POPLA Reference number: [POPLA Ref Number}
PCN number: [PCN number]
VRM: [VRM}
This is an appeal by the Keeper and will refer to the following points:
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given – no keeper liability can apply
2. NtD is non-compliant with PoFA – no period of parking stated
3. No Keeper liability can arise – the driver has not been identified and the PCN is not PoFA compliant
4. No contravention stated – UKPC’s own NtD confirms no breach occurred
5. Signage incapable of forming a contract – fails to meet the requirements of PoFA and the Beavis test
6. Predatory enforcement – no legitimate interest is served
7. Rejection of the initial appeal was unreasonable, disingenuous, and shows bad faith
1. No Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given – no keeper liability can apply
This PCN was issued as a Notice to Driver (NtD) on 23 January 2025. The Registered Keeper submitted an appeal on 19 February 2025 (day 27 after the NtD was issued). UKPC rejected the appeal on 14 March 2025 (day 50). As of 24 March 2025 (day 60), no Notice to Keeper (NtK) has been given.
UKPC is therefore time-barred from pursuing the Registered Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4, Paragraph 8. The law is not ambiguous.
The relevant provision is Paragraph 8(5), which states:
“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.”
That is not 56 days in total from the date of the NtD, as some operators lazily assume. It is a period of 28 days that follows another period of 28 days, beginning with the day after the NtD was given.
Let’s spell this out:
• The NtD was given on 23 January 2025
• The first 28-day period started on 24 January and ended on 20 February (inclusive)
• The second 28-day period — the “relevant period” under Paragraph 8(5) — ran from 21 February to 20 March 2025 (inclusive)
• Therefore, the latest possible date that a Notice to Keeper could be given was 20 March 2025.
“Given” does not mean sent, posted, or issued. It means delivered to the Keeper, either by post or by hand, within that window. That is the test in PoFA.
As of the date of this appeal, no NtK has been given. UKPC has no legal route under PoFA to hold the Keeper liable.
That they nonetheless rejected the appeal and issued a POPLA code either betrays a complete ignorance of the legislation they rely on, or worse, is a conscious attempt to coerce payment from someone who is not liable under statute. Either way, it is unacceptable.
To be clear for the avoidance of doubt: without a PoFA-compliant NtK delivered between 21 February and 20 March, the Keeper cannot be held liable. That is not my opinion — it is what the legislation says, in black and white.
If the POPLA assessor fails to acknowledge this basic statutory failure, it will raise serious questions as to whether this is a truly independent appeals process or merely a rubber stamp for operator errors.
2. NtD is non-compliant with PoFA – no period of parking stated
Irrespective of the failure to serve a Notice to Keeper within the required statutory timeframe (as outlined above in section 1), the Notice to Driver (NtD) itself was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Schedule 4, Paragraph 7(2)(a) of PoFA requires a valid NtD to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the PERIOD of parking to which the notice relates.”
UKPC's NtD does not specify any period of parking. It states only a single timestamp described as a “time first seen.” This does not satisfy the statutory requirement to specify a period and it has been tested in persuasive appellate court authority.
In Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], His Honour Judge Mitchell clarified at paragraphs 27–28 that while it is not necessary to record the entire period of parking, there must be at least a minimum period stated. The court held that merely recording a moment in time does not demonstrate that a contravention occurred, especially when the driver may have been reading and considering the terms and conditions before deciding whether to leave the site altogether.
This distinction is critical. Without a stated period of parking, it is impossible to establish whether the driver was in breach of any terms, or whether they departed within the consideration period allowed under the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). UKPC have offered no evidence of such a period in the NtD.
This is not a technicality. The requirement to state a “period of parking” is a statutory prerequisite for enforcing any PCN under PoFA. Where the NtD omits this, keeper liability cannot arise, and the NtD fails at the first hurdle. UKPC, as a professional parking operator, should be intimately familiar with the requirements of the legislation they purport to operate under as they have had since 2012 to get it right. The omission of a required element renders the NtD PoFA non-compliant.
3. No Keeper liability can arise – the driver has not been identified and the PCN is not PoFA compliant
The driver has not been identified, and the Registered Keeper fully understands that they are under no legal obligation to do so. The Keeper has made a conscious decision not to name the driver, as is their legal right.
