the charge for breaching any of the terms. The lack of signs and the information on Themis a breach of the PPSCoP. However, signage is still covered under the old BPA CoP v9, so you need to look up what it says about signage in that document.

If the only mention that payment has to be made within 10 minutes of entering the car park is on the payment machine rather than on the terms signs, then that is one obvious problem for CEL. The other is the lack of signs and the clarity of the terms on them and whether the charge for breaching those terms is adequately brought to the motorists attention.

The next consideration is whether the PCN has been issued correctly and whether they can transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. CEL have no idea who the driver was. Only that you are the Registered Keeper (RK). Whether the RK was the driver or not is irrelevant unless the RK tells CEL that they were the driver. As far as CEL are concerned, if they want to be able to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known RK, the NtK must fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA.

They state on the NtK that they are relying on PoFA to be able to do this. Unfortunately, simply stating that they are relying on PoFA does not make it so. Whilst a Quick Look at the NtK would appear to suggest that it is PoFA compliant, and it is if only considering the obvious points of PoFA 9(4)(b) because it was "given" within the relevant 14 day period. Also, it does appear to have the correct wording on the back... or does it?

PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires the NtK to invite the Keeper to pay the charge or pass the drivers details to the operator. If you carefully read the wording on the back, at no point does it invite the Keeper to pay the charge. Have very careful read of the wording on the back of the NtK and you will see...

We have photographic evidence of this incident. You are notified under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that it is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking charge in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver. You can therefore choose to pay or appeal the unpaid parking charge but you cannot do both; or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice on to the driver.

The wording does not include the required invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Instead, it makes assumptions about the recipient’s role and options, which are inconsistent with the strict wording required by PoFA.

The key failings are:


So, the wording does not comply with PoFA because it fails to contain the mandatory "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge. This means CEL cannot hold the keeper liable, and any claim against the keeper under PoFA should fail at POPLA or in court.

The next point to consider is whether the PCN has been issued correctly and in accordance with the requirements of the PPSCoP. Here are couple of obvious points where they have failed to comply:

On the front of the NtK it states:

This notice is issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, By parking or remaining at the car park/private land in the circumstances above, the terms and conditions clearly set out on the signage throughout the car park were breached, In accordance with those terms and conditions, the Parking Charge is now payable to Civil Enforcement Limited. Failure to pay the full amount due within 28 days of the issue date may result in Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Creditor) taking debt recovery action or forwarding this account to a debt recovery agency and/or Issuing court proceedings, that will incur further debt recovery fees of up to £70 and/or additional costs for which you may be liable.

PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2 establish that an NtK is presumed to be delivered (received) on the second working day after it was posted, and the 28-day period for appeal or payment runs from that delivery date. The front of the NtK falsely threatens that debt recovery may begin if payment is not made within 28 days of the issue date.

This is a direct contradiction of the PPSCoP, which prohibits debt recovery action until the full PoFA-compliant appeal/payment period has expired. Since debt recovery cannot lawfully start before the PPSCoP timeframe is exhausted, this statement is a clear procedural breach which invalidates the PCN.

Further to this PPSCoP breach, it also adds another failure to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA. PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that the NtK states that the charge will only become payable by the keeper if it remains unpaid after 28 days from the day after the notice is "given" (which is legally presumed to be two working days after posting).

However, the wording on the front of the NtK wrongly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the issue date, which is an entirely different timeframe. This misrepresents the legal position because PoFA makes it clear that the charge does not become due from the keeper until 29 days after the date the NtK is deemed delivered.

Since the notice does not comply with this requirement, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. The operator has misstated the deadline for payment, meaning keeper liability does not apply. Also, the premature debt recovery threat is a serious procedural violation that undermines the fairness of the process.

That is enough for you to be going on with. Show us anything you intend to send as your POPLA appeal before you send it so that we can confirm or advise on adjustments if necessary. There are plenty of POPLA appeals on the forum that you can search for to get an idea of the format.

On your signage point, you should include images to demonstrate your point where possible.

Hi,

I intend to send the following to POPLA. Please advise of any necessary adjustments. Thanks.


I am appealing the Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Parking Practice Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The PCN fails to meet the necessary legal standards for the following reasons:

1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)

Under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details to the operator. However, the back of the NtK states:

“We have photographic evidence of this incident. You are notified under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that it is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking charge in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver. You can therefore choose to pay or appeal the unpaid parking charge but you cannot do both; or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice on to the driver.”

This wording does not constitute the required "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge, as set out in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). The language used is vague and does not comply with the strict requirements of PoFA, which specifically mandates that the notice must invite the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details.

