Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA Appeal

Appeal Reference: [xxxxxx]

Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN NUMBER]
Vehicle Registration: [YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION]
Operator: Spring Parking
Location: Mill Parc, White Lodge Close, Isleworth, London TW7 6TH
Date of Incident: 05/03/2025

Grounds for Appeal:

1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued – No Keeper Liability Can Be Established

Spring Parking has failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NtK) as required under Schedule 4, Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Consequently, the operator cannot establish liability against the registered keeper. The sequence of correspondence demonstrates the procedural gap:

• A Notice to Driver (NtD) was issued on 05/03/2025.
• A representation was submitted on 31/03/2025 using the operator’s internal appeals process.
• Spring Parking issued a rejection on 03/04/2025 stating, “You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.”

By concluding the internal appeals process without issuing a NtK, Spring Parking has precluded itself from seeking keeper liability. It cannot retrospectively serve a NtK or rely on PoFA provisions once this procedural path has ended.

2. The NtD Fails to Comply with PoFA Schedule 4 Requirements

a) No Valid Period of Parking Specified (PoFA Paragraph 7(2)(a)):

• The NtD refers only to an “Observed Time” of 14:01 and a “Time of Issue” of 14:04.
• This 3-minute span does not constitute a verifiable period of parking.
• It is within the minimum 5-minute consideration period required under Section 8.3.2 of the Private Parking Sector Code of Practice (PPSCoP), during which the driver is permitted time to consider terms and conditions before deciding whether to stay or leave.

b) Failure to Identify the Creditor (PoFA Paragraph 7(2)(e)):

• The NtD does not specify who the actual creditor is.
• It is unclear whether Spring Parking is the creditor or acting as an agent.
• The omission of this information renders the NtD non-compliant with PoFA requirements.

3. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed

There was insufficient signage at the location entrance to inform a driver that they were entering private land subject to parking controls. The absence of clear, prominent signage means no contract could have been offered or accepted. The location presents as a residential road with no obvious demarcation, lines, or visible restrictions, reinforcing the appearance of a public street.

4. No Reasonable Consideration Period Allowed

The interval between observation and issue (14:01 to 14:04) is unreasonably short and fails to comply with the required consideration period under the PPSCoP. The vehicle was present for only three minutes—an insufficient time for any motorist to:

• Locate signage
• Read and understand the terms
• Decide whether to stay or leave

Issuing a PCN during this period is premature and contrary to industry standards of fair practice.

5. Location Appears to Be a Public Road

The vehicle was situated at a location that, by appearance and configuration, resembles a public highway. No signage or road markings indicated that private parking controls were in place. Any reasonable observer would have assumed the area was part of the public highway network.

6. Breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP)

The operator has breached PPSCoP Section 3.1.1 by failing to install an entrance sign informing motorists they are entering controlled land. This omission is particularly relevant as the location is not a car park but an open road without bay markings or restriction indicators. The allegation of “not clearly displaying a valid permit” lacks merit in the absence of adequate signage or any visible instruction that such a permit was required.

Conclusion:

Spring Parking has failed to comply with several legal and procedural requirements:

• No NtK has been issued, precluding keeper liability
• The NtD is PoFA non-compliant
• Signage is inadequate or absent
• No valid contract could have been formed
• The PPSCoP has been breached
• The alleged contravention occurred in a location resembling a public road
• The operator’s own rejection letter confirms that no further correspondence is forthcoming, and yet no NtK has been served.

As such, the appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.

I confirm that the information provided is accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Date]

Supporting Evidence:

• Copy of the Parking Charge Notice (front and back)
• Spring Parking’s appeal rejection dated 03/04/2025
• Photographs of the location showing lack of signage
• Google Maps screenshot of the location

1. Failure of the operator to issue a Notice to Keeper

The operator claims they issued a “reminder Notice to Keeper” after obtaining DVLA data, but they have not supplied a copy of this document in their evidence pack. There is also no record of any original Notice to Keeper (NtK) being issued before that. Under PoFA, a parking operator can only hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge if they serve a valid NtK within strict statutory timeframes and containing all the required information.

In this case, the operator first issued a Notice to Driver (NtD), and the registered keeper then submitted an appeal using the operator’s internal process. The operator rejected that appeal and confirmed that the internal process had ended. However, they did not issue a formal NtK before or after that stage, only stating in their evidence pack that a “reminder” was sent. A reminder is not a substitute for a PoFA-compliant NtK.

PoFA Paragraph 6(1)(a) states that if an NtD has been given, then the NtK must be served not less than 28 days and not more than 56 days after the alleged parking event. It must also include specific mandatory information as set out in Paragraph 8 of PoFA. Without a valid NtK that meets all these conditions, the operator has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable.

As no NtK has been produced and no evidence has been submitted to show that one was ever issued in the correct form or timeframe, the operator cannot rely on PoFA. Therefore, liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.

2. Failure to evidence an entrance sign defining the boundary of the private land

There is no entrance signage shown anywhere in the operator’s evidence pack. This is a serious omission, especially given that the appeal specifically raised the lack of entrance signage as a key reason why no contract could have been formed with the driver.

