Free Traffic Legal Advice

See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

As long as you do not identify the driver, the PCN does not comply with the legislation to transfer liability from the unknown driver to you, the registered keeper.

PPS will disagree, and force you to jump through hoops, but will eventually give up.

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with PoFA and so, as long as the unknown (to them) drivers identity is not revealed, inadvertently or otherwise, they cannot hold the known Keeper liable.

The NtK is non-compliant with Schedule 4 PoFA for the following reasons:


Result: keeper liability does not arise. They can only pursue the driver (unknown to them unless named).

Other merits that would assist you should this ever be litigated:

1. Authorised waiting / representation by attendant (estoppel)

2. Wrong location

3. Contradictory signage / unclear terms

4. Mismatch between contravention and place

Coming back with an update and as expected PPS have sent a rejection to the appeal.


https://ibb.co/tpS186DJ



I have formed an initial draft appeal below for POPLA, just wanted to know if it's worth adding anything else into it before I send it off to them?




POPLA APPEAL – PPS

PCN: 410887216 • Vehicle: WHZ5275 • POPLA Code: 5663185373
NTK Location: 1 Western Gateway, E16 1XL (incorrect)
Actual Location: 27 Western Gateway
Date: 16/10/2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper (driver not identified)

1. No Keeper Liability – NTK Not Compliant with POFA 2012

PPS cannot pursue the keeper because the NTK fails several mandatory requirements of POFA Schedule 4:
No period of parking (POFA 9(2)(a)) – only a single timestamp.
Incorrect/missing statutory wording (9(2)(e) & 9(2)(f)).
Creditor not identified (9(2)(h)).
Wrong location stated (“1 Western Gateway”) – the vehicle was at 27 Western Gateway.

A materially incorrect location invalidates the notice.
Keeper liability cannot apply.

2. The Alleged Contravention Is Impossible

PPS alleges “Parked on Red Route”, yet:
No double red lines exist.
PPS’s own photos show the vehicle in a marked bay, not on a Red Route.
The alleged contravention could not have occurred.

3. Signage Unreadable, Unlit, and Not Linked to the Bay
PPS’s signage photo is:
Taken in darkness
Unlit and unreadable
Not adjacent to the bay
Not proven to apply to that area

This breaches BPA Code of Practice S.19.7 & S.21.1 (signs must be clear and legible before parking).
No contract can be formed with invisible or irrelevant signage.

4. Contradictory Signage – Terms Cannot Be Enforced

Two conflicting sets of signs exist:
Bay signage: “20 minutes free parking”.
A distant Red Route sign.

Where terms contradict, ambiguity is interpreted against the operator.
The bay signage governs the bay.
No enforceable terms exist for a “Red Route” within a marked parking place.

5. PPS’s Own Evidence Shows 7 Minutes Stopping – Allowed
PPS evidence timestamps:

First photo: ~21:12
Last photo: ~21:19
Total: 7 minutes.

The bay clearly allows 20 minutes free parking. Their evidence proves compliance, not a breach.

6. Authorised Permission – Operator Is Estopped
The driver was expressly told by a PPS warden that:

Waiting to collect passengers was allowed
Up to 30 minutes was permitted
No PCN would be issued

This is a representation by PPS’s authorised agent.
Under estoppel, PPS cannot penalise the driver for relying on permission granted by their own staff.

7. No Site Map – PPS Cannot Prove Any Terms Applied
PPS supplied no site plan, no map, and no evidence showing:
Where signs are placed
Whether the Red Route sign applies to the bay
Whether any sign was seen before parking

POPLA routinely upholds appeals where operators fail to prove signage placement.

Conclusion

The PCN must be cancelled because:
The NTK is invalid under POFA → no keeper liability.
The alleged “Red Route” breach is impossible.
The vehicle was parked for 7 minutes within the permitted 20 minutes.
Signage was unreadable, unlit, contradictory, and not linked to the bay.
PPS stated the wrong location.
A PPS warden authorised the waiting.
PPS failed to provide a site map proving any terms.

For these reasons, this appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.

Western Gateway appears to be a road maintained at public expense.

Coming back with an update and as expected PPS have sent a rejection to the appeal.


https://ibb.co/tpS186DJ



I have formed an initial draft appeal below for POPLA, just wanted to know if it's worth adding anything else into it before I send it off to them?




POPLA APPEAL – PPS

PCN: 410887216 • Vehicle: WHZ5275 • POPLA Code: 5663185373
NTK Location: 1 Western Gateway, E16 1XL (incorrect)
Actual Location: 27 Western Gateway
Date: 16/10/2025
Appellant: Registered Keeper (driver not identified)

1. No Keeper Liability – NTK Not Compliant with POFA 2012

PPS cannot pursue the keeper because the NTK fails several mandatory requirements of POFA Schedule 4:
No period of parking (POFA 9(2)(a)) – only a single timestamp.
Incorrect/missing statutory wording (9(2)(e) & 9(2)(f)).
Creditor not identified (9(2)(h)).
Wrong location stated (“1 Western Gateway”) – the vehicle was at 27 Western Gateway.

