Free Traffic Legal Advice

Before the Keeper does anything, show us the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK) and confirm that what has been shown is the original NtK and not a follow up reminder.

Going on about the photos is not relevant and not going to achieve anything. They are typical ANPR images from which the VRM is extracted. A dead end as far as any appeal is concerned.

If that is he original NtK then it is not PoFA compliant which means that the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver so no blabbing “I did this or that”. The Keeper refers to the driver in the third person, “The driver did this or that”. Don’t tell ‘em your name Pike!

The only way the operator could know the drivers identity is if the Keeper blabs it, inadvertently or otherwise.

Please read the questions being asked and answer them.

Is what you have shown us, the original NtK or is it a reminder?

Apologies - yes this is the first notice that has been received.

I will pass on the text that you have provided to my friend and ensure it is submitted as the appeal verbatim.

Thank you for your help b789 - much appreciated.

Yes, they are trying their luck. I would normally put together a POPLA appeal that covers a multitude of other points, as the appellant only has to succeed on a single one, whereas the operator has to succeed on all the points raised.

However, this is such a blatant abuse and evidence of unlawful behaviour that a single issue POPLA appeal would succeed anyway. Appeal only as the Keeper with the following:

POPLA Appeal: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Appellant: [Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Operator: Civil Parking Office Ltd
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]

Appeal Grounds

1. The Notice to Keeper Is Not PoFA Compliant—No Keeper Liability

The operator has openly admitted that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As a result, the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.

As confirmed in my appeal to the operator, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver. The operator has provided no evidence to establish the driver's identity, which is their burden to prove if they wish to pursue this claim.

Let me be clear: the POPLA assessor cannot assume or infer that the registered keeper was the driver. This would be a breach of the assessor’s role and contrary to well-established legal principles, including VCS v Edward (2023), which clarifies that no assumption or inference can be made unless the operator provides clear, unequivocal evidence identifying the driver.

The operator has failed to provide such evidence, and their case must fail on this point alone.

2. Misleading Assertions in the Rejection Letter

Despite acknowledging their NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s rejection letter falsely asserts:

"As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage."

This language is deliberately misleading, as it attempts to suggest that liability has automatically transferred to me, the registered keeper. Such tactics are both unlawful and unethical, as they exploit the ignorance of recipients who may not be familiar with their legal rights.

3. Failure to Identify the Driver

Since the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s claim relies entirely on identifying the driver. However, no evidence has been provided to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. Without such evidence, the operator has no case.

It is not my responsibility to identify the driver, nor is there any legal obligation on me to do so. The operator’s failure to meet their evidentiary burden is fatal to their claim.

4. Lack of Evidence of a Parking Contravention

The operator’s reliance on Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site does not demonstrate a parking contravention. There is no evidence provided of:

• The vehicle being parked, as opposed to merely passing through.

• Any specific terms of parking being agreed to or breached.

Without clear evidence of a parking event and breach of terms, this claim lacks credibility.

Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor

I must emphasise that no assumption or inference can be made regarding the registered keeper being the driver. Such assumptions are contrary to legal precedent, including the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2018, which confirms that assessors must not make unfounded inferences.

If the assessor fails to recognise this point, the decision would be procedurally flawed and legally invalid.

Conclusion

This operator’s claim is legally baseless, as they have failed to:

• Issue a PoFA-compliant NtK to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

• Provide any evidence identifying the driver.

• Prove a parking contravention occurred.

The operator’s behaviour in this matter is both incompetent and predatory. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice and strongly criticise the operator for their misleading conduct and complete disregard for established legal standards.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]

Quote from: b789 on January 24, 2025, 12:17:09 pm

Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor

This might be a matter of personal approach, but I'd personally avoid wording that might unnecessarily p*ss off the assessor, who you want to be on your side. I would perhaps word this heading along the lines of "No assumptions or inferences may be drawn". Perhaps I've been lucky with assessors, but most of the assessments I've seen recently have avoided drawing unreasonable inferences.

