-
So now do a forum search for some recent POPLA appeals and get a flavour of what is needed and put something together based on the advice I gave you in reply #8 and the show us so we can critique and advise any changes before it is submitted.
There is no rush as you have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection to submit your POPLA appeal. -
-
Sorry, can I just check, I have to do the IAS first right? I have only had a reply from CPM so far rejecting my original appeal
-
-
My bad. You only appeal to the IAS as they are an IPC operator. Use the following to paste as your IAS appeal:Quote
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal against this Parking Charge Notice on multiple grounds. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be identifying the driver. There is no legal obligation to do so and no adverse inference can lawfully be drawn from this.
GROUND 1: NO KEEPER LIABILITY – NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012 (PoFA)
The operator is attempting to pursue me as keeper for an alleged contractual parking charge. To do so, it must comply in full with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) in this case is not compliant, so there can be no keeper liability.
In particular:
(a) No “period of parking” as required by paragraph 9(2)(a)
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images of the vehicle’s number plate at the estate entrance, with timestamps showing the time of entry and exit to the estate. These images do not show any parking at all, still less a “period of parking”. Moving in front of an ANPR camera, travelling on an estate road, finding an address, turning around, loading/unloading, or briefly stopping for direction checks is not the same as “parking”.
The statute requires the Notice to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. Recording only an entry time and an exit time at a camera position that does not show any parking location is not specification of a “period of parking” within the meaning of PoFA. It merely shows the total time the vehicle was somewhere within a large estate, engaged in an undefined activity. The NtK therefore fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a).
(b) No compliant “invitation to keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(e)
The NtK does not contain the mandatory wording inviting the keeper either to pay the unpaid parking charge or to identify the driver and pass the notice on to them. The statute prescribes specific information that “must” be included. A notice which fails to include a fully compliant invitation to keeper as set out in paragraph 9(2)(e) cannot create keeper liability. Partial or approximate wording is not sufficient.
(c) Other omissions and defects
From its overall content, layout and wording, the NtK fails to deliver the statutory information in the prescribed manner. It does not clearly and unambiguously:
– Set out a proper period of parking,
– Specify the creditor in the manner required by paragraph 9(2)(h),
– Warn the keeper in the terms required by paragraph 9(2)(f) about the conditions under which the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper.
PoFA is a strict statutory regime: it is the only route by which a private parking company can ever hold a registered keeper liable for a driver’s alleged contractual charge. The operator has chosen to issue a defective NtK and has therefore failed to engage Schedule 4. Consequently, the only person who could in principle be liable is the unknown driver. As I have not been shown to be the driver and will not be identified as such, I cannot be liable.
The appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.
GROUND 2: NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARKING OR OF ANY BREACH
The only “evidence” relied upon is two ANPR photographs of the vehicle’s number plate at the entrance to a private estate, with timestamps 09:55 and 10:06. The operator asserts that the vehicle “remained on site for 10 minutes with no permit”. That is a bare assertion unsupported by evidence.
The images show no vehicle parked in a bay, stopped on land clearly subject to the operator’s terms, or even stationary. They show the vehicle passing a camera at the boundary of an estate. The operator has provided no map, plan or contemporaneous photographs showing:
– Where within the estate the vehicle is alleged to have been parked;
– Whether that location is actually part of the land under CPM’s management;
– Whether any CPM sign with full terms and conditions was positioned so that it could be read and accepted from that location.
On a residential estate, a vehicle could easily spend around ten minutes lawfully driving in, locating a particular address, stopping briefly to load/unload or to allow a passenger to attend at a property, and then driving back out, without ever “parking” in the sense required to form a contractual parking charge. This is particularly so where a driver is carrying out a short professional visit to a housebound patient, as in this case, which is in the nature of loading/unloading and ancillary to access rather than “parking” as contemplated by the signage.
By relying solely on boundary ANPR timestamps, CPM has not discharged the burden of proof to show that any parking actually took place on land subject to CPM’s terms, still less that the driver breached those terms. In the absence of clear evidence of a contravention, the charge cannot stand.
GROUND 3: FORBIDDING AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE – NO CONTRACT WITH A NON-PERMIT HOLDER
The signage at the estate is forbidding in nature and incapable of forming a contract with a motorist who does not already hold a valid CPM e-permit.
