Free Traffic Legal Advice

An update on the back of a rejection from POPLA. The operators evidence pack includes the comment that “Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

The decision was issued on 27 June by Ellie Appleton and says;-

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:
 • ParkingEye's Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA
 • ParkingEye cannot assume the keeper was the driver
 • No valid contract has been formed due to inadequate and unclear signage
 • No evidence of a valid and current landowner authority, they reference Section 7.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. They are the registered keeper of the vehicle, and the operator has confirmed that the charge was not issued under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They reiterate how the operator has failed to comply with PoFA. (No we did not - complete misrepresentation of the response to operators evidence as that used the wording provided previously on page 1 of the thread)

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day.

The appellant has stated in their appeal that the operator’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA, and that they cannot assume the keeper was the driver on the day of the contravention. 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 and I am satisfied the operator has complied with PoFA.

The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who remain at the car park for longer than the authorised stay. The appellant stated in their appeal that no valid parking contract has been formed due to inadequate and unclear signage. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. From further reviewing the signs, along with the site map also provided, I am satisfied the operator has complied with Section 3.1.3 of The Code, as the signs provided show that there is maximum stay of 1 hour 30 minutes, this is also shown in large, bold writing to make motorists aware.

The rest of the terms are also in a clear and unambiguous state, I am satisfied they are clear enough for motorists to view both in and out of the vehicle. It is up to motorists to seek out these signs and read them to ensure they are compliant with the terms that have been set out on the site. In terms of no valid contract being formed, the operator provided a copy of the PCN which confirms the appellant spent 1 hour 47 minutes at the car park. Due to the time frame of this, I am satisfied they have gained utility of this site and have therefore agreed to the terms that have been set out, whether the signs were read or not. Should the driver not have agreed to the terms, they should have left the site and found alternative parking.

The appellant has stated in their appeal that there is no evidence of landowner authority and reference Section 7.1.3 of The Code. Section 14.1 of the Code references to the landowner and sets out the expectations from this. It 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. In this case, the copy of the agreement sent meets the standards required by POPLA. Based on the agreement presented, along with the camera technology and signage erected within the car park itself, I am satisfied the operator has permission from the landowner to manage and issue PCN's on the land when a breach of the advertised terms are observed. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist remained at the car park for longer than the authorised stay and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

So while we await the stream of pointless debt collection correspondence I’m turning our attention to other aspects of this and seeking advice as to whether;-

1. Clearly the POPLA examiner is either incompetent or so desperate to side with the parking company that they are ignoring the facts - so should we be complaining to POPLA ( I know they won’t change their decision) - interestingly when the operator uploaded their evidence the RK responded to POPLA to say that the contract provided to show their entitlement to issue notices on that land was illegible and asking them to get a further copy uploaded. Their response said;-
“We are unable to request the parking operator to resend the evidence again. We have viewed the evidence, and while we agree it is slightly out of focus due to it being a screenshot, it is readable”. Absolutely not true and further evidence of favouring the operator?

2. Is there grounds to complain to DVLA as regards the use to which the data has been put as there was no intention to xfer liability under PoFA 2012?

Time to fill now before we return for advice about the final leg towards discontinuance so if there is anywhere else it is worth complaining to, your collective thoughts are much appreciated.

Proposed complaint to POPLA - any comments or thoughts welcome


Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA Decision by Assessor Ellie Appleton (Ref: …….. )

To the Lead Adjudicator,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the decision issued by Assessor Ellie Appleton in my appeal against Parkingeye Ltd. The decision is legally defective and procedurally flawed to such a fundamental standard that I am struggling to understand whether this is staggering incompetence or just a desperate desire to find in the operators favour, simply ignoring the law and procedure to enable her to do so.

I understand POPLA operates a single-stage process and does not reverse decisions, but I require a written response to this complaint for the record, as I intend to rely on it in future proceedings and/or complaint processes.

In their evidence pack to POPLA the operator confirmed that the PCN was not issued under the PoFA 2012 and therefore it cannot be seeking to transfer liability to the RK.

This was not known by the RK until the evidence pack was made available as the operator deliberately and cynically omitted this information from earlier correspondence as part of their bullying tactics to force payment.

Therefore the brief commentary on the evidence pack focuses on this issue as the earlier comments around the notice not being PoFA compliant became irrelevant as the operator is not seeking to apply that legislation to transfer liability to the RK.

The operator does not know who the driver is and as RK I have declined to provide this information as I have no legal requirement to do so.

All of the correspondence has been by the RK, appealing as such.

Astonishingly, your assessor then concludes; - “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 and I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA.”

At best this is just a mindless and incompetent cut and paste exercise on her part?

So in summary;-
1. The operator says it is not seeking to apply PoFA to transfer liability to the RK.
2. This appeal process has always been by the RK who cannot therefore be liable.
3. Although by any competent and just interpretation the appeal should have been successful, your assessor decides that it is actually unsuccessful.

As part of the appeal process I also contacted POPLA by email to ask you to seek a legible copy of the Landowner contract. Your response says that you are unable to request the operator resend the evidence again (email 1/5/25 from Kayleigh). Why is this? I can only assume it is a further example of your desperate desire not to inconvenience the operator, namely the hand that feeds and to whom you are so obviously subservient.

Kayleigh’s claim that the evidence is simply out of focus is just a lie, I tried to access it with high quality/resolution equipment before contacting you and it is illegible thus preventing me from commenting on this aspect of the evidence pack in any meaningful way. But as I’m only the appellant that clearly doesn’t matter to you.

I request that the Lead Adjudicator reviews this complaint and confirms whether these failures are acknowledged and whether any internal action will be taken to address the assessor’s conduct?

I do not expect the decision to be reversed, as POPLA clearly looks to support the parking companies regardless of the facts.

However this decision has so fundamentally misapplied the legislation and process that I look forward to bringing it to the attention of the Court at a later date, as this claim will be rigorously defended.

Thank you, good thought, I’ll do that on the final draft

Thank you - complaint submitted as above.
I’ll update idc.