Free Traffic Legal Advice

Always choose 'Other', the text of your appeal sets out your grounds for challenging the charge.

A quick update all: Popla have finally 'begun' the appeal process and give 7 days for more evidence,but have followed the direction give here in this group to use the text on NTK arriving too late to establish responsibility.

Parking Eye have submitted around 25 pages of evidence roughly including: -

- pictures of cars leaving an returning from the original notice
- a site location map for signage
- images of 3-4 signs
- some sort of responsibility to manage the car park
- a statement that rambles referring to original case including something about responding to the notice alone, was tacit acceptance of responsibility.

Given the previous comments that I should rely on the NTK timescale flaw fro the outset. Do I do anything or just rely on original appeal grounds and wait for the outcome?

Thanks as always chaps/ chapasses

If it were me responding to the operators response, I would keep it very simple. I have already told you that you may need to lead the POPLA assessor by the note and it is best to assume they are a moron who can be persuaded by ParkingEye's overwhelming bundle.

This really would be my response to the operators evidence:

I, Mr Keeper have read the rule book called PoFA 2012. It says: Mr Operator must send a letter to Mr Keeper to arrive within 14 days and he must put in special warning words. The visit was 4 June 2025. The letter to Mr Keeper was posted on 24 July 2025. That is too late. The letter also leaves out the special warning words. Mr Driver has not been identified. When the rules are not followed and Mr Driver isn’t named, the Mr Keeper doesn’t have to pay. Please cancel the charge.

If you're not up to that, the simply copy and paste the following into the response webform:

This is my response to the operators evidence.

In order for the creditor (the operator) to be able to hold the Keeper liable for the charge, PoFA ¶9(5) requires that the NtK be given (served/delivered) within the "relevant period". For clarity, the relevant period is 14 days from the date of the alleged contravention, which was Wednesday 4th June 2025.

For the NtK to have been given within the relevant period, it would have had to have been posted first class no later than Monday 16th June in order for it to have been deemed delivered (given) within 14 days of the date of the alleged contravention. The NtK was not actually issued until Thursday 24th July, which means that it was not given until Monday 28th July, 33 days after the date of the alleged contravention.

As the NtK was not given within the relevant period, it does not comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA. Partial, or even substantial compliance is not enough. Just as someone cannot be partially pregnant, an NtK cannot be partially PoFA compliant. It is a binary issue. The statute is explicit. Unless ALL the requirements have been met, then the creditor cannot rely on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.

The Keeper is not under any legal obligation to identified the driver. The operator has not identified the driver and, as there can be no presumption or inference that the Keeper must have been the driver, the burden of proof that the Keeper is liable for the charge has not been met. Irrespective of whatever the operator has provided as their "evidence", the first thing that the assessor must establish is whether the Keeper can be liable for the charge. In this case, it is not possible.

The operator has not proven that the person they are pursuing is liable for the charge and therefore the PCN must be cancelled and this appeal upheld.