My approach would be to lead the assessor directly to the correct conclusion, not berate him on the assumption he'll make the wrong decision without your help (as tempting as that is  )

Ya think? Have a read of this very recent POPLA failure:

PPC: Horizon Parking Ltd
Location: Tesco Salford Quays

Main thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6560681/driver-doesnt-want-to-pay-horizon-fine-but-registered-keeper-does/p1

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Jason Cookson-Dean

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice for exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the liability has been transferred one day too early. • The notice to keeper does not have specific wording as set out in PoFA. • The notice to keeper was issued on 3 October and presumed given to keeper on 7 October and the 28 days would start on 8 October. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal advising that the PCN is not PoFA compliant, and that the operator has never used PoFA in previous PCN’s. The appellant has provided a part screenshot of the wording on the PCN as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet and comply with. In its code of practice section 21.16 it states: “If the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of POFA you are able to pursue the keeper for the unpaid parking charge.” Paragraph 9 (2) (f) (ii) of PoFA 2102 it states: “(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”…“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.” The appellant has provided a copy of the wording on the PCN as evidence. The day the notice was given is the date the PCN was issued. The second working day is the date when the PCN is presumed to be delivered to the keeper. The operator has issued the PCN on Thursday 3 October 2024, PoFA would mean that the 28 day period would begin on Friday 4 October 2024. The operator has stated that it would start on the second working day which would be Monday 7 October 2024. The wording on this PCN allows the keeper more time to respond than PoFA requires. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs at the car park which state that there is a maximum 20-minute stay. The signs also say that a PCN of £70 will be issued for not complying. It is the responsibility of the motorist when entering a car park that they make themselves aware of the signs and what the restrictions are. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the appellants vehicle arriving at 09:57 and leaving one hour and 12 minutes later. As this exceeds the maximum 20-minute stay, the driver has not followed the terms of the site and the parking operator has issued the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver has exceeded the maximum 20-minute 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

I always work on the assumption that all POPLA assessors are feckwits and morons, just like Jason Cookson-Dean. Starting from that viewpoint and explaining the law to the assessor assists in helping them with their decision. Remember, POPLA is not an "independent" service. It is funded by the charges they make to the operators. They have a history of rejecting appeals on incorrect interpretations of the law, as exampled above, presumably to keep the operators happy enough to keep paying for the assessments.

Yes, they are trying their luck. I would normally put together a POPLA appeal that covers a multitude of other points, as the appellant only has to succeed on a single one, whereas the operator has to succeed on all the points raised.

However, this is such a blatant abuse and evidence of unlawful behaviour that a single issue POPLA appeal would succeed anyway. Appeal only as the Keeper with the following:

Quote

POPLA Appeal: [Insert POPLA Reference Number]
Appellant: [Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]
Operator: Civil Parking Office Ltd
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]

Appeal Grounds

1. The Notice to Keeper Is Not PoFA Compliant—No Keeper Liability

The operator has openly admitted that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As a result, the operator has no legal basis to transfer liability for the alleged parking charge to the registered keeper.

As confirmed in my appeal to the operator, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and no admission has been made regarding the identity of the driver. The operator has provided no evidence to establish the driver's identity, which is their burden to prove if they wish to pursue this claim.

Let me be clear: the POPLA assessor cannot assume or infer that the registered keeper was the driver. This would be a breach of the assessor’s role and contrary to well-established legal principles, including VCS v Edward (2023), which clarifies that no assumption or inference can be made unless the operator provides clear, unequivocal evidence identifying the driver.

The operator has failed to provide such evidence, and their case must fail on this point alone.

2. Misleading Assertions in the Rejection Letter

Despite acknowledging their NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s rejection letter falsely asserts:

"As you have breached the terms and conditions of parking, you are now required to pay the contractually agreed charges as stated on our signage."

