Free Traffic Legal Advice

They responded with the following -

Summary
1. Introduction Secure Parking Solutions Ltd (the “Operator”) respectfully submits this response to the appeal made by the registered keeper. The Parking Charge has been issued correctly following a clear breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions at the site. The site operates as a private land customer-only parking facility, strictly limited to patrons whilst they are physically present on the premises. The contravention occurred when the vehicle remained on site without meeting this requirement. 2. Keeper Liability – Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) The appellant’s primary argument relates to alleged non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Paragraph 9(2)(e). The Operator confirms: A Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued on 04/02/2026, within the statutory timeframe required under PoFA. The NtK includes all mandatory statutory elements, including: Identification of the creditor; Details of the parking event; The outstanding Parking Charge; The period of parking; The circumstances under which the charge became payable. Response to Appellant’s Specific PoFA Arguments: Appeal Point 1 – “NtK does not state the creditor does not know the driver details” The NtK substantially complies with PoFA requirements. The legislation does not require verbatim replication of statutory wording, but rather that the notice conveys the required information clearly. The NtK confirms that liability may be transferred to the keeper in the absence of driver details, thereby fulfilling the statutory intent. Appeal Point 2 – “No valid invitation to keeper” The NtK provides the keeper with: The option to pay the outstanding Parking Charge, or The ability to identify the driver and provide a serviceable address This satisfies the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(e)(ii). Appeal Point 3 – “No invitation to pay” The NtK clearly states that the Parking Charge is payable and provides instructions on how to make payment. This constitutes a valid and compliant invitation to the keeper. Accordingly, full compliance with PoFA has been achieved, and keeper liability has been correctly established. 3. Nature of the Site and Contractual Position This is not a pay & display or public parking facility. The signage clearly states: “Patrons only whilst on the premises.” This constitutes a conditional licence to park, forming a legally binding contract when a driver enters and remains on the land. The driver is permitted to park only if they are a genuine customer and remain on-site. Any deviation from this condition results in a contractual breach. By leaving the premises or failing to meet the patron requirement, the driver breaches the contractual terms, thereby triggering the Parking Charge. This position is supported by established case law, including: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – confirming that parking charges on private land are enforceable where terms are clear and prominently displayed. 4. BPA Code of Practice Compliance The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and fully complies with the BPA Code of Practice. Signage (Section 19 & 21 of BPA Code) The site has: 1 entrance sign 2 Terms and Conditions signs Signage is: Clearly visible upon entry; Positioned to be readable before parking; Written in clear and intelligible language. The signage explicitly states the restriction to patrons only, ensuring transparency and compliance with: Consumer Rights Act 2015 (fairness and transparency of terms) Grace Periods (Section 13 of BPA Code) The appellant has not raised grace periods, however for completeness: Grace periods apply only where a permitted parking session exists (e.g., paid parking or maximum stay). In this case: The vehicle was not authorised to park at all, as the driver was not a patron. Therefore, no grace period applies. 5. Evidence of Breach The Operator relies on: MNPR camera evidence, confirming: Entry time: 13:31:03 Exit time: 13:37:10 Duration: 6 minutes 7 seconds No evidence of patron activity or authorisation. The duration is sufficient to establish that: The driver entered, Parked, And remained without complying with site conditions. 6. On the Appellant’s Interpretation of Contract Law The appellant attempts to argue technical deficiencies in statutory wording. However: POPLA assesses substantive compliance, not hyper-technical drafting arguments. The Operator has met: Statutory requirements under PoFA Contractual transparency requirements under Consumer Rights Act 2015 Operational standards under BPA Code of Practice The contractual terms were: Clearly displayed, Reasonable, And enforceable. 7. Conclusion The vehicle was parked in breach of clearly displayed Terms and Conditions. The Parking Charge was issued in accordance with: Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 BPA Code of Practice Established case law (ParkingEye v Beavis) Keeper liability has been correctly established. The appellant’s arguments regarding PoFA non-compliance are unfounded. 8. Request to POPLA In light of the above, Secure Parking Solutions Ltd respectfully requests that POPLA: Reject the appeal, and Uphold the Parking Charge in full.

You need to rebut any of the points they make with which you disagree, otherwise they will claim that you agree with them.
If you post your draft response here before sending it, you will get input.

I can come up with something.

They're on the ropes with the PoFA compliance issue - we can now exploit this.

I submitted this today.  Thanks so much for all your help, it really is appreciated.  I will keep you updated on the outcome.