Key failings include:
• No clear invitation for the keeper to pay: The notice does not explicitly state that the keeper is invited to pay the charge, as required by PoFA. Instead, it merely offers the option to "choose to pay or appeal," which is not the same as an invitation to assume liability.
• Assumption that the recipient is the driver: The notice incorrectly assumes the recipient is the driver, stating "it is the driver's responsibility to pay." It fails to make clear that the keeper can be held liable only if PoFA's conditions are met.
• Failure to transfer liability to the keeper: PoFA requires the notice to explicitly state that the keeper is liable if the driver is not identified. The NtK does not clearly transfer liability to the keeper.

2. Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e)

PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) states that the NtK is considered delivered two working days after posting. The 28-day period for payment or appeal starts from this deemed delivery date. However, the NtK incorrectly states that debt recovery action may begin if payment is not made within 28 days of the issue date, which is contrary to the PPSCoP. Debt recovery cannot legally begin until the full appeal period has expired. This breach of procedure invalidates the PCN.

3. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f)

PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that the charge becomes payable by the keeper only if it remains unpaid after 28 days from the date the NtK is deemed delivered. However, the NtK incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days from the issue date, which is not in line with PoFA. The charge is only due from the keeper 29 days after the notice is deemed delivered, not 28 days from the issue date. This error creates a procedural defect, invalidating the NtK. Additionally, PPSCoP prohibits early debt recovery threats, making CEL’s wording misleading and unfair.

4. Keeper Liability is Not Applicable
Due to the operator's failure to comply with the legal requirements of PoFA and PPSCoP, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for this charge. I am not legally obligated to identify the driver, and since the NtK does not meet PoFA’s mandatory requirements, keeper liability does not apply.

CEL’s inability to transfer liability under PoFA due to these errors means they cannot pursue the registered keeper. Therefore, POPLA must uphold the appeal on this basis alone.

5. Defective Signage

The signage at the car park entry was inadequate. The driver purchased a permit covering the exit time of 11:21 am but was unaware of the requirement to purchase a permit within 10 minutes of arrival. The signage at the entry did not clearly state this 10-minute rule, which contributed to the alleged contravention.
This 10-minute rule is unreasonable, as it is not communicated clearly upon entry, and drivers may miss it until it’s too late. (Image of entry sign attached)
As per the BPA Code of Practice v9, signage must be clear, visible, and unambiguous in communicating the terms.

Summary of Failures:
• The NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as it fails to invite the keeper to pay the charge or provide the driver's details.
• The NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) due to an incorrect liability start date.
• The NtK does not comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) by failing to clearly communicate the 28-day appeal deadline.
• Keeper liability cannot apply due to these non-compliances.
• The signage at the location is defective, particularly regarding the 10-minute permit purchase requirement.

Given these significant issues, the Parking Charge is unenforceable against the registered keeper. I respectfully urge POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the charge, recognizing that CEL has failed to meet its legal obligations.
This appeal is submitted in good faith, supported by the relevant sections of PoFA and PPSCoP. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice in full.

I have made adjustments based on advice given and have submitted my appeal to POPLA. I would never have been able to come up with such good points without the advice from this website. Thank you very much and will keep this post updated with outcome.

You respond by copying and pasting the following text into the POPLA response webform. It is just under the 10,000 character limits and rebuts their evidence pack and their failure to respond to your appeal points:

The operator's response fails to address key issues raised in my POPLA appeal and contains several flaws that render their claim invalid.

The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the statutory wording required under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as it does not include a proper invitation for the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details. The operator has also failed to respond to the second key point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the failure of their NtK to comply with PoFA, specifically the lack of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

PoFA requires that a NtK must clearly and explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. This is a legal requirement, not an optional inclusion. The operator cannot rely on implied obligation—the wording must be clear and unambiguous.

The operator’s NtK states that the driver is required to pay the charge and tells the keeper to provide the driver’s details if they were not the driver. However, there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.

PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the charge. It does not attach any conditions to that invitation, such as stating that the keeper must have been the driver. However, this NtK only explains what happens if the keeper was not the driver, without a direct invitation for the keeper to pay. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

My appeal pointed out that the operator’s NtK fails to include this required invitation. Rather than addressing this clear legal failure, the operator has entirely ignored the issue in their evidence pack. If the operator believed their NtK was compliant, they would have provided direct evidence that their notice contains the required wording. Their silence on this point confirms that their NtK does not comply with PoFA. The wording used is ambiguous and does not meet the strict requirements of PoFA. The operator has not addressed this issue in their evidence pack. If they believed their NtK was compliant, they would have rebutted this argument and justified the wording. Their silence on this point indicates they have no valid defense. POPLA should treat their failure to engage with this issue as a concession that their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and that keeper liability cannot be enforced.

