Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear B789
 
I am contacting you in relation to your request for an internal review concerning the response provided to FOI-0703-2526. Following your email of 29 May a review has been carried out by an independent review panel (‘the panel’) consisting of individuals who were not involved in the handling of your request.
 
To confirm, your original request asked for the following -

Please confirm whether the North Greenwich Station Car Park (postcode SE10 0PH), currently managed by Saba Park Services UK Ltd on behalf of TTL Properties Limited, remains subject to the TfL Railway Byelaws 2011. If the site was ever subject to those byelaws and they have since been revoked or superseded, please provide details of the revocation or modification.

Following the response to FOI-0703-2526 your subsequent email of 29 May stated -

This is an evasive and legally inadequate answer that does not address the substance of the request. The question was not whether Saba UK chooses to enforce parking under PoFA, but whether the land itself at North Greenwich Station remains subject to TfL Railway Byelaws 2011, as made under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

My request was specific and factual. It sought:

• Confirmation of whether byelaws currently apply to the land at SE10 0PH;
• If they do not apply, whether and when they were formally revoked or superseded, and by what legal or administrative mechanism.

Your answer did not provide this. It simply restated the operator’s current enforcement choice, which is legally irrelevant to the land’s status under PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.

For the record, unless and until TfL formally revokes its byelaws over a specific site, or unless the site is reclassified through a published legal instrument, that land remains subject to statutory control. A contractor’s self-declared reliance on civil enforcement does not alter the legal classification of the land.

I therefore request the following as part of this internal review:

1. A proper response confirming the legal status of the land, not the practices of the contractor;
2. Copies or references to any documents or orders showing revocation, disapplication or amendment of the TfL Railway Byelaws 2011 as they apply to North Greenwich Station Car Park;
3. An explanation of why my original question was not properly addressed.

[/i]

The panel have liaised with the appropriate subject matter experts and we have been unable to identify the specific information you seek in the contract that we hold with SABA UK. Additionally our legal team have liaised with SABA UK and they have also been unsuccessful in locating recorded confirmation of what you seek. Therefore on the balance of probabilities the panel agree that it’s likely the information is not held.  Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience that may have been caused.

With respect of the Byelaws the contract with SABA UK states the following -

- 21. Compliance with Policies and Law

21.1.2 shall provide the Services in compliance with and shall ensure that the Service Provider's Personnel comply with all requirements of all Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments, court orders, regulations, directives, European Community decisions (insofar as legally binding), bye-laws, treaties and other regulatory requirements relevant to either or both of the Service Provider's or the Authority's business, from time to time in force which are or may become applicable to the Services. The Service Provider shall promptly notify the Authority if the Service Provider is required to make any change to the Services for the purposes of complying with its obligations under this Clause 21.1.2;

SCHEDULE 9 – FORM OF COLLATERAL WARRANTY

1.3 shall comply with all the requirements of any Act of Parliament, Statutory Instrument or Order or any other regulation having the force of law or bye-law and all regulatory requirements relevant to the Subcontractor's business and/or the Authority's business from time to time in force which are or may become applicable to the Subcontract Services;

[/i]

The panel hope the above information provides satisfactory clarification, however if you are dissatisfied with the internal review actions to date please do not hesitate to contact me or alternately you can refer the matter to the independent authority responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act, at the following address:
 
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
 
A complaint form is also available on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk).
 
Yours sincerely
 
Emma Flint
Principal Information Access Adviser
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London
foi@tfl.gov.uk

Re: Internal Review – FOI-0703-2526 – North Greenwich Station Car Park

Dear Ms Flint,

Thank you for your response to the internal review concerning FOI-0703-2526.

I note that the panel has not confirmed whether the land at North Greenwich Station Car Park (postcode SE10 0PH) was ever subject to the TfL Railway Byelaws 2011. However, given the car park is physically attached to a TfL-operated station, it is reasonable to presume that it was, at some stage, subject to statutory control. The fact that neither TfL nor its contractor holds any record of a formal revocation, disapplication, or legal modification of those byelaws strengthens the legal presumption that the land remains under statutory control.

The Freedom of Information Act requires a public authority to confirm or deny the existence of the requested information. The internal review outcome confirms that there is no record revoking or superseding the byelaws in relation to this land. That omission is highly significant: under settled legal principles, byelaws remain in force unless expressly repealed or amended by a competent authority.

In this context, your statement that “Saba UK are not subject to TfL Byelaws” is legally irrelevant. The issue is not whether SABA chooses to operate under PoFA, but whether the land itself is “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That is a statutory question which cannot be determined by contractor preference or enforcement style.

