-
https://ibb.co/DDgmBsRp
Hi folks I would appreciate some advice after having received a PCN. I have attached the PCN letter with my post and I will state some of points I believe may be useful in the appeal and wondering if anyone has had any success in appealing against this company for similar PCNs at that location?
1) The Driver of the vehicle is a Transport for London Private Hire Driver, they were told to wait there for passengers coming out from the Greater London Authority building a few yards away from this location
2) The driver had waited within the confines of the small parking box near to 27 Western gateway E16, the sign posts around that location are misleading as on one section it allows 20 mins free parking & on the other it mentions red route no parking at anytime
3) The driver had spoken to an individual in a high Vis vest who introduced himself as ticket warden, he told the driver he can stay for a maximum of 30 mins, the driver asked the warden that if he's not allowed to wait there then he can move his car immediately however the warden had mentioned that there was no need for that and that no PCNs shall be issued
4) From the PCN the location is wrong it has been issued at 1 Western gateway however the vehicle was stationary on 27 Western gateway
5) PCN states it's due to parking on red route but vehicle was within the confines of a red box
6) misleading signs, red routes are designated through double red lines yet this vehicle was stationary within the parking area which allows for 20 mins free parking, from the images viewed on their website the first image was taken at 09:12pm and the last at 09:19pm, this does not equate to the max 20 mins allowed within that parking box area
Would this be worth a successful appeal on these points I made or shall I just pay up? -
-
See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4Quote
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.
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.
(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;
PPS will disagree, and force you to jump through hoops, but will eventually give up. -
-
Thanks for your reply I will see how it goes. But knowing these Private companies they will reject the appeal so after that is there like an independent adjudicator or a tribunal that deals with these matters?
I have also attached a few more pics showing the misleading signs and timings of when the first image was taken till last
https://ibb.co/Q3Prks5w
https://ibb.co/hJH7M2DW
https://ibb.co/vnjNvwy
https://ibb.co/0pG9bmZ3
https://ibb.co/6RQzyMvc -
-
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:• No period of parking stated on the NtK (only a single timestamp).
• Defective/missing 9(2)(e)(i) invitation to keeper to pay and incorrect 9(2)(f) keeper liability warning.
• Ambiguous identification of the creditor.
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)• You were directed to wait for passengers and then expressly told by a high-vis “warden” (operators employee?) that up to 30 minutes was permitted and no PCN would be issued.
• This is a clear representation by the operator’s agent on site. You relied on it. The operator is estopped from enforcing a charge inconsistent with its agent’s assurance.
2. Wrong location• NtK says “1 Western Gateway”; the vehicle was at 27 Western Gateway.
• Location is a material term. A mis-stated location undermines proof of breach and the contractual nexus.
3. Contradictory signage / unclear terms• Same stretch has signage stating “20 mins free parking” yet another sign says “Red Route – no stopping/parking at any time”.
• Where terms conflict, they are not incorporated. Ambiguity is construed against the drafter; the permissive bay signage prevails for that boxed area.
4. Mismatch between contravention and place• Allegation: “Parked on Red Route”.
• Fact: vehicle was within a marked red box / parking bay. If the area genuinely formed part of a Red Route, it should be delineated by double red lines and not a permissive bay. The stated contravention is therefore not made out.
5. Permitted duration not exceeded• Operator’s own photo times: 21:12 to 21:19 (≈ 7 minutes).
• Within the 20 minutes free stated for the bay. No breach on duration.
However, as you have rightly point4d out, no initial appeal will be considered by this bottom-dwelling firm of ex-clampers. You would have better chance of appeal to POPLA, but even then, you need to remember that POPLA are funded by the very BPA members that pay for them to assess any appeal.
If no luck at POPLA, that really does not matter as their decision is not binding on you. Eventually, they would issue a county court claim, which as long as it is defended, is very unlikely to ever reach a hearing as it would almost certainly be struck out or discontinued.
