Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hopefully you have not yet appealed or blabbed the drivers identity. Bradgate Park (including the Hallgates/Cropston car park) is covered by the Bradgate Park Trust’s byelaws, which the Trust states “cover the whole Estate” and are made under statutory powers (Town Gardens Protection Act 1862 as applied by s.15(3) Open Spaces Act 1906, having effect via s.55 Criminal Justice Act 1988).

Hallgates is one of the Trust’s pay-and-display car parks at Bradgate Park, confirming it sits within the Estate subject to those byelaws.

Implication for PoFA: land under statutory control (byelaws) is not “relevant land” for Schedule 4 keeper liability. Spring Parking can pursue the driver, but cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper at this site. (Conclusion drawn from the statutory-byelaw status above.)

Additionally, the Notice to Driver (NtD) fails at least two requirements of PoFA and as such, they cannot hod the Keeper liable. They have no idea of the drivers identity unless you blab that to them. There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.

Under PoFA Sch 4 ¶7(2)(a) the notice MUST “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates”. An “Observed time 14:06” plus an “Issue time 14:13” does not do that. The issue time is an administrative act (when the ticket was printed/served), not the end of any observed parking. Nothing on the notice says the vehicle was observed from 14:06 to 14:13 or that it remained parked for those seven minutes. As clarified in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (paras 27–28), there must be at least a short period of parking identified; a single timestamp—or anything that doesn’t actually state a period—won’t do. That NtD doesn’t state a period.

For now, do not do anything. Do not appeal until day 27 after the date of the alleged contravention. I advise you to appeal on Sunday 9th November using their online portal or by email. The point of this is to try and deflect them form issuing a Notice to Keeper (NtK) and gets them to respond to the appeal.

You appeal ONLY as the Keeper. Appeal with the following:

Re: PCN [ref], VRM [ABC123] – Hallgates (Cropston), Bradgate Park

Keeper’s name & address for service:

[Full name]
[Address line 1]
[Address line 2]
[Post town] [Postcode]

I 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.

Bradgate Park (including Hallgates/Cropston) is subject to the Bradgate Park Trust byelaws and is therefore not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. You cannot transfer liability to the keeper at this location; any claim would lie only (if at all) against the driver.

You now have my keeper details and a valid address for service. Do not obtain my data from DVLA. You have no “reasonable cause” under Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, and any duplicative KADOE request would be unnecessary and unlawful processing contrary to UK GDPR/DPA 2018 (lack of necessity and lawfulness: Art.5(1)(a)–(c), Art.6(1)(f)). Treat this notice as confirmation and rectification of my address for service.

On the merits, the driver used the PayByPhone app in good faith, progressed through verification/confirmation, yet no payment was taken—indicative of signal/system failure rather than any deliberate breach. You are put to strict proof of (i) landowner authority for Hallgates, and (ii) the signage and its prominence on the material date.

There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Spring Parking 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 NtD can only hold the driver liable. Spring Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

I have received a response from Spring Parking rejecting my appeal and providing a POPLA code giving me 28 days to appeal to POPLA.
They also state that I have reached the end of their internal appeals procedure and therefore have two options - pay or appeal. However they do not know the name of the driver and have not sent me a Notice to Keeper.

Please could you let me know what the next steps I should take are, I'm guessing trying to put together my POPLA appeal. Thank you for your help so far.



Date of this notice 12th November 2025


Thank you for submitting your PCN appeal via email.

PCN Reference-

Vehicle Registration-

POPLA verification Code-

Date and Time of Parking Event -13th October 2025 at 14:13

Location- Bradgate Park, Swithland Woods, Leicester, LE6 0HJ


Thank you for your representation you made on receiving a Parking Charge Notice with the above reference number.

We have considered everything on your email including any evidence enclosed but do not feel that you have made grounds for cancelling the Parking Charge Notice and as such payment remains due.

Your vehicle was parked NOT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PAY AND DISPLAY TICKET. More evidence can be viewed online by visiting http://www.sp.eparking.co.uk.

We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible, so the Parking Charge Notice is fully enforceable.

There are adequate warning signs mounted prominently in the car park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure all signage is checked and understood before a vehicle is parked.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options can pay or appeal -YOU MUST NOT DO BOTH.

If you have already made payment for your parking charge notice, please ignore the below:

You now have several options.

1.   Pay the Parking Charge Notice online at www.sp.eparking.co.uk or by calling our 24-hour payment line on 0330 008 0454 or payment can be made by posting a cheque made payable to Spring Parking Ltd. and sent to the address below. Please quote your ‘Parking Charge Notice’ Number and your vehicle registration number on the reverse, if paid within 14 days of issue it will be at the reduced amount of £55.

2.   Make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days by going online and completing the form at www.popla.co.uk. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA, and your appeal is subsequently rejected, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due of £95. Your POPLA reference number is
7963165441

3.   By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org /) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE A PAYMENT IF YOU WILL BE APPEALING THROUGH POPLA AS NO REFUNDS ARE GIVEN.

4.   If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant time frame, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed Debt Collection Agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.

5.   POPLA will NOT consider any cases where payment has been made.

Thank you for your help, just to clarify I am submitting the appeal as you have written and don't need to add anything else to it.

Once again thank you.

I have now received the Operator information and evidence from Spring Parking, hopefully attached if I've done it correctly.