The internal sign wording (as photographed) prominently states that all vehicles must hold a valid UK CPM e-permit. The entrance sign similarly indicates that only residents and permit holders are authorised. For a visitor or other non-permit holder, the sign does not make any positive offer such as “you may park on these terms if you pay £100 in the event of breach”. Instead, it tells the motorist that they are not permitted to park at all unless they already have a permit.
A sign which states, in substance, “Permit holders only. No unauthorised parking” is a prohibitive notice. It does not contain an offer of parking to a non-permit holder that can be accepted by conduct. A person who parks contrary to such a notice would, at most, be a trespasser. Trespass is a matter for the landowner, and only the landowner can claim for damages for trespass. A parking company in CPM’s position has no standing to demand contractual charges from a trespasser where no contract was ever formed.
This analysis is consistent with county court authority which has found, on comparable “permit holders only / no unauthorised parking” wording, that the signage is forbidding and no contract is formed with a person who is not permitted to park.
Furthermore, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that a contract could somehow arise, CPM has failed to show that:
– The entrance signage meets the requirements for clear entrance signs in the applicable IPC Code of Practice and the current Private Parking Single Code of Practice;
– The driver would have been given a fair opportunity to read and understand the full terms before any alleged contravention occurred, particularly where the key terms are on a small sign mounted parallel to the road on a lamppost some distance into the estate.
In summary, there was no contractual offer to a non-permit holder, no clear acceptance, and no consideration moving between the parties. No contract can be said to have been formed with the driver, so no contractual parking charge is owed.
GROUND 4: CONSIDERATION PERIOD, SHORT PROFESSIONAL VISIT AND REASONABLENESS
The evidence shows only that the vehicle was somewhere within the estate for around ten minutes. On a residential estate with complex addressing, it is entirely reasonable for a driver making a professional home visit to a housebound patient to need this sort of time to:
– Enter the estate;
– Locate the specific address within an unfamiliar layout;
– Stop briefly to attend at the property and return to the vehicle;
– Safely exit the estate.
The current Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and the previous IPC Code of Practice, both recognise that there must be a reasonable “consideration period” on arrival, during which a motorist must be allowed time to read signs, decide whether to stay, and, if they decide not to or cannot comply, leave without incurring a charge. In addition, there must be a reasonable grace period at the end of any stay to leave the site.
Where a motorist is not even offered any paid parking option (because the site is “permit holders only”), and where the operator cannot show the vehicle parked in any bay or specific area under its control, issuing a £100 charge for a total site time of roughly ten minutes is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the spirit and purpose of these requirements. In effect, CPM is penalising the mere presence of a vehicle on an estate road for a short period, even where that presence is for a legitimate and socially valuable reason (a medical visit to a housebound resident).
GROUND 5: ANPR OPERATION, LAND DEFINITION AND DATA USE
The ANPR camera is positioned at the entrance to the estate, such that it captures every vehicle that passes in or out, irrespective of whether it ever enters a CPM-controlled parking area or stops at all. The operator has not produced any plan or evidence clearly defining:
– The exact “relevant land” on which its terms apply;
– The boundaries of any CPM-managed parking area;
– How the ANPR deployment is restricted to vehicles that are actually using CPM’s car park, rather than vehicles simply using the estate roads.
Private parking operators are under an obligation, both under the IPC Code of Practice and under data protection law, to ensure that ANPR is used in a proportionate and targeted way, and that motorists are given clear information at the point of data capture. CPM has not demonstrated that any appropriate notices were visible at the camera location explaining the use of ANPR and the extent of the controlled land.
In the circumstances of this case, CPM has obtained and processed my personal data from the DVLA on the basis of nothing more than a bare inference from two boundary ANPR images, without proof that any contravention occurred on land actually subject to CPM’s terms. That is not a proper use of DVLA data.
CONCLUSION
To summarise:
– The NtK is not compliant with the mandatory requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, so no keeper liability can arise. I was not the driver and will not be identified as such.
– The operator has provided no evidence that the vehicle was ever parked in breach of any terms. The ANPR images merely show movement past an estate boundary camera.
