Keep that as evidence. This is a rare and significant concession from POPLA, and you are right to consider it a notable success. This at least confirms:
1. Acknowledgement of Error:“I agree that we made the wrong decision on this appeal…”
This is a direct admission that the original appeal decision was legally and procedurally flawed.
2. Agreement on Contract Law Principles:“I am not satisfied that the operator rebutted your appeal reason that there was no contract on offer.”
POPLA now accepts that no offer = no contract, and therefore the premise of the original decision (that a contract was formed by the driver's conduct) was unsound.
3. Inappropriate Reliance on Beavis:“I would also agree that… the comparison with Beavis Vs ParkingEye was not appropriate.”
This confirms your argument that Beavis cannot be used to justify charges arising from purely prohibitory signage.
4. Internal Feedback and Training:“Feedback will be provided… to the individual and the wider team.”
While not an assurance of systemic change, this is at least a positive indication that the complaint may contribute to internal reforms.
This is a formal written statement that the appeal outcome was incorrect. While POPLA won’t overturn the decision, this gives you a powerful tool if the matter ever escalates to a court claim. A judge would be interested to know that the official ADR provider has conceded the case was wrongly decided.
If PPS or their debt collectors continue to pursue the matter, you can reference this POPLA response as clear evidence that no contract was formed, and the appeal rejection was flawed. This undermines any assertion that the charge was properly reviewed and upheld.
Send a Follow-Up to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), explaining that POPLA ultimately agreed with your complaint, but only after escalation and a refusal to properly engage at first instance. This still supports a regulatory concern about POPLA’s complaint handling and the quality control of assessors.
Before you can make formal complaint to the BPA, you have to exhaust the formal complaint process with PPS.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Request for Cancellation Following POPLA Concession
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN Reference]
POPLA Reference: [Insert POPLA Reference]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the above parking charge notice, issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd.
Following my appeal to POPLA, I received a direct response from a senior assessor (Helen, Leader at Flexible Resolution Services) confirming that the appeal decision was incorrect, and that:
1. Acknowledgement of Error:
“I agree that we made the wrong decision on this appeal…”
This is a direct admission that the original appeal decision was legally and procedurally flawed.
2. Agreement on Contract Law Principles:
“I am not satisfied that the operator rebutted your appeal reason that there was no contract on offer.”
POPLA now accepts that no offer = no contract, and therefore the premise of the original decision (that a contract was formed by the driver's conduct) was unsound.
3. Inappropriate Reliance on Beavis:
“I would also agree that… the comparison with Beavis Vs ParkingEye was not appropriate.”
This confirms that Beavis cannot be used to justify charges arising from purely prohibitory signage.
4. Internal Feedback and Training:
“Feedback will be provided… to the individual and the wider team.”
This is a clear and unambiguous concession that:
• The signage at the site was prohibitory, not contractual;
• There was no valid contract formed between the operator and the motorist;
• he Parking Charge Notice should not have been upheld.
Given that the ADR body has now accepted that the charge has no contractual basis, it would be wholly unreasonable — and arguably in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice — to continue enforcement.
I therefore request:
• That this PCN be immediately cancelled, and
• That you provide written confirmation that all recovery action has ceased, including from any third-party debt recovery agents.
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your internal complaints policy. Should I not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I will escalate the matter to the BPA’s AOS Compliance Team and include the POPLA concession as part of that complaint.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Postal Address]
[Email Address]
[Date]
You also should send the following formal letter of complaint to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), updated to reflect POPLA’s admission of error, your concern over systemic issues, and the need for proper regulatory oversight of ADR entities like POPLA.
Send the following to ccab@tsi.org.uk and CC in yourself:
Subject: Formal Complaint – POPLA’s Failure to Uphold ADR Standards (POPLA Ref: [Insert])
Dear CTSI ADR Monitoring Team,
I am writing to raise a formal complaint about POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), which is approved as an ADR provider under the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015.
This complaint concerns both how POPLA handled my appeal and wider issues with their internal procedures and decision-making standards.
I appealed a Parking Charge Notice issued by Private Parking Solutions Ltd (PPS). My appeal to POPLA explained that the signage at the site was prohibitory in nature and did not set out any contractual terms. I argued that no contract was offered and that therefore the charge had no legal basis. I also pointed out that the operator’s evidence failed to rebut this, and that ParkingEye v Beavis did not apply to such a situation.
My appeal was rejected by a POPLA assessor who incorrectly concluded that a contract was formed and relied on Beavis, despite the clear differences in context. I later submitted a formal complaint to POPLA.
After escalation, I received a response from a senior assessor, Helen (Leader at Flexible Resolution Services), who acknowledged that:
• The operator had not rebutted my argument that there was no contract on offer
• The comparison with Beavis was not appropriate
• The decision was wrong and should not have been made
Despite this admission, POPLA has no system to correct the error, and the flawed decision remains on record. The only reason I received a proper response was because I escalated the complaint beyond the normal process, after POPLA initially dismissed it with a generic reply.
I believe POPLA is not complying with the following parts of the ADR Regulations:
• Article 7(1): Their assessors clearly lack the legal knowledge and competence to handle disputes involving contract law or statutory compliance under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
• Article 9(2): The original appeal decision was not fair or reasoned. It ignored the core argument and applied a legal precedent incorrectly.
• Article 11: The complaints process is not effective. My first complaint was dismissed without any proper consideration. POPLA only admitted the error after escalation, and still offered no redress.
This raises serious concerns about POPLA’s ability to act as a fair and competent ADR body. Consumers rely on their decisions, and when those decisions are wrong, POPLA has no way to correct them. This encourages parking operators to continue enforcement on a flawed legal basis.
I ask that CTSI investigate whether POPLA is meeting its obligations and consider requiring improvements in their complaints process, assessor training, and accountability.
I attach the following documents to support this complaint:
• The original POPLA appeal and decision
• My formal complaint to POPLA
• POPLA’s concession that the decision was incorrect
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your email]
[Date]