A materially incorrect location invalidates the notice.
Keeper liability cannot apply.

2. The Alleged Contravention Is Impossible

PPS alleges “Parked on Red Route”, yet:
No double red lines exist.
PPS’s own photos show the vehicle in a marked bay, not on a Red Route.
The alleged contravention could not have occurred.

3. Signage Unreadable, Unlit, and Not Linked to the Bay
PPS’s signage photo is:
Taken in darkness
Unlit and unreadable
Not adjacent to the bay
Not proven to apply to that area

This breaches BPA Code of Practice S.19.7 & S.21.1 (signs must be clear and legible before parking).
No contract can be formed with invisible or irrelevant signage.

4. Contradictory Signage – Terms Cannot Be Enforced

Two conflicting sets of signs exist:
Bay signage: “20 minutes free parking”.
A distant Red Route sign.

Where terms contradict, ambiguity is interpreted against the operator.
The bay signage governs the bay.
No enforceable terms exist for a “Red Route” within a marked parking place.

5. PPS’s Own Evidence Shows 7 Minutes Stopping – Allowed
PPS evidence timestamps:

First photo: ~21:12
Last photo: ~21:19
Total: 7 minutes.

The bay clearly allows 20 minutes free parking. Their evidence proves compliance, not a breach.

6. Authorised Permission – Operator Is Estopped
The driver was expressly told by a PPS warden that:

Waiting to collect passengers was allowed
Up to 30 minutes was permitted
No PCN would be issued

This is a representation by PPS’s authorised agent.
Under estoppel, PPS cannot penalise the driver for relying on permission granted by their own staff.

7. No Site Map – PPS Cannot Prove Any Terms Applied
PPS supplied no site plan, no map, and no evidence showing:
Where signs are placed
Whether the Red Route sign applies to the bay
Whether any sign was seen before parking

POPLA routinely upholds appeals where operators fail to prove signage placement.

Conclusion

The PCN must be cancelled because:
The NTK is invalid under POFA → no keeper liability.
The alleged “Red Route” breach is impossible.
The vehicle was parked for 7 minutes within the permitted 20 minutes.
Signage was unreadable, unlit, contradictory, and not linked to the bay.
PPS stated the wrong location.
A PPS warden authorised the waiting.
PPS failed to provide a site map proving any terms.

For these reasons, this appeal must be upheld and the PCN cancelled.

Yes, you should point out that the PCN clearly shows that the vehicle was waiting in the area clearly covered by the dashed red lines and as such the signage relating to the maximum time is applicable. It would be different if it was plain double red lines.

But we suspect that this is a public road anyway.

Hi folks,

Just to update you all I had made the POPLA appeal and not too long after that PPS have withdrawn the appeal as they knew all too well that they will be fighting a losing battle. This is the response from POPLA:

https://ibb.co/rR3Xnrck

Thanks again to everyone on this thread for your support.

Well done. However, you should also send the following complaint to POPLA at info@popla.co.uk and CC enquiries@flexibleresolutionservices.co.uk; info@trustalliancegroup.org:

Subject: Formal Complaint – Incoherent and Unprofessional “Appeal Withdrawn” Correspondence

Dear POPLA Team,

I am writing to raise a formal complaint about the extraordinarily poor standard of the template email issued when an operator cancels a Parking Charge Notice before an appeal is assessed. The communication I received is so lacking in clarity, logic, and basic literacy that it calls into question the intellectual capability and procedural understanding of the person or team responsible for drafting it.

The phrase “the operator has withdrawn your appeal” is, on its face, nonsensical. An operator cannot withdraw an appellant’s submission, and no competent writer would use wording that implies otherwise. The fact that this has been adopted as standard text suggests that whoever authored it did not understand the process they were meant to be describing, or lacked the linguistic ability to articulate it accurately. Either possibility is deeply concerning.

The rest of the letter is equally inelegant. It is clumsily structured, contradictory in places, and written in such a muddled fashion that it reads like a hastily assembled paragraph from someone intellectually out of their depth. Basic sequencing, grammatical consistency, and coherence are all missing. The message lurches between confused hypotheticals and ill-fitting explanations, none of which reflect how the process actually works.

It is not merely embarrassing; it is an indictment of the level of internal oversight within POPLA. Any halfway competent professional would have sent this back for correction. Instead, it has been allowed to stand as an official communication from an organisation that claims to assess evidence, interpret procedures, and apply reasoning in a quasi-judicial setting.

If the standard of written communication is this poor, it raises a legitimate question: how can the public have confidence that POPLA is capable of the analytical, evidential, and reasoning-based work expected of an appeals service? A body that cannot draft a coherent template letter cannot reasonably be assumed to possess the competence required to evaluate appeals with fairness and intellectual rigour.

I request confirmation that this complaint will be logged and reviewed, and I expect a response addressing:

1. How this wording was approved;
2. Whether POPLA acknowledges that the current text is inaccurate, misleading, and grammatically deficient; and
3. What steps will be taken to correct the template and improve internal quality control.

I look forward to your prompt and considered response.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]