Free Traffic Legal Advice

You must do your own research on how to put together a POPLA appeal. We do not just "write one for you". Search the forum for other POPLA appeals and figure out how they are put together and what points to appeal.

When you're ready, post your appeal here before you send anything and we will review it and provide advice on any edits you may require.
[Would you be able to have a look at my appeal? advice appreciated
Regards/quote]

It could do with fleshing out. You must put yourself in the POPLA assessors shoes and imagine that they know as much about this as you do. Your appeal must lead the POPLA assessor by the nose to the conclusion you want them to reach.

Have a look at some of the longer POPLA appeals on the forum and use anything from those that is
relevant to your case.


I've added to my previous draft.
I've added case law and previous POPLA rulings
Any good>

POPLA Appeal: Response to Notice to Keeper from ParkMaven
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
________________________________________
1. Failure to Include Mandatory Keeper Invitation under PoFA 2012 (Paragraph 9(2)(e))
ParkMaven claims that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, the notice fails to meet a core statutory requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(e):
“...the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and must invite the keeper: (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not contain this explicit invitation. Instead, it vaguely suggests the keeper "may be liable." This is legally insufficient. PoFA requires a specific and unambiguous invitation to pay or name the driver. Courts and POPLA have consistently ruled that liability cannot be transferred to the keeper without strict compliance with this requirement.
Additionally, the phrase "may be liable" misleads the keeper and does not comply with the mandatory language that must be present. The invitation to the keeper is a statutory obligation, not a courtesy. Without it, there is no lawful mechanism under PoFA for keeper liability to be established.
Furthermore, it is not enough that the NtK is addressed to the keeper. The statutory invitation must be explicitly stated in the body of the notice. Implied or vague references to liability fail to meet the legal threshold. This strict wording requirement exists to ensure that the keeper is fully informed of their rights and responsibilities.
This issue was highlighted in POP LA appeal reference 6061796103 where the assessor stated: “As the Notice to Keeper did not invite the registered keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver, I find that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of PoFA.”
Similarly, in C6GF14F0 [Civil Enforcement v Chan, 2016], the court confirmed that full compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 is required for keeper liability to apply. Any omission of mandatory wording invalidates the transfer of liability.
By failing to include this critical element, ParkMaven has no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper.
________________________________________
2. Unlawful Deadline – NtK Misstates the 28-Day Period Contrary to PoFA 2012
The NtK states:
"PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 28/05/2025"
This is a fundamental legal error that contradicts PoFA Schedule 4.
• Date Issued: 29/04/2025 (Tuesday)
• Under Paragraph 9(6), the NtK is deemed served two working days later: 01/05/2025 (Thursday)
• The 28-day statutory period begins the day after deemed service, i.e. 02/05/2025 (Friday)
• Day 28 falls on 29/05/2025 (Thursday)
Correct deadline: 29/05/2025
Incorrectly stated deadline: 28/05/2025
By misstating this date, ParkMaven unlawfully shortens the recipient's statutory rights under PoFA. This makes the NtK non-compliant and invalid for keeper liability.
This issue was recognised in Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics [2023], where it was ruled that confusing or incorrect timelines given in a Notice to Keeper undermine PoFA compliance and invalidate keeper liability.
________________________________________
3. No Keeper Liability – Driver Not Identified
Since the NtK fails PoFA compliance, ParkMaven cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. I was not the driver and am under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Therefore, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me for this charge.
In POPLA appeal 6061796103, the assessor confirmed that a lack of full PoFA compliance means the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver is not identified.
________________________________________
4. Vehicle Was Not Parked – Active Delivery/Unloading in Progress
The vehicle was engaged in a legitimate Amazon parcel delivery. Parking for which is adjacent to the Amazon delivery point.
At no point was the vehicle left unattended,  or occupy and designated parking bay
Under Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris held that unloading activity is not parking.
The judgment clearly distinguished between "parking" and temporary activities such as loading, which are normal incidents of the use of premises.
This operator has not shown that they accounted for or considered legitimate delivery use, and therefore cannot claim a valid contravention.
This operator fails to identify any actual loading (See attached picture of loading location) Which is not in a parking bay. The vehicle was in a designated area where vehicles cannot park.
________________________________________
5. No Invitation or Instruction to Register for a Whitelist
ParkMaven stated the vehicle was "not on the site’s whitelist." However, the signage:
• Does not mention any whitelist
• Provides no instruction on how to register