In the pack it states that the registered keepers details were obtained from the DVLA under a reasonable cause request, under this it shows the name and address of the registered keeper and also that a reminder notice to keeper was issued by post. But they have not provided a copy of the notice to keeper, proof of postage or anything. I have not received any thing through the post from Spring Parking and have definately not received a Notice to Keeper in any shape or form.

Having read some threads I was think of replying with something like this:-

The operator claims they issued a “reminder Notice to Keeper” after obtaining DVLA data, but they have not supplied a copy of this document in their evidence pack. There is also no record of any original Notice to Keeper (NtK) being issued before that. Under PoFA, a parking operator can only hold the registered keeper liable for a parking charge if they serve a valid NtK within strict statutory timeframes and containing all the required information.

In this case, the operator first issued a Notice to Driver (NtD), and the registered keeper then submitted an appeal using the operator’s internal process. The operator rejected that appeal and confirmed that the internal process had ended. However, they did not issue a formal NtK before or after that stage, only stating in their evidence pack that a “reminder” was sent. A reminder is not a substitute for a PoFA-compliant NtK, nor was a reminder received by the keeper.

PoFA Paragraph 6(1)(a) states that if an NtD has been given, then the NtK must be served not less than 28 days and not more than 56 days after the alleged parking event. It must also include specific mandatory information as set out in Paragraph 8 of PoFA. Without a valid NtK that meets all these conditions, the operator has no legal basis to hold the keeper liable.

As no NtK has been produced and no evidence has been submitted to show that one was ever issued in the correct form or timeframe, the operator cannot rely on PoFA. Therefore, liability cannot transfer from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper, and the appeal must be allowed.



I have 7 days to respond and would appreciate your help

Respond by copying and pasting the following into the response webform:

RESPONSE TO OPERATOR EVIDENCE

1. Not relevant land – PoFA keeper liability is impossible (PoFA Sch 4 para 3(1)(c))

The operator has ignored the main ground of appeal. This site is not “relevant land” under PoFA Schedule 4.

PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3(1) defines “relevant land”. Paragraph 3(1)(c) excludes land where parking is subject to statutory control, including land governed by byelaws.

Bradgate Park Byelaws expressly regulate parking and vehicle parking within “the Park”, defined as “Bradgate Park and Swithland Wood and any land adjoining either of them and for the time being under the control of the Committee”. The byelaws state they “cover the whole Estate” and are enforced by the Trust’s staff. 

Critically, Byelaw 15(iv) states: “No unauthorised person shall park any vehicle in the Park except at such times and places as may be authorised by the Committee.”

This is statutory control of parking on the land. Therefore, by operation of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3(1)(c), the land is not relevant land and keeper liability cannot arise at all. The operator can only pursue the driver, who has not been identified. POPLA must allow the appeal on this basis alone.

Byelaws link for POPLA:

https://www.bradgatepark.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9a5adb6c-a263-452b-982a-b18bccebda70

2. No Notice to Keeper served or evidenced (PoFA Sch 4 para

Further and in any event, even if PoFA could apply (it cannot), the operator has not proven compliance with PoFA paragraph 8.

A windscreen Notice to Driver was issued on 13 October 2025. Where an NtD has been given and the driver is not identified, PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 requires service of a compliant Notice to Keeper within the statutory day 29 to day 56 window. The operator has not produced any NtK in evidence. They merely claim that a “reminder notice to keeper” was issued.

I did not receive any Notice to Keeper of any kind and I did not receive any “reminder” either. A reminder is irrelevant unless the operator first proves that a PoFA-compliant NtK was served. They have not done so.

If the operator maintains that an NtK (or reminder) was posted, they are put to strict proof of posting. A bare assertion that it was “issued by post” is not proof of posting.

3. Deemed delivery and what “contrary is proved” means

Where legislation creates a presumption of delivery (for example, deemed delivery a set number of working days after posting), that presumption ONLY operates where posting is evidenced. If the recipient disputes receipt, that is “the contrary” being asserted. In plain terms, “the contrary” means evidence or a credible statement showing that the presumed fact (delivery) did not occur.

Here, the keeper expressly disputes receipt of any NtK or reminder. Therefore the operator must first prove the foundational fact that the document was actually posted, and posted when they say it was. Without evidence (proof of) of posting, POPLA cannot properly apply any presumption of delivery and cannot be satisfied that a PoFA-compliant NtK was “given” in time.

The operator has provided no copy NtK, no reminder copy, and no proof of posting. Accordingly, even aside from the byelaws point, PoFA keeper liability is not established.

Conclusion

The operator has ignored and failed to rebut the main ground: this is land under statutory control of byelaws, excluded from relevant land under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 3(1)(c). Keeper liability is impossible. In addition, the operator has failed to produce or evidence service of any Notice to Keeper as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 8 and is put to strict proof of posting. The driver is unidentified. The appeal must be allowed.

I'd add the following as point #4 to the response:

4. Contract/authority evidence still does not answer keeper liability, and the agreement itself undermines their position
The operator’s pack contains generic statements that “There is a contract in place at the above location” and refers to a “Signed Agreement attached”.

None of that rebuts the non-relevant land point under PoFA.

Further, the car park management agreement provided does not support keeper liability. Clause 10 refers only to “driver” liability (not keeper liability). This aligns with the legal position: on non-relevant land the operator can only pursue the driver. The operator has not identified the driver.

Not an issue. You will be able to use it in your comments on the operators evidence pack when that arrives.