This language is deliberately misleading, as it attempts to suggest that liability has automatically transferred to me, the registered keeper. Such tactics are both unlawful and unethical, as they exploit the ignorance of recipients who may not be familiar with their legal rights.

3. Failure to Identify the Driver

Since the NtK is not PoFA compliant, the operator’s claim relies entirely on identifying the driver. However, no evidence has been provided to establish who was driving the vehicle at the time. Without such evidence, the operator has no case.

It is not my responsibility to identify the driver, nor is there any legal obligation on me to do so. The operator’s failure to meet their evidentiary burden is fatal to their claim.

4. Lack of Evidence of a Parking Contravention

The operator’s reliance on Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the site does not demonstrate a parking contravention. There is no evidence provided of:

• The vehicle being parked, as opposed to merely passing through.

• Any specific terms of parking being agreed to or breached.

Without clear evidence of a parking event and breach of terms, this claim lacks credibility.

Pre-Empting Incorrect Assumptions by the POPLA Assessor

I must emphasise that no assumption or inference can be made regarding the registered keeper being the driver. Such assumptions are contrary to legal precedent, including the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Annual Report 2018, which confirms that assessors must not make unfounded inferences.

If the assessor fails to recognise this point, the decision would be procedurally flawed and legally invalid.

Conclusion

This operator’s claim is legally baseless, as they have failed to:

• Issue a PoFA-compliant NtK to transfer liability to the registered keeper.

• Provide any evidence identifying the driver.

• Prove a parking contravention occurred.

The operator’s behaviour in this matter is both incompetent and predatory. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice and strongly criticise the operator for their misleading conduct and complete disregard for established legal standards.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name or "Registered Keeper"]

Thanks for this. My friend has noted that it asks them to select an option when filing an appeal with POPLA. Would you put this under 'other' or one of the other grounds for appeal? We just want to make sure my friend has the best chance of success.

Hi

The appeal was filed with POPLA as recommended above via the other option and using a PDF rather than filling in a form.

The operator has now responded with a long document of evidence and the following statement.

"On the date of the parking event, the appellant’s vehicle entered the private land at 16:34 and remained until 17:25. The terms and conditions, clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the multi-level car park, require drivers to purchase a valid parking session via a payment terminal or the cashless platform Avalon Pay within 10 minutes of entry. The driver failed to make the required payment, breaching these terms, and a parking charge was subsequently issued by post (non-POFA). The appellant, appealing as the registered keeper, submitted a template appeal referencing POFA 2012. However, this parking charge does not rely on POFA. Instead, the operator must demonstrate that the appellant was the driver. The appeal was submitted via the operator’s portal (www.paymypcn.net), where the appellant explicitly selected the role of "driver." Evidence to support this is enclosed. In civil matters, the burden of proof is based on the balance of probabilities. The evidence strongly supports that the appellant was the driver, and no contradictory evidence has been provided. While the appellant refuses to name the driver, they could have identified themselves as the registered keeper only but instead took affirmative action to confirm their role as the driver. If POPLA does not accept this as sufficient evidence that it is more likely than not the appellant was the driver, it risks creating a loophole for appellants to avoid paying legitimate charges. POPLA’s remit is to assess the lawfulness of charges and determine whether a breach has occurred. In this case, the facts confirm that the driver parked for 51 minutes without paying the required tariff, breaching the terms and conditions and making them liable for the contractual charges."

They are claiming that the keeper chose the option of driver on the drop down form when appealing the original PCN. Their supporting document contains fields with the registered keeper information and the driver information.

I know for a fact, as I was a witness, that the registered keeper selected the registered keeper option from the drop down and not the driver option as this was very clearly advised in an earlier post. However it looks like they have copied the details across from the registered keeper and are claiming this was done by the registered keeper themselves, which I do not believe to be the case.

I am guessing that now POPLA will take that as read and decide based on that. Any advice on how to fight back on this basis? We do not have a copy of the appeal that was submitted or anything as far as I can see.