This omission renders the contract terms unclear and unenforceable. A motorist cannot comply with rules that are not communicated.
In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, Lord Denning held that terms must be made available before or at the time of contracting, especially if they are onerous.
________________________________________
6. Inconsistent with Industry Standards – Group Nexus contradictory signage
At Shop Stop, separate Group Nexus signage exists which:.
• Clearly instructs delivery drivers specifically for Shop Stop, how to register
• Grants a 20-minute delivery window
• There is one entrance to Shop Stop, confusing and conflicting signage from Parkmaven and Group Nexus are prominent at this location
• Clear guidance (from Group Nexus) for delivery to Shop Stop was followed and complied with.
Why Contradictory Signage Matters
• No meeting of minds
A parking contract requires a clear and unambiguous offer (signage) and acceptance (by parking). Conflicting terms from different operators make the “offer” unclear—so no valid contract exists.
• Unclear contractual terms
The POPLA Code of Practice and cases like Horizon Parking v Ms T make it clear that signage must be legible, consistent, and unambiguous

https://shopstopclaphamjunction.com/click-and-collect
ParkMaven’s signage fails to match this standard, creating confusion and inconsistency. It cannot be relied upon to form a valid contract.
This inconsistency also contradicts the transparency obligations under the BPA Code of Practice (Section 18).
________________________________________
7. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
The signage at the site is inadequate and fails to meet the standards set by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice. The operator has provided no evidence that:
• Signs were visible at the entry point and throughout the car park
• The signs near where the vehicle was parked were legible
• The signage clearly informed the driver of any whitelist requirement
A valid contract cannot be formed under such unclear conditions.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court acknowledged that for a charge to be enforceable, signage must be prominent and bring the charge to the attention of the motorist. If signage is inadequate, there can be no contract.
Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company is relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read and understand when driving into this car park.
There is one sign at the entrance which indicates that there are parking restrictions - but this information is not specific or definitive. And does not state the full terms and conditions of entry, parking, loading or waiting.
Any driver must enter the ANPR controlled area, exit the vehicle and read the terms and conditions, which as stated previously are in very small print and incredibly difficult to read.
I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B.
I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

ANPR Accuracy and Compliance is questionable and needs to be proven as accurate and in compliance.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:


- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.


- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.


This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and this Operator is are expecting me to believe their system has a zero failure rate and zero buffering delay.


The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image.

Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. The signs at the car park are not clear about how this technology is employed nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used.
As such, this means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case).

This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.
________________________________________
8. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator has failed to provide contemporaneous, unredacted evidence of their contractual authority to issue and enforce parking charges at the location.
It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority:  I request that Park maven produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they have, indeed been granted such authority.
I put ParkMaven to strict proof of:
• A full contract with the landowner
• The dates, boundaries, and scope of enforcement
• Any clauses concerning exemptions, cancellations, or user instructions
•
• It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I request that if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company
. For example, in POPLA appeal 6060784002, the assessor found that a lack of direct evidence of landowner authority was sufficient to uphold the appeal.








________________________________________
9. Unfair and Disproportionate Charge
The driver was delivering under time pressure. No effort was made by the operator to consider the real-world context. This charge is excessive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
It is contrary to:
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
• The fairness principles in Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] UKSC 67, which only upheld charges that were clearly signposted and proportionate
In this case, the charge is neither clearly signposted nor proportionate to any legitimate interest.
________________________________________
10. ICO Data Processing Concern – No Legal Basis for Keeper Data Use
Because ParkMaven’s NtK is PoFA-noncompliant and no contract was formed, there was no lawful basis to request my data from the DVLA.
This constitutes a breach of:
• UK GDPR
• Data Protection Act 2018
This concern was also highlighted in Parking Control Management v Christopher Bull (Cardiff County Court, 2021), where the judge found misuse of DVLA data in cases involving invalid or misleading notices.
A complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner's Office.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to:
• Failure to comply with PoFA 2012
• No contract being formed
• No keeper liability
• Unfair, disproportionate, and misleading practices
I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and the charge cancelled in full.