As explained in the previous points, this PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Notice to Driver fails to specify a period of parking, in breach of Paragraph 7(2)(a), and no Notice to Keeper has been given within the timeframe required by Paragraph 8(5). The operator has also provided no evidence to identify the driver.
UKPC has therefore failed to meet the statutory conditions required to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Registered Keeper. If they wished to rely on PoFA, they should have ensured that every single requirement of the legislation was fully met. They did not.
POPLA must begin by determining whether the operator has lawfully established Keeper liability. That is a threshold issue. If the answer is no — as it clearly must be in this case — then no further consideration of the appeal is necessary, because UKPC is pursuing the wrong party.
Just as a person cannot be partially or mostly pregnant, they either are or they aren't, in the same way, a PCN cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn't. This PCN is not PoFA compliant.
The appeal must therefore be allowed.
4. No contravention stated – UKPC’s own NtD confirms no breach occurred
The wording on the NtD issued by UKPC actually states:
“Vehicle parked correctly within the markings of a bay or space.”
That is not an allegation of wrongdoing — it is a statement of compliance. Incredibly, UKPC appear to have issued a PCN for what is, on their own account, perfectly acceptable parking.
If this was supposed to describe a contravention, then it is utterly self-defeating. A PCN that alleges no breach, and instead affirms that the vehicle was parked correctly, is not just defective — it is absurd.
What exactly are UKPC accusing the driver of here — parking too compliantly? Exceeding the legally permissible level of correctness? The NtD reads more like a commendation than a PCN.
If this was a misprint or cut-and-paste blunder, that is entirely UKPC’s responsibility — not the Keeper’s. The law requires clarity and specificity in the allegation. It is not for the recipient to try and guess what contravention the operator may have intended to allege. If a company cannot even be trusted to get the wording right on its own notices, it raises serious concerns about the credibility of everything else they submit.
A notice that fails to identify any breach is legally void for uncertainty. UKPC had one job here — to state what contravention occurred. They didn’t. The result is that no breach has been alleged, and there is therefore nothing to answer.
5. Signage incapable of forming a contract – fails to meet the requirements of PoFA and the Beavis test
For any parking charge to be enforceable against a driver — let alone the Registered Keeper under PoFA — the charge must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver at the time the vehicle is parked. This is a statutory requirement, not a guideline.
Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states:
“The reference in the definition of ‘parking charge’ to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land).”
Paragraph 2(3) goes on to define what constitutes “adequate notice”:
“(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) ‘adequate notice’ means notice given by—
(a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
(b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which—
(i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and
(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”
UKPC’s signage fails both of these conditions.
Their own evidential photograph shows a sign mounted well above head height, affixed to a lamppost, angled upward, and comprised of dense small-print text that is illegible even at close range. The amount of the parking charge is not specified in any prominent or accessible way, and the layout of the sign ensures that the charge is effectively hidden from view.
This is not a matter of opinion — it is clear from their own evidence that the sign fails to “specify the sum” and is not “adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers,” as required by Paragraph 2(3)(b)(i)–(ii).
In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a parking charge only because the sign was:
• Prominently displayed at driver eye level;
• Clearly worded, with no dense blocks of legal text; and
• The parking charge amount was immediately visible and clearly associated with the terms.
The contrast between the Beavis signage and UKPC’s sign could not be more stark. A side-by-side comparison is provided to illustrate the point.
In Beavis, the charge was stated in large, bold font, in the centre of the sign, and visible to any driver on entry. Here, it is buried — if it appears at all — in a wall of inaccessible text, several feet above the driver’s line of sight.
The result is simple and inevitable: no adequate notice was given of any parking charge, and therefore no contract could have been formed. Without a contract, there can be no contravention. Without a clearly communicated charge, there can be no lawful attempt to enforce it — either against a driver or a keeper.
6. Predatory enforcement – no legitimate interest is served
The photographic evidence provided by UKPC shows that the vehicle was parked partially across two bays — yet crucially, one of those bays is completely unusable due to a temporary metal fence running directly through the middle of it.