– The signage is forbidding and permits only vehicles with a valid CPM permit, so no contract is formed with a non-permit holder. At most, any issue would be trespass, which CPM has no standing to pursue.
– The brief presence on the estate is entirely consistent with a short professional visit to a housebound resident and falls within a reasonable consideration period and overall time to enter, attend, and leave.
– The deployment and use of ANPR in this case is overbroad and unsupported by evidence of a contravention on clearly defined land under CPM’s control.
For all of the above reasons, I invite the Adjudicator to allow this appeal and to direct that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. -
-
Amazing, thank you so much!
-
-
Hi, so sorry, they have put a 1000 word limit for the appeal box, this takes me to halfway through ground 3. Are you able to help me cut it down a bit? Im not sure which bits are more pertinent. Thank you
-
-
You submit it as a PDF file! There is an upload option that you use. Just say "See attached PDF appeal".
-
-
Ah yes thank you!
-
-
I have had this reply:
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 12/12/2025 10:30:41.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 04/11/2025.
The ticket was issued on 30/10/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant has been captured by ANPR entering and leaving the car park.
The vehicle was at the car park for 10 minutes and 28 seconds, evidence of this can be seen in the attached document '70131149'.
The appellant has parked within the car park and did not register their vehicle.
Signage clearly states “ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT. VEHICLES HOLDING A VALID E-PERMIT FOR AN ALLOCATED BAY OR AREA MUST PARK WITHIN THE CORRESPONDING BAY OR AREA”.
Our records indicate that vehicle registration OE14ZWR was not registered on the E-Permit system, however other vehicles are registered on the E-Permit system on the date of contravention. This can be seen in the attached document '70131149'.
The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they register their vehicle. This is the only way we can determine which vehicles are authorised to be parked within the restricted area.
The Registered Keeper did not name the Driver, therefore, as we have fully complied with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, we are holding the Registered Keeper liable for this PCN.
This site provides a 10 minute grace period for motorists to review the signage and determine whether they can comply with the terms and conditions, and if not, to leave the site. This is confirmed in the attached document ‘70131149'. The grace period is clearly defined and is not subject to dispute by the appellant, the driver, or the IAS. We have adhered to the requirements of the Single Code of Practice by allowing the prescribed grace periods. It is important to note that a definitive cut-off point for grace periods must exist to ensure consistency and fairness.
Due to the use of ANPR cameras on this site, there is no requirement for UK CPM to have evidence of the specific parking space the vehicle parked in, this is because we have photographic evidence from the ANPR cameras, of the entrance and exit times. The PCN has been issued due to the length of time the vehicle remained on site without being authorised to do so, rather than for the bay in which the vehicle was parked.
The site in question has been audited and approved by our governing body; therefore, it meets the requirements of their Code of Practice. Our signage on site is at industry standard and contains full and legible terms and conditions of parking; these are also clearly positioned so that they are obvious to the motorist. The Code clearly states, "The IPC will audit signage to ensure that the Terms and Conditions are suitable to form the basis of a contract and to make certain that they are clear, concise, unambiguous, and not misleading".
The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear and exists in the immediate vicinity of the Appellant's vehicle.
By parking and remaining on the site, the Driver has entered into a contract as outlined by the signage and agreed to comply with its terms. The signage clearly states the terms and conditions of parking, and this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued under Contract Law. Given the clarity of the signage, the driver had ample opportunity to decide not to park and exit the site, thereby avoiding liability for a PCN.
By the appellant parking at the restricted area, they have contractually agreed to pay the parking charge notice. -
-
They have offered me 2 options, to submit my response or refer to arbitration
-
-
They’re so inept they can’t even get their own terms correct; the grace period they refer to is otherwise known as a consideration period in their code of practice. See https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
-
-
What is this "...in the attached document ‘70131149'" document they are referring to? Please show it to us.