My advice is to submit a brief operator appeal and when rejected, make a more substantial appeal to POPLA.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN. -
-
Thanks for the detailed response b789. Having looked through some of the past threads on here it seems like I am not the only one to have received a PCN from this rogue company, I will make an initial appeal to this company. But im guessing it will be a long process until they decide to back off or the county court steps in and looks at the actual facts and the law, as for POPLA don't have much high hopes there too especially if they are recieving funding from these rogue companies, let's see where this goes thanks again for your help and I will keep you updated on here.
-
-
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.
-
-
That's good. Just put them to strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises PPS to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in their own name. Refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
Their appeal rejection does not address the PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) failure and it misstates how PoFA works.
At the moment you have:• You: “Your NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) because it never invites the keeper to pay; it only addresses the driver”.
• Operator: “We comply with 9(2)(f), therefore we can recover from the keeper; you ‘assume liability’ because you didn’t give us the driver’s details”.
Those are ships passing in the night. 9(2)(f) is a different limb from 9(2)(e). Compliance with (f) does not cure a failure under (e).
Key points you can use in your POPLA appeal:1. PoFA is “all or nothing”, not “pick your favourite paragraph”
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is a composite list. The notice “must” do (a), (b), (c)… right through to (i). It is not sufficient for the operator to show arguable compliance with 9(2)(f) if they have ignored 9(2)(e)(i). If any one required element is missing, keeper liability never arises. The operator’s letter does not dispute your analysis of 9(2)(e)(i); it simply pretends that only 9(2)(f) matters.
2. They still have not met 9(2)(e)(i)
The analysis of 9(2)(e)(i) is sound: the statute requires an invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. This must be directed to “the keeper”. A demand addressed only to “the driver” does not satisfy that requirement.
From what you have said, their NtK never contains a sentence such as “the keeper is invited to pay…” or equivalent. The word “keeper”, if present at all, is only used in neutral data/descriptive paragraphs, not in an invitation to pay. That is a straightforward failure of 9(2)(e)(i).
3. PoFA does not say the keeper “assumes liability” by silence
The phrase “you therefore assume liability for the charge” is legally wrong. PoFA does not operate on the basis of assumption. Keeper liability only arises if and only if every applicable condition of Schedule 4 is met – including full compliance with all limbs of 9(2).
If the NtK is not a valid PoFA notice (as here, because 9(2)(e)(i) is not met), the creditor has no statutory right to recover from the keeper at all. The only potentially liable party is the driver. If the driver is not identified, the claim ends there.
4. Mis-describing the law is itself a Code issue
The operator mis-stating PoFA and telling a keeper that they “assume liability” where PoFA conditions are not met is a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), in particular the requirement not to misrepresent the legal position or the effect of PoFA on keeper liability (now at clause 8.1.1(d) in v1.1). -
-
Western Gateway appears to be a road maintained at public expense.
-
-
Good spot. Western Gateway is officially recorded as a road in the national street database, and 22207993 is its unique ID number in that system.
USRN (Unique Street Reference Number) – every “street” or road in Great Britain that a highway authority records in its Local Street Gazetteer is given a unique numerical ID. Western Gateway’s is 22207993.
It shows the road is formally recognised in the highway authority’s street network and can be cross-referenced against the council’s “highways maintainable at public expense” list / Street Gazetteer to support the contention that it is an adopted public highway, not a private estate road being policed by a parking company.
However, in order to clarify exactly the status and PPSs infestation, I have submitted the following FoI request to Newham Council:QuoteFreedom of Information Act 2000 request – Western Gateway E16 and private parking enforcement
I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to the road known as Western Gateway, E16, in the vicinity of Royal Victoria Dock / ExCeL.
For the purposes of this request, “Western Gateway” means the carriageway and footways generally signed as “Western Gateway” between its junction with Seagull Lane in the west and its junction with Connaught Road / the roundabout near the Sunborn Hotel in the east.
Please provide the following information:
1. Adoption / highway status
1.1. Please confirm whether any part of Western Gateway, as defined above, is a “highway maintainable at public expense” under section 36 of the Highways Act 1980.
1.2. If only part(s) of Western Gateway are adopted, please provide:
(a) a plan or extract from your highway records showing the precise extent of the highway maintainable at public expense; and
(b) any part(s) of Western Gateway which are recorded as privately maintained or otherwise not adopted.