The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f), as it incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days from the issue date rather than the date of deemed delivery. The operator was required to provide strict proof that their NtK fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, allowing them to lawfully transfer liability to the registered keeper. As already demonstrated, their NtK fails to meet the statutory requirements in several key areas. It does not correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f), and it also fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Since full compliance with PoFA is an absolute requirement for transferring liability, these failures render the NtK non-compliant, and liability cannot pass to the keeper. This fundamental misrepresentation of PoFA requirements means that keeper liability cannot apply.

The operator has failed to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The latest amendments were made only days before the contravention occurred, and the changes were introduced in response to widespread public concern about operators issuing charges for minor administrative delays in payment, despite the full parking fee being paid.

Annex F1(j) of the PPSCoP explicitly states:

"Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as:
j) a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park."

This clause was introduced to prevent precisely the kind of unfair charge being pursued in this case. The operator does not dispute that full payment was made for the entire duration of parking before the vehicle left the car park. Their reliance on an arbitrary rule requiring payment within 10 minutes of arrival is exactly the type of unfair practice that the updated PPSCoP was designed to eliminate.

The signage at the site is inadequate. The operator claims that clear signage was present, but the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the terms, specifically the 10-minute payment rule, were adequately communicated upon entry. The BPA Code of Practice requires that signs must be clear and legible so that motorists can read them before deciding to park. The operator has failed to prove that the signage meets this standard. Their own evidential photos show that the 10-minute limitation is buried in tiny font in a wall of text, and in no way can that form part of any contract by conduct if it is not adequately brought to the driver's attention.

The operator references the Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case is not relevant here. That case concerned a retail car park with a free stay period and a deterrent charge to ensure turnover of spaces. In contrast, this case involves a paid car park where the driver paid in full for the entire duration of parking. There is no commercial justification for this charge, as no financial loss was suffered by the landowner. The operator's attempt to rely on Beavis is therefore misplaced.

The operator asserts that keeper liability applies under PoFA, but this is incorrect. Furthermore, if the operator wished to hold the registered keeper liable, they were required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing was, in fact, the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. The law does not allow inference that the registered keeper was the driver, and the burden rests entirely on the operator to provide evidence proving this. In VCS v Edward [2023], the court ruled that an operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. The operator has failed to provide any such evidence in their response pack. This is because of the PoFA failures already pointed out in the appeal.

The operator’s failure to rebut the specific PoFA non-compliance issues raised in my appeal, coupled with their failure to provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, means they have no lawful basis to pursue me, the keeper, for this charge. The absence of any meaningful response to these fundamental legal failures should be taken as a concession that their case is without merit. The appeal must be upheld, and the PCN must be cancelled. As demonstrated in my appeal, the NtK is not PoFA compliant, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable. The operator cannot lawfully transfer liability to the keeper when their notice fails to meet the mandatory legal requirements.

The operator suggests that matters raised in my POPLA appeal were not included in the initial appeal to them. However, there is no requirement for an appellant to raise all arguments in their initial appeal. POPLA considers appeals independently, and all relevant legal and procedural errors must be taken into account regardless of when they were first raised.

The operator's own evidence confirms that full payment was made for the period of parking. The operator has completely failed to address Point 2 of my appeal, which highlights their clear breach of the PPSCoP. Instead of responding to this fundamental issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify or explain their non-compliance.

The NtK misleads by instructing to pay or appeal within 28 days of the issue of the NtK. However, under the PPSCoP, specifically Section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2, the correct appeal deadline is 28 days from the "receipt" date, not the "issue" date. The PPSCoP makes it clear that a NtK sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting unless proven otherwise. By setting an incorrect deadline, the operator misrepresents the keeper’s rights and misleads them into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do.

The operator’s failure to respond to this point means they implicitly accept that their NtK contains misleading information. They have not provided any explanation or justification for their failure to comply with the PPSCoP, nor have they attempted to correct the misrepresentation. Their silence on this matter should be taken as an admission that their demand was inaccurate and misleading.

Under POPLA’s own appeal assessment principles, if an appellant raises a valid challenge and the operator does not respond to it, the appeal must be upheld. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate compliance with the CoP and fairness in their communications. Their failure to do so means they have not discharged that burden, and the appeal should be allowed.

As this appeal point remains uncontested, the misleading NtK alone is sufficient to invalidate the PCN. The sole reason for issuing this charge is an arbitrary rule about when payment must be made. As per Annex F1(j) of the updated PPSCoP, such a charge is now expressly prohibited. POPLA should consider this amendment as persuasive guidance and uphold my appeal.

For the reasons set out above, this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.