Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes

Great—POPLA code secured and TRACE recalled. Next step: file a tight POPLA appeal focused on (1) no keeper liability due to a defective PoFA warning, and (2) rebutted delivery/service. Submit within 33 days of the rejection letter date (the letter is dated 10/10/2025, so don’t miss the deadline).

Below is a ready-to-paste POPLA appeal text. Use it as your whole appeal.

POPLA Appeal: PCN [ref], VRM [vrm], Site: RCP Rochdale Road, Event date: 20/06/2025

1. Operator has not shown that I (the keeper) was the driver; keeper liability not established – Notice to Keeper fails PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(f).
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) dated 26/06/2025 contains contradictory statutory warnings. One paragraph states that the creditor “will have the right to recover from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid” (addressed to the keeper), but the very next paragraph states that the creditor has the right “to recover the Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle”.

PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(f) requires a single, clear warning that if the creditor does not know the name and a current address for service for the driver by the end of 28 days, the creditor will have the right to recover the unpaid charge from the keeper. A notice which equivocates between recovery from “you” (keeper) and “from the driver” does not strictly comply with para 9(2)(f). Because strict compliance is mandatory for keeper liability, no keeper liability can arise and the appeal must be allowed.

I am the registered keeper and I will not be naming the driver.

2. No delivery of the original NtK – PoFA presumption of delivery rebutted; the NtK was not “given” within 14 days as required by para 9(4)(b).
PoFA Sch 4 para 9(4)(b) requires the NtK to be delivered (given) to the keeper within 14 days beginning with the day after the parking event. I attest that no NtK was received at my address in June/July 2025. The first correspondence I found on returning home mid-August was an overdue letter dated 24/07/2025, followed by 11/08/2025. The operator’s portal could not locate the PCN, preventing an in-time appeal.

After a formal complaint to the operator, a copy of the missing NtK was provided. However, the operator relies on an internal “Unity5 hybrid mail” certificate referring to a “2–3 day delivery” service as their 'evidence' of posting. That document is not independent proof of posting or delivery, does not evidence handover to a postal operator, and on its face indicates a service inconsistent with two-day delivery.

PoFA 9(6) says a Notice to Keeper sent by post is presumed to be delivered two working days after posting—unless the contrary is proved. That phrase is crucial. It means the presumption of delivery is not automatic or absolute. It can be overturned.

To rely on the presumption, the operator must first prove that the notice was actually posted. That means showing independent evidence of:

• the date of posting,
• correct addressing,
• and handover to a postal operator.

If they can’t prove that, the presumption doesn’t apply. And if the motorist provides credible evidence of non-receipt, or shows that the operator’s evidence is weak or inconsistent (e.g. a hybrid mail certificate with no proof of handover or a “2–3 day” service), then the “contrary is proved”.

In this case, the operator’s Unity5 certificate is not proof of posting. It’s a self-generated internal record that shows the notice was queued for hybrid mail—not that it was posted or handed to Royal Mail. It even refers to a “2–3 day” service, which contradicts PoFA’s two-working-day presumption.

Therefore, the presumption of delivery is rebutted. The notice was not “given” as required by PoFA, and keeper liability does not apply.

3. Landowner authority – the operator is put to strict proof.
Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA 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, I 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 (standing) from the landowner for this specific site.

4. Inadequate signage and terms.
From the operator’s own images, the terms are presented in dense, minuscule text with the charge amount buried within a block of wording. The signage fails the requirements of clarity, prominence and legibility that are necessary for a driver to be bound by contract terms, especially for an onerous £100 charge. The operator is put to strict proof of clear entrance signage, legible terms at the point of parking/payment, and contemporaneous photos showing how the signs appeared on 20/06/2025.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, the operator has failed to establish keeper liability and has not proven a valid contract was formed and breached. I request that POPLA allow the appeal.

@b789: Pardon the late reply, it's been a week. I was getting ready send off the appeal, but I just wanted to check where points 3 and 4 come from as I don't think they have been mentioned before. Is 3 just something they are required to do in the NtK that they failed to? With 4, I don't think they ever provided pictures of their signage.

@roythebus: Yeah, it did feel that way.

Just send as is, including points 3 & 4.