1.3. Please provide the date(s) on which Western Gateway (or any part of it) became a highway maintainable at public expense, together with any relevant adoption certificate(s) or decision record(s).
2. Traffic authority / TROs / red line controls
2.1. Please confirm whether the traffic authority for Western Gateway is:
(a) the London Borough of Newham;
(b) Transport for London; or
(c) some other body (please specify).
2.2. Please provide copies of any Traffic Regulation Orders, Experimental Traffic Orders or other statutory instruments currently in force which regulate waiting, loading, stopping or “red route” style restrictions on Western Gateway.
2.3. If any such Orders are made by or on behalf of Transport for London, please confirm whether Newham holds copies and, if so, please provide them or direct me to where they are published.
3. Involvement of private parking operator “PPS”
For this section, “PPS” refers to the private parking company currently operating a “red route – no stopping at any time” scheme and issuing “Parking Charge Notices” (PCNs) for stopping on the red lines along Western Gateway and around Royal Victoria Dock.
3.1. Please confirm whether Newham Council has granted any permission, licence, concession, lease, contract, agency or other authorisation to PPS (or any associated company) in relation to:
(a) installing and maintaining signage or road markings (including red lines) on Western Gateway; and/or
(b) monitoring vehicles, issuing parking charge notices or otherwise enforcing any alleged parking / stopping restrictions on Western Gateway.
3.2. If such permission or authorisation has been granted, please provide:
(a) a copy of the relevant contract(s), licence(s), concession agreement(s), wayleave(s) or other formal documents; and
(b) any schedules, plans or site plans which show the area of operation granted to PPS, particularly as it relates to Western Gateway or any part of it that is a highway maintainable at public expense.
3.3. If PPS is authorised only in relation to land which is not a highway maintainable at public expense (for example, private forecourts or lay-bys off Western Gateway), please provide any plan(s) or document(s) which clearly identify the boundary between:
(a) the adopted public highway; and
(b) any private land where PPS is permitted to operate.
3.4. If Newham has not granted PPS any formal permission or contract, but is aware of PPS operating on or adjacent to Western Gateway, please provide any correspondence (letters or emails) between Newham and PPS (or their agents) about:
(a) parking or stopping enforcement on Western Gateway; and/or
(b) the installation of red lines, signage or parking / stopping controls on Western Gateway.
Please limit this correspondence request to the period from 1 January 2020 to the date of your response.
4. Council enforcement activity
4.1. Please confirm whether Newham Council (or its contractors) currently carries out civil parking enforcement (PCNs) on Western Gateway under the Traffic Management Act 2004.
4.2. If so, please provide:
(a) a copy of any published parking or enforcement map that shows Western Gateway as being within Newham’s civil enforcement area; and
(b) any internal guidance document or map which parking enforcement officers use that identifies Western Gateway as within their patrol area.
General
If any of the requested information is held in map or GIS form, I am happy to receive it as PDF extracts or screenshots, so long as the adopted / private boundaries are clearly legible.
If you consider that any part of this request is unclear or would engage the section 12 cost limit, please process the remainder that can be answered within the limit and let me know which parts would need to be refined.
I look forward to your response within 20 working days. -
-
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. -
-
Thanks for both of your responses b789 & InterCity125.
I will add on the points you have raised b789 to the POPLA appeal and then send it off closer to the deadline, even if I were to lose the POPLA appeal I will make it as difficult as possible for PPS to get anything from me. And if it is confirmed by Newham Council that Western Gateway is in fact a public road then what exactly is PPS' role there?
Correct me if I am wrong but they as a private traffic enforcement company have no authority on a public road and that authority lies solely with the local council. Would be interesting seeing the response from Newham Council on that matter. -
-
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, and thank you for the feedback.
As discussed on a different thread, it’s an incoherent and illiterate response from POPLA, but you have seen through the weeds and worked out what it means in English! -
-
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:Quote
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] -
-
I have sent off the complaint b789. Let's see what sort of excuses they come up with.
-
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
Like x 1
View List
Winner x 2
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List