This raises a serious concern: SABA UK is currently enforcing parking charges against registered keepers under PoFA 2012, on land which appears to remain under statutory control. Additionally, the Notice to Keeper issued in this case identifies SABA Park Services UK Ltd as the creditor, despite SABA’s own authorisation document confirming that TTL Properties Ltd is the landowner and creditor. These errors suggest breaches of both PoFA and the DVLA’s KADOE contract.

Thank you again for confirming that no record of revocation is held. This correspondence will be submitted to the DVLA and the Information Commissioner’s Office as part of a formal complaint regarding unlawful data processing and improper use of the PoFA framework on land presumed to remain non-relevant for statutory purposes.

Yours sincerely,

B789

To: complaints@popla.co.uk

Subject: Formal Complaint – Flawed Adjudication and Material Errors in POPLA Decision [POPLA REF]

Dear POPLA Complaints Team,

I am writing to raise a formal and extremely serious complaint regarding the handling of my appeal against a Parking Charge Notice issued by Saba Park Services UK Ltd at North Greenwich Station Car Park (PCN ref: [INSERT PCN REF]). The decision issued by your assessor is factually flawed, legally unsound, and has utterly failed to address the key grounds raised in the appeal. The conduct and competence of the assessor fall far below any acceptable standard for a supposed adjudicative body.

This is not merely a difference of opinion. The decision was reached on the basis of material misstatements of the law, a failure to consider the evidence, and a complete lack of engagement with the arguments advanced. I set out below the specific failings:

1. Incorrect Creditor Identified on the Notice to Keeper – PoFA Non-Compliance
The appeal clearly explained that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was non-compliant with Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because Saba Park Services UK Ltd is not the creditor. The contract provided by Saba themselves explicitly states on page 1:

“The Landowner is the creditor for all notices of parking charge issued...”

That landowner is TTL Properties Limited, as named throughout the contract. This alone invalidates the NtK for the purpose of transferring liability to the registered keeper.

However, the POPLA assessor ignored this decisive contractual clause and, without justification or analysis, accepted the false premise that Saba is the creditor. This is a demonstrable misreading of the operator’s own evidence. As a result, the entire decision is based on an unsound legal foundation. This represents an inexcusable level of negligence in evaluating the evidence and is a fundamental flaw in the decision.

2. Failure to Specify a Period of Parking – PoFA 9(2)(a) Breach Overlooked
The NtK does not specify a period of parking. It merely lists a date of contravention, without any entry or exit time or stated duration. The requirement under PoFA is clear: a “period of parking” must be identified. A single observation or timestamp is not sufficient.

This was clearly explained in the appeal and supported by persuasive County Court appellate authority in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], which was cited and ignored. This fundamental error shows either the assessor’s lack of basic legal competence or an unwillingness to apply PoFA correctly.

3. PPSCoP Breach – Appeal Response Overdue
A postal appeal was received by Saba on 23 March 2025 (confirmed in their evidence), yet no response or POPLA code was issued within the 28-day period required by Clause 8.4.1(b) and Annex C.1.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice.

The assessor wrongly claimed that “there is no timeframe for a response”, a statement which is demonstrably false and suggests a complete lack of familiarity with the relevant Code. This alone undermines the integrity of the entire decision.

4. Failure to Address the Land Status – No Relevant Land under PoFA
The appeal made it clear that the car park forms part of land historically subject to statutory control under Transport for London (TfL) byelaws. Such land is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA and therefore keeper liability cannot arise.

The assessor completely ignored this point. POPLA cannot lawfully assume PoFA applies when the statutory status of the land has been questioned and left unresolved. Again, no attempt was made to examine this issue, even though it fundamentally impacts liability.

5. Lack of Accountability and Systemic Concerns
POPLA is widely recognised as operating without external oversight. It is not subject to regulation by any truly independent ombudsman or appeals mechanism. When a decision is plainly wrong, as in this case, there is no recourse or appeal – only this opaque internal “complaints process”, which never reverses a decision, even where an error is accepted.

Your assessor in this case has shown such a profound lack of understanding of both the legislation and evidence that their competence to make judicial-style decisions must be questioned. There is an urgent need for either retraining or removal from their role.

These systemic issues will, I believe, be addressed when the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is finally implemented and an independent appeals service replaces POPLA. When that happens, few outside the parking industry will mourn the loss of a body that has become synonymous with misjudgments, inconsistency, and a refusal to accept accountability.

I formally request the following:

• That this case is reviewed by a senior legal assessor or adjudicator not involved in the original decision;
• That a written response is provided addressing each of the above points and outlining what action will be taken to remedy this miscarriage of justice.

Should POPLA fail to acknowledge or rectify this defective decision, I will treat the matter as further evidence of POPLA’s structural unfitness to serve as an independent adjudicator and will ensure that this case is included in future submissions to Parliament and the Department for Transport regarding the need for urgent reform and replacement of POPLA under the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Contact Details]
[Date]