RCP have added their comments to the POPLA appeal and I've been asked to further comment:

Parking Charge Notice [redacted] was issued to vehicle [redacted] for the Contravention of ‘non-payment’ on 20th June 2025 at our Rochdale Road car park. The vehicle entered the car park at 17:30pm on and exited at 22:18pm on 20th June 2025 as per the ANPR cameras. The Notice to Keeper was sent on 26th June 2025, attached. A Reminder Notice was sent on 24th July 2025, attached. The Final Demand was sent on 11th August 2025, attached. The Parking Charge was passed to Debt Recovery on 8th September 2025 as there had been no appeal submitted, or payment made against the Parking Charge. The appeals portal would have allowed ana appeal to be submitted right up until this date.

We received an email regarding [redacted] on 30th September 2025, Freshdesk Ticket [redacted]. This entire thread is attached and during this exchange the appellant denies receiving the Notice to Keeper, requests evidence of the Notice to Keeper being sent, claims that we have failed to meet PoFA requirements on two counts and requests that we provide him with a POPLA Code. The appellant refused to comment on why they let the matter reach Debt Recovery despite confirming receiving the Reminder Notice and Final Demand and did not provide any evidence or mitigating circumstances as to why they did not make a valid payment for parking on 20th June 2025. Nor has the appellant provided us with the full name and serviceable address for the driver to transfer the liability.

We added this an appeal on our system on 10th October 2025 following the emails on 9th October 2025. We declined the appeal on 10th October 2025, attached, as vehicle [redacted] was parked with a valid payment in breach of the Terms & Conditions. The Terms and Conditions state ‘You must have a valid Online Booking, Pre-Booking, Pay & Display Ticket or Permit at all times and the vehicle details must match the vehicle parked’. As you can see from the attached ‘All Payments for [redacted] at Rochdale Road’ the appellant parks there semi regularly. The discounted amount of the Parking Charge was reduced to £20.00 in line with the spirit of the Sector Single Code of Practice Appeals Charter.

Please see attached the ANPR photos for this Parking Charge (Entry photo, entry plate, exit photo and exit plate), all Bookings for Rochdale Road car park for 20th June 2025, there is no payment made for a vehicle registration ending in [redacted], the Rochdale Road Site Plan and Rochdale Road Landowner agreement (redacted version). In their appeal to POPLA they have 4 points 1. The Operator has not shown that the keeper was the driver and keeper liability has not been established in line with PoFA. 2. The Operator has not proved delivery of the Notice to Keeper in line with PoFA or even that the Notice to Keeper was posted. 3. The Operator is required to prove Landowner authority. 4. The Operator has inadequate signage and terms and has not proved a valid contract was formed.

Our response to their POPLA Appeal. 1. Our Notice to Keeper is PoFA compliant and this was confirmed in other POPLA cases, including recently in case 7161985047. 2. The Notice to Keeper was posted on 26th June 2025, as per the date at the top of the Notice to Keeper and therefore deemed to arrive two working days after this date would have been 10 days after the Contravention and in line with PoFA guidelines, this was also clarified as compliant by POPLA in case 7161985047. In that case the “Certificate of Postage” was also provided as evidence. Even if this was delivered on the 3rd, or even 4th, working day, it would still be deemed to arrive within 14 days specified in the guidelines of PoFA. The appellant confirms in their emails to us that they received the Reminder Notice and Final Demand letters, their certificates of postage are also attached. RCP Parking Ltd cannot be held responsible for the postal services failure to deliver letters. 3. Please see attached a redated version of our Rochdale Road Landowner Agreement giving authorisation to RCP Parking Ltd to operate a car park on the land and carry out enforcement in line with this operation. This agreement continued beyond the initial 6-month lease and RCP Parking Ltd still have permission to operate on this land. Please see POPLA case 7162405019 which recognised that a Landlord would not look on quietly while someone operates on their land without permission. 4. Our signage is displayed throughout the car park, as per our Rochdale Road Site Plan, and the signage is compliant. The Rochdale Road car park has not been changed since this Site Plan was created.