There was no obstruction to any other motorist. The driver parked across one usable bay and one bay that no vehicle could conceivably use. The alleged encroachment did not deprive anyone of a space, did not interfere with traffic flow, and did not impact the operation or management of the car park in any way.
There was no loss, no inconvenience, and no disruption. The PCN was issued purely because UKPC’s operative saw an opportunity to issue a charge in a situation where common sense would clearly dictate that no penalty was warranted.
This is the definition of predatory enforcement. This is not the regulation of parking behaviour — it is opportunistic revenue generation dressed up as contract enforcement. It serves no purpose other than to extract money from unsuspecting drivers who have caused no harm.
In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a charge because the operator had a legitimate interest in controlling overstaying to preserve turnover and parking availability in a busy retail environment. But the Court was also clear: a charge imposed purely to raise revenue, in the absence of any such interest, is not justified and is unlikely to be enforceable.
UKPC has shown no legitimate interest whatsoever in enforcing a charge in this situation. The space in question was unusable by anyone else, and the driver’s actions had no impact on parking availability. There is no deterrent value, no loss to protect, and no justification for the charge other than financial gain.
This kind of conduct undermines the supposed purpose of private parking schemes and brings the industry into disrepute. It is behaviour that fails to meet the standards of proportionality, reasonableness, or legitimacy, and it further discredits UKPC’s already defective PCN.
7. Rejection of the initial appeal was unreasonable, disingenuous, and shows bad faith
The Keeper’s appeal to UKPC was unequivocal. It clearly stated that the Notice to Driver (NtD) did not comply with all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore no keeper liability could arise. It also put UKPC on notice that:
1. The Keeper denied any liability or contractual agreement;
2. No admission would be made as to the driver’s identity;
3. The NtD could only apply to the driver;
4. The Keeper rejected any legal presumption, inference, or agency argument;
5. The conduct would be referred to the landowner as predatory.
6. The appeal even warned UKPC that they had “no hope at POPLA” and explicitly invited them to cancel the PCN to avoid wasting everyone’s time.
This was not a generic or vague submission. It was a direct challenge to the enforceability of the charge under PoFA, rooted in statutory failings and legal limitations on keeper liability. It gave UKPC every opportunity to review the matter and reconsider their position.
Yet UKPC responded with a template-style rejection, failed to address any of the specific legal points raised, and proceeded to issue a POPLA code as though the appeal had said nothing at all. This was not a good-faith response. It was a calculated move to push the matter to the next stage, hoping the Keeper would give up or pay rather than fight it through to cancellation.
It is impossible to believe that UKPC — a large and long-established operator — does not understand the statutory requirements of PoFA, which has been statute for over 12 years. They knew, or ought to have known, that:
• No Notice to Keeper had been given within the required timeframe;
• The NtD was non-compliant (e.g. no period of parking stated);
• The Keeper had not identified the driver and had no obligation to do so;
•There was no basis in law to continue pursuing the charge.
And yet they continued.
This shows a clear disregard for the statutory framework, a disregard for fair dealing, and a willingness to pursue unenforceable charges in the hope of intimidating motorists into payment.
It is precisely this type of behaviour that has earned the unregulated private parking industry its notorious reputation. This isn’t isolated — it reflects a wider pattern of conduct long criticised by the public and Parliament alike. The descriptors often used — “cowboys,” “scammers,” “rogues” — are not mere hyperbole. They have been used repeatedly by MPs across the political spectrum, and are recorded in Hansard, the official record of Parliamentary debate.
This should call for strong oversight and genuine adjudication. However, it is difficult to place full confidence in POPLA’s independence when its entire existence — including its funding and remit — is ultimately provided by the British Parking Association (BPA), whose members it is supposed to adjudicate against. Why would any rational person expect POPLA to bite the hand that feeds it? Its financial dependence on the very operators it oversees inherently undermines the concept of impartiality.
That said, even in such a conflicted structure, the facts of this case are so plainly against the operator that to uphold this charge would be to endorse illegality, disregard statutory protections, and reward bad faith. The PCN is defective in law and in conduct. It must be cancelled — anything less would simply reinforce the perception that POPLA is not truly independent at all.