-
-
Its mainly just pictures of their signs and just the emails back and forth
https://ibb.co/xqh5JynR
https://ibb.co/Y73YDyLB
https://ibb.co/vxCJgSX5
https://ibb.co/VYKL17pj
https://ibb.co/GfBFZKr4
https://ibb.co/rKwGnkQ0
https://ibb.co/d0rTZj02
https://ibb.co/fwKCB2d
https://ibb.co/pvfyFPxc
https://ibb.co/p6PQyZZq -
-
Its mainly just pictures of their signs and just the emails back and forth
https://ibb.co/xqh5JynR
https://ibb.co/Y73YDyLB
https://ibb.co/vxCJgSX5
https://ibb.co/VYKL17pj
https://ibb.co/GfBFZKr4
https://ibb.co/rKwGnkQ0
https://ibb.co/d0rTZj02
https://ibb.co/fwKCB2d
https://ibb.co/pvfyFPxc
https://ibb.co/p6PQyZZq
Can we assume that none of those pictures show the keepers vehicle parked? -
-
Use the following as your IAS rebuttal to the operators prima facie case:Quote
1. The Operator’s “10 minutes to read signs and leave” admission destroys the charge (their own evidence)
The Operator calls it a “10 minute 'grace' period to read signs and leave”. That is plainly a 'consideration period', not a 'grace' period. A 'grace' period applies after a permitted parking event ends; a 'consideration' period applies before any contract can even be formed. The Operator’s inability to distinguish the two says everything about the reliability of the rest of its “compliance” narrative.
Worse for the Operator, its own site plan spells it out: “10 minutes for motorists to read signs and leave” and separately “10 minutes after a valid permit has expired”. That is the Operator admitting, in black and white, that motorists are allowed time on arrival to read the terms and leave without penalty if they cannot or do not wish to comply.
Having made that concession, the Operator then tries to issue a charge using nothing but ANPR entry/exit timestamps and a crude “time on site” calculation. That is not a period of parking, it does not prove any parking, and it certainly does not prove a breach of a 'consideration' period. The Operator cannot dress up a stopwatch between two boundary camera captures as contractual breach while simultaneously claiming to allow motorists time to read and leave. This point is self-contradictory, incompetent, and should be given no weight.
2. Keeper liability is denied: strict proof of full PoFA compliance is required
The Operator asserts it is “seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA” and that the NtK was sent “in accordance with PoFA”. That is a conclusion, not proof. The Operator was put to strict proof that the NtK fully complied with every applicable requirement of Schedule 4 PoFA.
Critically, the Operator’s own narrative confirms reliance on ANPR entry/exit timestamps and a calculated “time on site”. PoFA requires the notice to specify a period of "parking". ANPR entry and exit timestamps are not, of themselves, a period of "parking" and do not prove that the vehicle was "parked" at all. As the NtK relies on camera times rather than specifying a period of "parking", then Keeper liability cannot arise.
The driver has not been identified. There is no legal obligation on a Keeper to identify the driver. If PoFA is not strictly complied with, the Keeper cannot be held liable.
3. ANPR entry/exit proves only movement past cameras, not parking, location, contract, or breach
The Operator says the vehicle was captured entering and leaving and was “at the car park for 10 minutes 28 seconds”. This proves only that the vehicle passed two camera points. It does not prove any parking occurred, where within the site any alleged parking occurred, or that any terms were properly brought to the driver’s attention at that location.
A calculated duration between two ANPR timestamps is simply time between two camera captures. It is not proof of a contravention and cannot substitute for proof of parking and proof of breach.
4. “The appellant parked within the car park and did not register” is an unsupported assertion
The Operator asserts the vehicle “parked” and was not registered on the e-permit system. That is not evidence of parking.
The Operator provides no photograph of the vehicle parked, no bay/location evidence, no contemporaneous site plan identifying where it allegedly parked, and no evidence showing what signs were visible, readable, and facing traffic from that alleged location. Without proving the alleged parking location, the Operator cannot prove the terms were capable of being read and accepted, nor prove any breach.
5. The signage is forbidding and incapable of forming a contract with a non-permit holder
The Operator relies on signage stating:
“ALL VEHICLES MUST HOLD A VALID UK CPM E-PERMIT…”
That is prohibitive wording. It is not a contractual offer to those without a permit; it is “permit holders only / no unauthorised parking”. Where no offer is made to a non-permit holder, no contract can be formed with them. The Operator cannot simultaneously forbid parking without a permit and then claim that a non-permit holder accepted a contract by being present.