The motorist parked beyond the Consideration Period provided and by remaining parked agrees to the Terms & Conditions of the car park and by not making a valid payment for vehicle registration [redacted] the vehicle is in breach of the Terms & Conditions and the Parking Charge has been issued correctly. The Rochdale Road car park is an online payment only car park, this vehicle has made multiple payments at this car park before and after the date in question, the signs with the unique Location Code to make the online payment are displayed in the car park. In conclusion. The Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued for ‘non-payment’ as there was no payment for vehicle registration [redacted] on 20th June 2025 and therefore the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms & Conditions of the car park. The appellant has provided no evidence of a valid payment or even an attempt to make a payment to be considered on the original appeal or their appeal to POPLA. The appeal was declined and reduced to £20.00, if paid within 14 days, well in line with spirit of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Appeals Charter.

How should I reply to this? (I'm not sure if I should mention it, but the answer to one of their queries, which I've mentioned here is that when I arrived home and tried to appeal, the portal could not locate my PCN.)

There are many attachments, mostly the original letters and the Unity5 hybrid mail print outs. There is also a list of all payments on June 20th with partial VMS, a redacted land owner agreement. Do you want me to redact and upload all of these?

As above, we need to see their "evidence", especially the landowner contract. Their response is weak and easily dismantled because it misstates the law, misunderstands PoFA, and relies on irrelevant comparisons.

Even without seeing the "evidence" you can use the following points to rebut their "evidence":

1. No proof of posting or delivery – presumption rebutted.

The operator has produced only an internal Unity5 printout describing a “2–3 day delivery” service. That is not proof of posting, dispatch, or handover to Royal Mail. It is a self-generated system note. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(6) creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery only where actual posting is proven. I have formally attested non-receipt. Their own evidence describes a service slower than first class, which itself rebuts the two-day presumption. PoFA requires the NtK to be delivered within 14 days (paragraph 9(4)(b)), not merely dated or printed. The operator has failed to prove delivery and therefore cannot rely on PoFA.

2. Misinterpretation of PoFA and misuse of “guidelines”.

The operator repeatedly refers to “PoFA guidelines” and “within 14 days specified in the guidelines”. There are no 'guidelines'—PoFA sets a strict statutory limit. Their claim that even a third- or fourth-working-day delivery “would still be compliant” is false. The Act requires actual delivery within 14 days, not deemed posting or approximation. Their hybrid mail record showing a 2–3 day service renders compliance impossible to prove.

3. NtK wording not compliant with paragraph 9(2)(f).
The operator entirely ignores the statutory warning defect. Their NtK states the creditor will recover the charge “from you”, then later states it will recover it “from the driver”. This is not the wording required by paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates a single, clear warning that the charge may be recovered from the keeper if the driver is not identified. The warning is contradictory and therefore non-compliant. PoFA is strict liability: any deviation voids keeper liability.

4. Irrelevant reliance on other POPLA cases.
Quoting unrelated POPLA decisions (e.g. 7161985047, 7162405019) carries no legal weight. POPLA decisions are not precedents and each case turns on its own facts. Their selective references to prior appeals do not cure non-compliance in this case.

5. Landowner authority not evidenced.
They admit providing a redacted contract and assert it “continued beyond the initial 6-month lease”. Continuation by assertion is not proof. The BPA CoP and PPSCoP require an unredacted contemporaneous contract showing authority to operate and litigate in their own name. They have not supplied this.

6. Signage argument unsupported.
The operator has supplied a “site plan” but no contemporaneous photos showing how the signage actually appeared on 20 June 2025. A plan proves nothing about visibility, legibility, or compliance with the PPSCoP requirements for prominence and clarity. The charge amount is buried in dense text; therefore, no contract was formed.

7. Their narrative about the driver and payment is irrelevant.
I am the registered keeper and the driver is not identified. Under PoFA, liability can only pass to the keeper if the statutory conditions are met. They have not met them.

Conclusion:
The operator has failed to prove delivery of the NtK within 14 days and has issued a notice that is not compliant with PoFA 9(2)(f). Keeper liability cannot arise. The appeal must be allowed.

A minor point, but I'd challenge their redacting of the name of the landowner - how on earth are you supposed to confirm that the person/organisation signing the agreement actually own it?

The landowner's name is public domain (anyone who pays a few quid to Land Registry can access a copy of the title), so there's no good reason to redact it.