Under Section 3.1.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and section 19.2 of the BPA CoP (v9), it is a mandatory requirement that operators place a clear and prominent entrance sign at the entry point to the land they are managing. This sign must inform drivers that they are entering private land and that terms and conditions apply. Without such a sign, a driver cannot be expected to know they are entering a controlled area or that they may be entering into a contract by remaining on the land.

In this case, the location is not a traditional car park but a residential road with no ground markings or clear boundaries. This makes proper entrance signage even more important. If the driver entered what appears to be an ordinary residential street with no clear notice at the entry point, they would have no reasonable opportunity to know that private parking terms applied.

The operator has submitted only isolated images of signs placed somewhere within the site. These are not dated, not mapped, and not shown in context. There is no visual evidence of a sign at the point of entry to the site, and no indication that the driver would have seen or had the chance to read any terms before stopping or parking.

The absence of an entrance sign means that no contract can have been formed, and the driver was not adequately informed of any terms or charges. This is a breach of both the BPA CoP (v9) and the PPSCoP which undermines any claim that the parking charge is enforceable. The appeal should be upheld on this basis alone.

3. Failure to evidence that any contract could have been formed

The NtD issued by the operator does not evidence any breach of contract because it fails to show that the vehicle was parked for a period of time that exceeds the minimum consideration period required under the PPSCoP.

The NtD simply states an “observation time” of 14:01 and an “issue time” of 14:04. This shows only that the vehicle was present for a total of three minutes. Under Section 5.1 of the PPSCoP, a driver must be allowed a minimum consideration period of at least five minutes from entering the site before a Parking Charge Notice may be issued. This time is intended to allow drivers to locate, read, and understand the terms and conditions displayed on signs before deciding whether to accept them and remain on the land.

The operator has not provided any evidence that the vehicle remained on site beyond this minimum period. Without proof that the vehicle was parked beyond the minimum consideration period, no breach of contract can be established.

Additionally, courts have confirmed in decisions such as Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) that a single snapshot or short time period is not enough to show parking, particularly where the vehicle may have stopped only briefly to assess the terms or turn around.

As the NtD does not show any period of parking, and only records a 3-minute window, it fails to satisfy the evidential burden required to establish a breach. The operator has therefore failed to show that a contract was ever accepted and breached, and the parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.

4. Rebuttal to Operator’s Agreement – Lack of Sufficient Evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator includes a document titled "Car Park Management Agreement" in their evidence pack and seeks to rely on it as proof of their authority to operate and enforce parking charges at Mill Parc, Isleworth. However, this agreement does not meet the evidential requirements set out in Section 14 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (version 1.1, dated 17 February 2025).

The agreement is between Spring Parking Ltd and Proxima GR Properties Ltd c/o Firstport Property Services Ltd. It includes a generic statement that the client "confirms that it has authority from the site owners" to contract out car park management. However, no evidence has been provided to prove that Proxima GR or Firstport is the landowner or has been granted the necessary legal authority by the landowner to authorise parking enforcement on this site. There is no lease, deed of appointment, or written authority from the landholder confirming the capacity in which the client is acting.

Furthermore, the agreement has been signed by an individual whose name is printed, but no job title or position is given. This omission raises doubt as to whether the individual was authorised to bind the client company in this matter.

Section 14 of the Code requires operators to have written authorisation from the landholder or a person acting with the authority of the landholder. That authorisation must confirm the identity of the site, the duration of the contract, and the ability of the operator to issue parking charges. Crucially, it must also be clear that the person signing the agreement has the appropriate authority. The absence of supporting documents and the failure to identify the signatory's position mean that the operator has not discharged the burden of proof in this regard.

In summary, the agreement included in the operator’s evidence pack is insufficient to demonstrate that they hold the necessary authority to manage and enforce parking at the location. It lacks any supporting evidence of landowner status or delegated authority, and the signatory’s role is unstated, making it impossible to verify whether the agreement has been validly executed. Given the requirements of Section 14 of the PPSCoP, the operator has failed to establish that it has the legal standing to pursue parking charges at this site. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

5. Rebuttal – Misrepresentation of Keeper Appeal

In the operator’s Case Summary, it is falsely stated that an “email appeal was received from the driver.” This is factually incorrect and misleading.

The appeal was explicitly submitted by the Registered Keeper, not the driver. The wording of the appeal clearly stated:

- “The Notice to Driver (NtD) was passed to me by the driver, and I am now submitting this appeal as the Keeper. I am providing my details as the Registered Keeper...”

The operator has chosen to disregard this clear and unambiguous statement and instead recorded the appellant as “the driver”, presumably to mislead the appeals process or to suggest that liability has been admitted. This is not only inaccurate but also undermines the operator’s credibility.

Moreover, the appeal expressly instructed the operator not to request the Keeper’s data from the DVLA, since it had already been voluntarily provided. The relevant extract from the appeal reads:

- “Since you now have my details, you must not request my data from the DVLA.
Any such request would be a breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018... and a misuse of the DVLA KADOE system...”

As the operator has subsequently requested the Keeper’s details from the DVLA, this constitutes unlawful processing under the UK GDPR and a breach of their KADOE contract with DVLA.

In light of the above, any assertion that the driver appealed or admitted liability must be dismissed. The operator’s misrepresentation in their evidence undermines the reliability of their case and supports the position that the charge must be cancelled.