OK Heres my attempt at the POPLA appeal:
POPLA Appeal Draft:
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
I am appealing the parking charge notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I contest this charge on multiple grounds relating to procedural failures, evidential deficiencies, and non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
1. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not received until 10th January [year]. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the NtK must be given to the keeper within 14 days beginning with the day after the alleged parking event, or the right to recover the charge from the keeper is lost.
The parking operator has not provided proof that the NtK was sent within this 14-day period. The burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate compliance. Mere assertion is insufficient - they must provide evidence of the posting date (such as proof of postage or certificate of posting).
As the operator has failed to prove the NtK was given within the statutory timeframe, they have lost the right to pursue the keeper under the PoFA 2012, and this charge should be cancelled.
2. INSUFFICIENT AND DEFECTIVE EVIDENCE
The photographic evidence provided is fundamentally deficient:
a) Unclear Registration Plate: The entry photograph is extremely blurry and the registration plate cannot be verified beyond reasonable doubt. POPLA has consistently held that the operator must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the vehicle in the images is the one registered to the keeper. This poor-quality image fails that standard.
b) No Evidence of Continuous Parking: The operator has provided only entry and exit timestamps, not evidence that the vehicle remained parked throughout this period. The vehicle frequently makes multiple short visits to this location. Without continuous monitoring evidence (such as regular interval photographs), these images could reasonably show two separate compliant visits.
c) No Signage Photographs: Despite my request, the operator has not provided a clear photograph of the relevant signage as it appeared on the material date. Without this, I cannot verify the terms were clearly displayed or that a valid contract was formed.
3. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The British Parking Association Code of Practice (which the operator must follow as a BPA member) requires:
a) Grace Period: Section 3.3 requires a minimum 10-minute grace period for overstays. The operator has not provided evidence that this grace period was applied, nor have they demonstrated that any overstay exceeded the required grace period plus the stated maximum stay.
b) Clear Signage Requirements: Section 2 requires signs to be clearly visible on all normal entry points, of specified minimum size, and displaying all relevant terms including how to appeal. The operator has not demonstrated compliance with these requirements.
c) Adequate Appeals Information: The operator must provide clear information about appeal rights. The reminder letter directed me to a URL (paycharge.retailparkuk.co.uk) that only allowed payment with no appeal mechanism, complaints procedure, or trade association information. A different URL on the reverse did allow appeals. This confusion and omission of mandatory information constitutes a breach of the Code of Practice.
4. NO VALID CONTRACT FORMED
For a parking contract to be enforceable, the terms must be adequately communicated to the driver before parking occurs. This requires:
Clear, visible, and compliant signage at the point of entry
Terms that are legible and unambiguous
Proper notice of consequences of breach
The operator has not demonstrated that adequate signage was in place or that the terms were properly communicated. Without this, no valid contract was formed, and the charge is unenforceable.
5. CHARGE IS A PENALTY, NOT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
The parking charge appears to be a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered by the landowner. The operator has not demonstrated:
What actual loss the landowner suffered from an alleged minor overstay
How the charge amount represents a genuine pre-estimate of that loss
Under the principles established in contract law, penalty charges are unenforceable. The operator must prove the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which they have failed to do.
6. PROCEDURAL FAILURES UNDERMINE LEGITIMACY
The multiple procedural failures - inconsistent URLs, missing appeal information, failure to provide requested evidence, poor quality photographs, and apparent non-compliance with statutory and Code requirements - demonstrate a systematic failure to meet the standards required of BPA members and operators relying on the PoFA 2012.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons outlined above, this parking charge should be cancelled. The operator has:
-Failed to prove the NtK was sent within the statutory 14-day period
-Provided insufficient evidence to prove the alleged contravention
-Failed to demonstrate compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
-Not proven that a valid contract was formed
-Not demonstrated the charge is enforceable rather than a penalty
I request that POPLA find in my favor and direct the operator to cancel this charge.
Respectfully submitted,