At most, any issue would be an allegation of trespass, which is a matter for the landholder, not a contractual parking charge pursued by a parking contractor.
6. “Other vehicles were registered” is irrelevant and does not prove breach or accuracy
The Operator says other vehicles were registered on the permit system on the date. That is irrelevant to whether this vehicle was parked in breach of any term, whether any contract was formed, whether signage was readable/accepted, or whether the Operator’s system is accurate. It is a distraction, not proof.
7. “No requirement to evidence the specific parking space because ANPR exists” is wrong
The Operator claims that due to ANPR it does not need evidence of the specific parking space and that the PCN is issued due to time on site rather than for a bay. That is the Operator admitting it cannot evidence parking or location and is attempting to enforce a “presence on site” allegation instead.
Contract formation depends on terms being brought to the driver’s attention and accepted. Without proving where the vehicle was and what signage was visible there, the Operator cannot prove contract formation or breach. “Time on site” is not proof of “parking in breach”.
8. Generic “audited/approved signage” claims are hearsay and not evidence
The Operator asserts the site has been audited and signage is “industry standard” and in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. Generic assertions do not prove what signs were present, positioned, legible, and facing traffic on the material date, nor do they prove what was visible from the vehicle’s alleged location (which the Operator will not evidence). This should be given no weight.
9. Conclusion
The Operator’s case is built on ANPR entry/exit timestamps and unsupported assertions. Their own site plan concedes a 10-minute arrival window to read signage and leave, yet they attempt to penalise a vehicle based on a “time on site” calculation that is not a period of parking and cannot evidence breach. Keeper liability is denied and strict PoFA compliance has not been proven. The Operator has failed to prove parking, failed to prove location, failed to prove signage acceptance, and relies on prohibitive permit-only wording that is incapable of forming a contract with a non-permit holder. The charge must be cancelled.
The IAS deliberately blocks normal pasting into its response box using JavaScript. This is not a technical glitch; it is done to frustrate appellants and prevent structured rebuttals. It can be bypassed easily if you know how.
The most reliable method is to disable JavaScript for the IAS page. In Chrome, open the IAS appeal page, click the padlock icon in the address bar, go to Site settings, change JavaScript to Blocked, then refresh the page. Once the page reloads, the text box will accept pasted text normally. You can paste your prepared response in full and submit it. JavaScript can be re-enabled afterwards if you wish.
If you do not want to disable JavaScript, you can paste directly into the response box using the browser’s developer tools. Right-click anywhere on the IAS page and select Inspect. In the developer panel, locate the <textarea> element that corresponds to the response box. Click inside the <textarea> content in the code view and paste your prepared text there. Close the developer panel and submit. This bypasses all front-end restrictions.
In some browsers, the IAS blocks standard paste but still allows “paste without formatting”. Try using Ctrl+Shift+V (or Cmd+Shift+V on a Mac). This occasionally works depending on browser version and IAS updates.
If all else fails, paste the text into a plain text editor such as Notepad or TextEdit set to plain text, then copy and paste the response into the IAS box in smaller chunks. Starting to type a few characters manually before pasting often defeats the script trigger. This method is slower but works.
Always keep a saved copy of your full response before submitting. After pasting, scroll through the text box carefully to confirm that nothing has been truncated. Do not refresh the page after pasting unless you have confirmed the text is safely stored elsewhere.
These steps are sufficient to defeat the IAS paste restriction and allow the full rebuttal to be submitted exactly as written. -
-
I've also noticed a number of facts having examined the operators evidence;
1. The signage is contradictory - on the gate way it states 'Scholars Court - Private Road - Residents Only'. Another sign states 'A valid permit must be displayed in the windscreen' whilst a further sign demands 'an e-permit'.
2. The operator is clearly and purposefully projecting a false narrative when they describe the private road as 'a car park' - the whole area is actually an estate of four storey apartment blocks with each block containing many dwellings - the estate is so large that it comprises many post code areas - Google Earth shows that there are several car parks on the site along with an internal road network - we believe that the operator is projecting their narrative in order to make an ANPR system appear adequate when calculating parking times etc.
3. The obvious failures of the operator to engage in discussing the non PoFA compliant NtK (already covered.) -
Love x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List